Seamaiden
Living dead girl
- 23,596
- 638
I'm not sure how much of the bill you've read for yourself, but I've gone through all sections that immediately affect me and mine. I am looking out for people like my own sons, who've suffered arrests and convictions for cannabis. Do I give a flying fuck about growers right now? No, I don't. Especially if they're white males who haven't suffered a thing from this war on drugs.
I'm weary of the elitism, I'm weary of the idea that somehow patients who use cannabis have more rights than anyone else. I've tired of the people who are really and actually worried about losing their completely and entirely unregulated market share. Oh, you're gonna pay taxes? Boo hoo. Jail.
She also hasn't been paying attention to the court rulings when she says that the legislature has 'overridden' Prop 215. This couldn't be further from the truth. They're regulating within its loose structure and in a manner that agrees, legally speaking. It leaves *less* room, not more, for interpretation. It allows full bans, and we've got them. Shoved right down our throats.
You know how we get rid of MMRSA laws? We vote them out or we trial them out. Who's gonna get that 'perfect' law on the ballot? The CCHI folks? Yeah, that's worked out great, hasn't it? Who's going to be that test case? I certainly am not.
Here's another breakdown everyone should read: http://www.mybpg.com/blog/bpg-supports-prop64/
I'm weary of the elitism, I'm weary of the idea that somehow patients who use cannabis have more rights than anyone else. I've tired of the people who are really and actually worried about losing their completely and entirely unregulated market share. Oh, you're gonna pay taxes? Boo hoo. Jail.
If that was written by an attorney, then that attorney has *not* read the text and codes encompassed within 215. We are not afforded the right to do anything more than present the affirmative defense argument. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me. The 'right' to grow? Nope, we don't have it. The 'right' to share, are you kidding me? It does not exist within the current structure. It will under AUMA. But seriously, look it up yourself. Start right now and read three pages every day, you should be done in a month, which is just in time for November's vote.Prop 215 did not legalize the sale of marijuana, but it did give ill or disabled people of any age the right to grow and share the plant and its derivatives on a not-for-profit basis.
She also hasn't been paying attention to the court rulings when she says that the legislature has 'overridden' Prop 215. This couldn't be further from the truth. They're regulating within its loose structure and in a manner that agrees, legally speaking. It leaves *less* room, not more, for interpretation. It allows full bans, and we've got them. Shoved right down our throats.
You know how we get rid of MMRSA laws? We vote them out or we trial them out. Who's gonna get that 'perfect' law on the ballot? The CCHI folks? Yeah, that's worked out great, hasn't it? Who's going to be that test case? I certainly am not.
Here's another breakdown everyone should read: http://www.mybpg.com/blog/bpg-supports-prop64/
Last edited: