Here's why CA NORML says vote YES on Prop 215!!!

  • Thread starter Mad Farmer 1620
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
G

growermike666

15
0
If you have a 10′x10′ garden, who’s to know?


If you got more than 5x5 then PG&E will know. With the implementation of smart meters they can populate a list of everybody who has more than 1 light and further investigate that list. It's real easy to see a grower on a smart meter. If the "new" law of the land is 5x5 maximum and it allots funding specifically to enforce it then all these 5, 8, 10, and 20 light collectives will surely be in violation and sitting ducks. That's not "fear mongering" as they call it thats IQ. Figure it out do the math. There is a rotten fish in denmark.
your only hope is to get a government license if one will exist at all. This plot has been well thought out. :evilgrin0013:
 
motherlode

motherlode

@Rolln_J
Supporter
5,524
313
yeah thats a good point - Im glad Im medical since pg&e knows specifically how much juice Im using and when
 
stickyicky

stickyicky

412
28
Is it just me or are these prop 19 haters starting to sound like shows on fox news? Tons of statements meant to fear people without any actual fact behind them.. calling people that are voting yes "Richard Lee's fluffers". Repeating the same shit, "read the bill" over and over like they are the only ones that have read it. Have fun voting no, cause right now its looking like its going to pass. :rasta2:

edit, also.. anyone bashing norml clearly dosent know a thing about their past. They have been sticking up for assholes like you since before you were born, and theres a pretty good chance you would not be smoking medical pot in california today without them.

You sound like another out-a-state California want to be. Judging by your avatar, your probably from say.... NY? How much $$$$$ do you think norml has gotten from RL and the other main dispensaries????

Fluffer's!!! They are straight takin it in the arse. Must like it too! Why is it a 1oz. limit? So you'll have to keep buying smaller quantities from these mega warehouses. You will be visiting more frequently and no price breaks on quantity.

The "Greedy Grower" argument is mute. If 19 passes we will have more people smoking. That means more product sold ultimately. The greedy one's are the dispesaries. I'm medical so nothing changes for me according to RL's bill. Right??? So, it is more than what some may think. Especially when you are'nt even from Cali and your tellin peeps how they should vote.

NO ON 19
 
Illmind

Illmind

1,741
163
I'm on the road but NY times has an interesting article on prop 19. Someone should copy and paste. peace
 
S

SUPERBABY

146
16
guess what folks.. 19 aint gonna happen..

if you go to Wikipedia, they have a polling section that is pretty current..

19 must pass with a %50.. right now it is at 43..

traditionally ballot measures only go down in support towards elections, sooooo....

SB 1449 was signed by Arnie to take the wind out of most of 19's arguments about wasting money prosecuting marijuana offenders.. now it's just a parking ticket...

not only that but AG Holder has come out and publicly said that CA is out of thier minds if they think that the fed is going to be "cool" with recreational users. Passage of 19 would've brought soooo much heat it's ridiculous...

understand this:

the only reason the feds allowed Medical pot was because there were these images of sickly cancer patiets being tramautized by a federal raid just beacause they were smoking a little pot...

that is a far fucking cry from Cali just legalizing it for recreational use..

This is a direct quote from Dick Lee:

“I was trying to figure out the best way to promote the idea of a cannabis industry,” Lee said, “instead of all this nonprofit cooperatives, a bunch of hippies, peace and love, sharing their bud together, like a Coca-Cola commercial — you know, teach the world to sing. No, this is like Budweiser and Jack Daniel's. It's a business.”

what a fucking piece of shit....

I wipe my ass with prop 19.. You stupid greedy fuck Rich Lee.. you should've waited until 2012 like everyone told your limp dick ass.. Now you've thrown over a mil of your own money, had to go it alone without George Soros, cuz everyone told your greedy ass to wait..

oh well.. go rip off more stupid asses at .. chuckle.. "Oaksterdam"..

fucking make me barf
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
Amstercal, perhaps Backward Z can pose the question to Ms. Soares, see if it's addressed. I didn't see anything that spoke to what might be allowable as probable cause, but then I don't know that any proposition has such language.
And Seamaiden--I hear you, but I don't see it changing soon, not when there the attitude is reinforced so often. There was an episode of "Private Practice" last week where the mom (played by Justine Bateman) of an autistic kid gave him some of the MJ she had been prescribed. The dr got mad at her so she agreed to not give him any more prescription. She had to rush him to the er the next day because she bought weed off the street and it was laced with pcp.
LMAO! Fucking Hollywood, they literally pop shit right out of their asses, I swear.

First, I have many years as an MJ smoker. Has anyone here EVER bought a bag and found it to be laced with pcp? Never happened to me or any of the other heads I know. So ridiculous. If people continue to get messages like this from a source as lame as a tv show, the uphill battle will be even steeper.
It's hilarious/sad to me how anyone could consider MJ as harmful as that list of drugs.
Why would someone lace pot with another drug they can be paid for? Where is the sense in that? Oh, I have some weed and I have some dust and I'll just mix the two together for a new concoction that I'm gonna sell at the weed price. Yeah.... right.

No, amstercal, NEVER, and I've been smoking over 36 years, have I ever come across something adulterated in such a manner. If anything, she was sold oregano and not weed in the first place. Fucking Hollywood.

Sticky, I missed that last edit by hbstoner, and it's making me chuckle. I have been smoking, as mentioned above, for over 36 years. Young padawan, grasshopper, snatch the pebble from my hand.

Illmind, I just saw a very good piece yesterday from Aljazeera in English. Let me link. Here we go: http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/faultlines/2010/09/2010930122157461130.html
 
Illmind

Illmind

1,741
163
Gee thanks seamaiden now I'm probably on some terror watch list lol, j/p. But na I somwhat conscious and I gonna post article now, but what I got from this article is they wanna scare people away from the vote and either way it goes they're still gonna go hard on cannabis. But then again I was hammered at the club waiting on service but here it goes right here:

U.S. Will Enforce Marijuana Laws, State Vote Aside
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: October 15, 2010
RECOMMEND
TWITTER
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE PAGE
REPRINTS
SHARE

LOS ANGELES — The Department of Justice says it intends to prosecute marijuana laws in California aggressively even if state voters approve an initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot to legalize the drug.
Related

Times Topic: Marijuana and Medical Marijuana
The announcement by Eric H. Holder Jr., the attorney general, was the latest reminder of how much of the establishment has lined up against the popular initiative: dozens of editorial boards, candidates for office, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other public officials.

Still, despite this opposition — or perhaps, to some extent, because of it — the measure, Proposition 19, appears to have at least a decent chance of winning, so far drawing considerable support in polls from a coalition of Democrats, independents, younger voters and men as Election Day nears. Should that happen, it could cement a cultural shift in California, where medical marijuana has been legal since 1996 and where the drug has been celebrated in popular culture at least since the 1960s.

But it could also plunge the nation’s most populous state into a murky and unsettling conflict with the federal government that opponents of the proposition said should make California voters wary of supporting it.

Washington has generally looked the other way as a growing medical marijuana industry has prospered here and in 14 other states and the District of Columbia, but Mr. Holder’s position — revealed in a letter this week to nine former chiefs of the Drug Enforcement Administration that was made public on Friday — made explicit that legalizing marijuana for recreational use would bring a whole new level of scrutiny from Washington.

Mr. Holder did not fully spell out the reasons for the decision, but he did allude to the reluctance of the federal government to enforce drug laws differently in different states. “If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens,” he wrote.

The Los Angeles County sheriff, Lee Baca, who has been one of the leading opponents of the measure, quickly embraced the Justice Department’s stance. He said that the initiative was unconstitutional and vowed to continue enforcing marijuana laws, no matter what voters do in November.

Supporters of the initiative have portrayed support for it as another example in an anti-incumbent year of voters rejecting authority.

“Bring on the establishment,” said Chris Lehane, a senior consultant to the campaign pushing for passage of the initiative. “This campaign, and the energy driving it, is predicated on the common understanding that the establishment’s prohibition approach has been a complete and utter failure, as proven by the point that today it is easier for a kid to get access to pot than it is to buy a beer or a cigarette.”

But Roger Salazar, a political consultant who has been directing the effort to defeat the proposal, said that Mr. Holder’s statement should reinforce deep concerns about the initiative, including the way it was drafted and what he called inflated claims by its backers of what legalization might do.

“This is sort of a shot across the bow from the federal government: They’re saying that, ‘If this thing moves the way we think it is, we’re going to come after you guys,’ ” he said. “That gives California voters one more reason to take a deep breath.”

California’s becoming the first state to legalize marijuana for recreational use would provide a real-life test of theories that proponents of legalization have long pressed: That it would provide a new stream of revenues for government, cut down on drug-related violence and end a modern-day prohibition that effectively turns many citizens into lawbreakers.

As it is, no matter what voters or Mr. Holder do, marijuana use in California these days appears, for all practical purposes, all but legal.

Mr. Schwarzenegger signed legislation last month that made possession of an ounce of marijuana an infraction — it had previously been a misdemeanor — punishable by a $100 fine. Medical marijuana dispensaries are common in many parts of the state, and getting a prescription is hardly challenging. Baby boomers who had not smoked marijuana since college now speak openly at dinner parties of their “medical” experimentation with the drug. The smell of marijuana is hardly unusual at outdoor concerts at places like the Hollywood Bowl.
----------Page 2------------------------------------

A Field Poll last month found that 50 percent of respondents said that marijuana should be legalized; that is up from 13 percent when the organization first asked the question in 1969. And 47 percent said they had smoked marijuana at least once, compared with 28 percent when the question was asked in 1975.
Related

Times Topic: Marijuana and Medical Marijuana
“This is the first generation of high school students where a majority of their parents have smoked marijuana,” said Ethan Nadelmann, the executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which has been pushing for passage of the initiative.

The presence of the initiative on the ballot has encouraged Democrats, who argue it will lead to increased turnout among younger voters.

Notably, none of the major statewide candidates have endorsed the measure. But perhaps just as notably, none have made the proposition a campaign issue.

The state Republican Party has officially come out against Proposition 19 and plans to urge people to vote no, said Ron Nehring, the party chairman. He called repeal a “big mistake” and mocked the notion that placing the proposition on the ballot would help Democrats.

“We call that their Hail Mary Jane strategy,” he said.

John Burton, the chairman of the California Democratic Party, said his party had decided to stay neutral on this issue. Asked if he supported it, Mr. Burton responded: “I already voted for it. Why not? Brings some money into the state. Helps the deficit. Better than selling off state buildings to some developer.”

Mark Baldassare, president of the Public Policy Institute of California, noted that polls showed the measure breaking 50 percent, but said that given the history of initiatives in the state, that meant its passage was far from assured.

Opposition has come from a number of fronts, ranging from Mr. Baca and other law enforcement officials to the Chamber of Commerce, which has warned that it would create workplace health issues.

Still, the breadth of supporters of the proposition — including law enforcement officials and major unions, like the Service Employees International Union — signal how mainstream this movement is becoming.

“I think we consume far more dangerous drugs that are legal: cigarette smoking, nicotine and alcohol,” said Joycelyn Elders, the former surgeon general and a supporter of the measure. “I feel they cause much more devastating effects physically. We need to lift the prohibition on marijuana.”
peace
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
Yeah, Ill, I was very surprised to see something like this coming from Aljazeera, but now I find that quite a lot of their reporting appears to be balanced in that it's neither asking the viewer to choose a side nor spinning the issue the way a source like Fox News would.

Lifting the prohibition on cannabis is different than what Proposition 19 outlines.
 
Illmind

Illmind

1,741
163
They don't say it that way anymore they say for recreational now. For instance lifting prohibition on recreational use. Or legalizing for recreational use. I do remember awhile back though they just said legalizing. There's a good many independent papers that are coo that aren't red flags too;)
 
B

Backward_Z

86
0
Why would someone lace pot with another drug they can be paid for? Where is the sense in that? Oh, I have some weed and I have some dust and I'll just mix the two together for a new concoction that I'm gonna sell at the weed price. Yeah.... right.

No, amstercal, NEVER, and I've been smoking over 36 years, have I ever come across something adulterated in such a manner. If anything, she was sold oregano and not weed in the first place. Fucking Hollywood.[/url]

This is a long shot, but I had a friend several years ago go a little off the deep end with anxiety attacks and he ended up getting 5150'd and hospitalized. After he got out, he told me that when they did their requisite drug test, they found PCP in his system. Now, this particular friend would never go out and intentionally use PCP, so the best he could come up with was a friend gave him some laced weed.

We never figured out what actually happened, and I'm not saying by any stretch of the imagination that it's common, but there you have it.
 
Darth Fader

Darth Fader

1,195
163
That's a mouthful right there. You IMAGINE he has lawyers backing up his statements.

