Proposition 19: How should Stoners Vote?

https://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...21x500.png&t=1

The election is upon on us, and I know that one proposition that is of great interest to many of you is Prop 19 - Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.

A good summary of it's provisions is on Ballotpedia.

And a blog entitled "Stoners Against the Prop. 19 Tax Cannabis Initiative" has been making the rounds lately.

I do not agree with it on some fundamental grounds.

First, I think it's disingenuous to not acknowledge that Cannabis prohibition has in effect created a huge subsidy for multitudes of pot growers. Rightly or wrongly, I suspect many will vote with their own financial interest to defeat Prop 19. I'll be most interested to see if Humboldt County votes to legalize its major economic engine.

Secondly, regardless of the specifics of the measure and the arguments against it by the "stoners", I think this is a landmark step to acknowledge and take responsibility for appropriate use of Cannabis.

While the current "medical" marijuana system is quite flexible, its application results in what is tantamount to fraud. Countless people, no doubt that includes many of you, have gotten "medical recommendations" with a wink and a nod (and $100). It's a sham.

Let's restore some integrity and acknowledge that lots of people use it in a "recreational" (literally re-create) way and that shouldn't be illegal. Steps to regulate and tax it, along similar lines to alcohol, is an appropriate way for society control this powerful herb, which can be used as well as abused.

This is just the first step, and it crosses is big line, even if we've inched up to that line via de-criminalization and compassionate use, and it doesn't take us very far across the line, but none-the-less it crosses a huge symbolic line.

We've all dreamed about this day. It's time to make it real!

The way see it, Humboldt and the rest of California would benefit in too many ways not to legalize. The fact that many growers and activists would no longer be being sent to prison wasting our tax payers dollars to house and feed them would be enough of a reason alone to legalize. Dealers may lose out on some of the lucrative nature of the herb, yet, they may be able to use their expertise and connections with the growers who have been in existence for the commercial trade which is sure to spawn since most of us do not have a green thumb to grow our own.

i see this as a step in the direction that has need to happen since the 40's when it was first proven that marijuana prohibition was as much of a failure as alcohol prohibition. Look at all the money that has been spent by tax payers to fill the coffers of police, feds, officials etc. legalization would benefit all of us even if pot wasn't taxed because of the cutting of red tape and the savings of tax payer dollars alone. Then do not forget that commercial trade in marijuana will be the most lucrative crops in California. i do not know if that trade will still cover the 1/3 of the nations pot sales as it has in the past during prohibition.

i just know that ending prohibition is the best thing we can do as a state and a nation someday. I know that many of the growers and dealers need the income of the illicit trade deals they do in current; however, it will be better for them in the long run as it will be the best thing for our state save for the legalizing of gambling and prostitution. I know many of you will not agree wit the previous sentence; however, Revenue and public safety would be improved exponential by such a bold move in our future. let's see and end to moral watchdogs and the special interests. if they do not like how we want to live, they can just live there own way instead of pushing their beliefs down our collective throats. And to the special interests, find a new way to profit or fail.

Somebody I know well, but won't name, has been hammering home the point that most of the primo bud nowadays is grown indoors. And that this kine takes lots of electricity, fertilizer and chemicals to produce. In other words, it's bad for the environment.

By legalizing use and production, (at least in this state, Holder is blowing smoke) especially if there is a significant retail price drop, the ability to grow fine herb outdoors, with minimal impacts to the ecosystem, will be enhanced and incentivized. This is a very good thing,

Vote Yes on 19!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

Somebody I know well, but won't name, has been hammering home the point that most of the primo bud nowadays is grown indoors. And that this kine takes lots of electricity, fertilizer and chemicals to produce. In other words, it's bad for the environment.

By legalizing use and production, (at least in this state, Holder is blowing smoke) especially if there is a significant retail price drop, the ability to grow fine herb outdoors, with minimal impacts to the ecosystem, will be enhanced and incentivized. This is a very good thing,

Vote Yes on 19!

---

I couldn't agree more!

Although I rarely smoke pot anymore, I have been for decriminalization of it for 35 years. Recently, I rented a house to two young fellows who (it seemed) had legitimate gigs. They proceeded to set up a sophisticated indoor growing operation which included cutting holes in the ceilings and walls of three bedrooms, falling through the living room ceiling while they were up in the attic installing all their ventilation pipes, and ruining the new wool carpeting that had been installed just prior to their moving in.

The chemicals they used literally ate the wool carpeting up. My feeling is that Nature made plants to grow outside in the sunshine and the rain and that should include cannabis. These guys felt they were "entitled" to ruin my property because one of them had a "scrip". They had no remorse when they were discovered, and basically thought I was a pain the rear for getting upset about what they had done.

I'm voting for Prop. 19 for all the right reasons.

Tom Trent

For decades now Big Tobacco has been poised to leap into the cannabis market as soon as legality becomes reality.

I fear the ramifications of turning this complex herb over to Big Business ( especially lovely giants like R J Reynolds) and the Government.

There has got to be a better plan.

Please read this:

https://stop19.com/ten-reasons-to-vote-no/

No Comments?

What does anyone really know about this proposition?
Just because I post a link on WaccoBB does not make any of it true. ( of course. )
I am wondering where to find some real understanding of this measure.

is there a huge smoke cloud over this issue?
This proposition is definitely in our own back yard.

Remember how the out-of-state-money casinos got voted in? Some lovely, sweet share-the wealth amongst the non-gaming tribes measure? Next day, they were breaking ground on the most hideous frickin structures to ever overlook Alexander Valley or any other Sonoma valley. Oh yes, with promises of terraces of hanging plants to hide the appallingly institutional cement behemoth up there.
uh huh. still waiting....