I KNOW he's the outreach coordinator for NORML and does a daily podcast for them as a spokesperson and I know there are a buttload (technical term) of lawyers affiliated w/ NORML. They have a plethora of legal counsel available. Which do you think is a more reasonable position, that he does or doesn't have these statements vetted thru them? And don't you think it would be case dependent, depending on the charge, say in the case of dui vs walking down the street? In other words, it wouldn't give them the right to search someone, but it would give them the right to administer a sobriety test. But the bigger issue is entering your home without a warrant. I don't see how that could stand up in court.
 
A

amstercal

539
18
That's my whole problem with 19, DF. It says what the intent is but wasn't well written enough to actually say that smell can no longer be a factor etc. What about smell plus the sound of a baby crying? Seems like that would be probable cause. It's not that I doubt he either has access to lawyers or that lawyers read his blog; it's that 19 forces us to make so many assumptions in general about how it protects us that I want to keep us from walking blindly down any of those paths.

Why not wait a year or two for a bill that states clearly that we are protected from this kind of thing?
 
B

Backward_Z

86
0
I think I've already posted this quote twice in this thread but it doesn't seem to be getting noticed (:dull @ Darth Faded) but once again, this time with emphasis:

Jennifer Soares said:
I spoke with Bill Panzer personally and was on a legal panel with him at INTCHE. He was very very vocal about being against Prop 19. I was part of and privy to conversations with NORML's Russ Bellville and Dale Gieringer. Russ told me he is publicly vocal about Prop 19 but has also told me he has his issues with Prop 19. He also said that issue was anything but "settled" and that NORML had made its "executive decision to support Prop 19", so all NORML members were required to support Prop 19 unconditionally in public, even if they think it has flaws. Dan Murphy has posted a letter from national NORML on facebook that chastised a NORML leader for "testifying against a legalization bill." So it is pretty clear that anyone in NORML is going to support the "executive decision" made by the national Board of Directors to support Prop 19, no matter what they actually think.
 
Darth Fader

Darth Fader

1,195
163
if you go to Wikipedia, they have a polling section that is pretty current..

19 must pass with a %50.. right now it is at 43..

not only that but AG Holder has come out and publicly said that CA is out of thier minds if they think that the fed is going to be "cool" with recreational users. Passage of 19 would've brought soooo much heat it's ridiculous...
...

Wikipedia cites 12 polls. 10 of the 12 show it passing. The one you picked is the weakest of the bunch statistically with the smallest sample size of less than 450 polled.

Eric Holder doesn't get to tell Californians how to vote. I, for one, welcome the Fed's attempts to crack down on CA. Maybe they'll start with the 60,000 ft warehouse grows. But the court cases will be worth it. Prop 215 was regarded as deeply flawed and vague when it came out and (surprisingly) the Feds said they weren't having it either. But it brought a great amount of publicity and attention to the cause and the majority of court cases went our way.
 
Darth Fader

Darth Fader

1,195
163
That's my whole problem with 19, DF. It says what the intent is but wasn't well written enough to actually say that smell can no longer be a factor etc. What about smell plus the sound of a baby crying? Seems like that would be probable cause. It's not that I doubt he either has access to lawyers or that lawyers read his blog; it's that 19 forces us to make so many assumptions in general about how it protects us that I want to keep us from walking blindly down any of those paths.

Why not wait a year or two for a bill that states clearly that we are protected from this kind of thing?

Why not pass this one & make your fixes next time around? Eric Holder will be busy shutting down warehouse grows until then.

There is no perfect bill, so I wouldn't expect one to be create for 2012. ANY piece of legislation will be hugely contentious among some parties just like this one. It's gonna be the same goat-rope no matter what. Beyond that, you'll never get a room full of lawyers to agree on anything, much less interpretation.

I think I've already posted this quote twice in this thread but it doesn't seem to be getting noticed (:dull @ Darth Faded) but once again, this time with emphasis:

You're misinterpreting that statement IMO. Nobody says it's a perfect bill. I don't say it's a perfect bill. Why should Russ not have issues w/ a few of it's stipulations. Doesn't mean you throw out the baby with the bathwater. I listen to every one of Russ' podcasts. He's passionate. If you question his sincerity, contact him about it. I'm sure he's be glad to be perfectly frank about where he stands.
 
B

Backward_Z

86
0
You're misinterpreting that statement IMO.

That one you're going to have to back up.

In Russ's point-by-point analysis, prop 19 has no flaws. In the David Nick analysis he references, prop 19 has no flaws.

In fact, according to all official NORML positions on 19, 19 has no flaws.
 
Seamaiden

Seamaiden

Living dead girl
23,596
638
I find myself wondering where Darth thinks this state is going to find the funds to fight a legal battle with the feds. Are you actually *in* California, Darth? Because we're already pinched, fiscally speaking. Parks closed, services cut down or shut down completely, DMV no longer operates with anything resembling efficiency, and that's just the beginning. IIRC the *only* department that didn't receive cuts was the Department of Corrections (they're still hiring!). Now, what's up with that? Uh uh.

So, where are we gonna get the money to fight the feds should this pass? What services are you willing to let go so we can fight them? Money for roads? If so, make sure it's the roads *you* drive and not mine, because ours have already been in some need. Parks? Yeah, ok, let's get rid of state parks. Social services? Oh, absolutely let's get rid of social services and watch the homeless population EXPLODE.

Where's this money gonna come from? All the Prop 19 taxed weed?
 
Darth Fader

Darth Fader

1,195
163
That one you're going to have to back up.

In Russ's point-by-point analysis, prop 19 has no flaws. In the David Nick analysis he references, prop 19 has no flaws.

In fact, according to all official NORML positions on 19, 19 has no flaws.

Go to iTunes & subscribe to the NORML podcast. Download a month's worth & let 'em play. At that point it should be perfectly clear. Or contact him directly. It's not that hard.

Where has NORML or Russ stated that 19 has no flaws? That's complete BS. Never happened. But if you can cite language to that effect I will eat my words.

I find myself wondering where Darth thinks this state is going to find the funds to fight a legal battle with the feds.

So, where are we gonna get the money to fight the feds should this pass? What services are you willing to let go so we can fight them? Money for roads?

Where's this money gonna come from? All the Prop 19 taxed weed?

Omg, really? This is some really childish drama. Sad.

maybe some of these guys will do it pro-bono, yeah? Or the ACLU. Or a team from NORML. Maybe the money & time saved from arresting 66,000 people & having them go before a judge will pay for it. Or the reduced costs associated with keeping all those dangerous MJ offender in jail. Yeah, that'd probably do it.

A bigger question for you. Do you think the Prop 8 challenges should stop because of CA's deficit? Maybe we now should do everything Eric Holder or the DEA wants because of it. Maybe we should do everything Steve Cooley & Lee Baca wants for the same reason. Otherwise we'll have to get rid of social services and the homeless population will EXPLODE. More fear mongering. Ridiculous.

I just realized you may be including the money (lost revenue) local cops get from the DEA to do their bidding? I guess they'll have to get 2nd jobs or put on a bake sale or something. FTR, I am opposed to the DEA welfare-for-cops program.

So is this really about CA roads & such or is this about Seamaiden's revenue? Be honest. Cannabear came clean in my other thread. Suprised no one has commented on that bit of information. The silence is telling ... and deafening.
 
A

amstercal

539
18
I commented on your other thread. Did I miss where you say if you're in CA?
I love it... the ACLU taking on the MJ battle for free. That would be a great fight compared to social injustice. Yes, please, let's take their resources away from other issues.
Who again is being saved from going before judges? Under an ounce is decriminalized, so again, the only people benefitting from this prop are would be cultivators who don't have a prescription. Oh and people either from CA or not who just want it to pass so they can say they "legalized" it.
 
Darth Fader

Darth Fader

1,195
163
I commented on your other thread. Did I miss where you say if you're in CA?
I love it... the ACLU taking on the MJ battle for free. That would be a great fight compared to social injustice. Yes, please, let's take their resources away from other issues.
Who again is being saved from going before judges? Under an ounce is decriminalized, so again, the only people benefitting from this prop are would be cultivators who don't have a prescription. Oh and people either from CA or not who just want it to pass so they can say they "legalized" it.

Don't you know where the 818 is? Would my points be any less valid if I were posting from Zimbabwe?

Prohibition enables social injustice. That is a worthy cause for the ACLU, is it not? Surely you're aware of the racial inequities of prohibition, not to mentioned all the people currently in jail who could possibly be freed.

lawyers write
This country has an example of a path from prohibition. Alcohol is subject to a regulatory framework that is far safer in every respect than the days of Al Capone. Just like the State of New York did when it rolled back Prohibition 10 years before the nation as a whole, California should show leadership and restore respect for the law by enacting the Tax and Control Cannabis 2010 initiative this November.

The "precious resources" argument sounds desperate.
 
Top Bottom