It wasn't so long ago that there was no tobacco seed available across the country to grow one's own smoke. Ok, so maybe Northern California had some but the rest of us? No where to be found!
Talk about a stranglehold on a (native) herb-- a plant that makes copious amounts of seed.

Proposition 19? I am skeptical.
I'd like to hear from some critical thinkers who have read this and can elucidate! help!

ps. hey! I've given gratitude loads of times. why does it only say once!

More info is available here:https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p...ive_%282010%29

What are your concerns?

We lost a bunch of gratitude history during the recent upgrade. I hope to be able to restore that at some point after we address more pressing concerns.

You don't have to use a lot of chemicals indoors. Don't kid yourself. If you think they don't use chemicals to grow outdoors ,your wrong. When these big corporations take over and have big farms they will use chemicals just like any other farmers. I know some indoor grower who try as much as possible to grow organic. Yah! it sucks they have to use so much electric. On the other hand I know someone who hardly pays anything on his energy use with a roof full of solar panels. This initiatives also sucks for your mom and pops who have been doing this for many years ,and do a great job indoor or outdoor. I want it to be legal. But not like this. taxcannabus.org gives you some info on the initiative. But for the stoner folks who don't understand what it take to be a grower and what it will mean to the qaulity of the product, reading the initiative won't matter. It's not all about making a killing to most growers. It cost a lot to do it. They get a nice salary if done right. Believe me there not getting rich. The cops and feds are busting people, no arrest but they take all the product and money. Am I saying all cops are dirty? NO! but it's a racket. And that element will still be there if this passes. Because, you will keep your mouth shut if your threaten with the feds.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

Somebody I know well, but won't name, has been hammering home the point that most of the primo bud nowadays is grown indoors. And that this kine takes lots of electricity, fertilizer and chemicals to produce. In other words, it's bad for the environment.

By legalizing use and production, (at least in this state, Holder is blowing smoke) especially if there is a significant retail price drop, the ability to grow fine herb outdoors, with minimal impacts to the ecosystem, will be enhanced and incentivized. This is a very good thing,

Vote Yes on 19!

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

More info is available here:https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p...ive_%282010%29

What are your concerns?

---

Thank you for the link, Barry. I will read it soon and if it does not address my concerns, I will ask you for more clarity.

I am wondering whether the points listed on the 10 reasons link I posted are truly legit?
I wonder, for example, if people will be able to grow (i.e. possess) more than an ounce without fear of recrimination/ arrest.
I'd like to know if the poor souls serving sentences for possession now in prisons and jails across the state will be freed. If so, i don't suppose they would want to wait for the "better measure' slated for the ballot in 2012. And if not? How are they to be rescued? What's the word on that?

I am not really in support of those who have been growing all these years, setting an outrageous price for those who cannot grow their own. $400/ oz?? That's a lotta moolah, no matter how or why you use it. Many of them have bought land with that money. Good for them, not so good for those who are on the buying end. I understand there have been risks, but that is an exorbitant price. It's nice to see things coming down to merely a high price, or better yet, down to the place where working stiffs can grow their own, medical use or recreational... or both, as is often the case.
Is there anything on that list of why to vote NO on Prop 19 that anyone can categorically refute? I'd love to hear it. In the meantime I will find time to read the link you posted, Barry. thank you.

Here are Chris Conrad's views on Prop 19
https://globalganjareport.com/conten...t-legalization

My feeling about Prop 19 is that it concedes rightful jurisdiction, at a time when the true value of Cannabis as both unique and essential makes it valuable beyond the rightful jurisdiction of any court, protected by the First Amendment. Exercise of "essential civilian demand" for industrial hemp at the federal level is more potent a strategy for Cannabis freedom. Ending prohibition is critical. Prop 19 is a complication in an endless argument that concedes far too much.

WRONG!

Veeja, Ossenbeck, and "projectpeace" are using the typical smokescreen arguments of Conservatives, whose real agenda is to keep marijuana illegal because their deeply held feelings continue to view it (erroneously) as a menacing street drug.

Vote yes on 19

Edward

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by projectpeace:

Here are Chris Conrad's views on Prop 19
https://globalganjareport.com/conten...t-legalization

My feeling about Prop 19 is that it concedes rightful jurisdiction, at a time when the true value of Cannabis as both unique and essential makes it valuable beyond the rightful jurisdiction of any court, protected by the First Amendment. Exercise of "essential civilian demand" for industrial hemp at the federal level is more potent a strategy for Cannabis freedom. Ending prohibition is critical. Prop 19 is a complication in an endless argument that concedes far too much.

---

OK, since no one else has bitten the bullet, here goes:

Quote:

---

1. Proposition 19 isn’t really legalization. It only allows possession of up to one ounce of cannabis. Under current California law, an ounce or less of pot is a simple civil infraction — you CAN’T be arrested, you DON’T go to court, and you WON’T get a criminal record. Prop 19 doesn’t make any improvements to decriminalization or prop 215.

---

True 19 isn't total repeal of prohibition. But it's a big step in that direction. As for the new civil infraction, you can be fined, it will go on your record. As things are now, possession of less than an ounce is still against the law. If 19 passes, it will be legal. (At least by state law, it will still be a federal offense. But how many Federal Marshall's do you see doing minor drug possession busts?)

That's a significant difference, no matter how much anyone tries to downplay it. And by not even ticketing people for possession of less than an ounce, big bucks in taxpayer funds will be saved.

Quote:

---

2. Prop 19 creates several new cannabis related crimes with extremely severe penalties. Don’t pass a joint to a 17 year old, you will be looking at a max of 7 years in state prison, seriously.

---

It's already illegal to give drugs or alcohol to minors. This is nothing new. How many people have you read about in the paper who have been sent to prison for doing so? This charge is bogus.

I didn't participate in the crafting of Prop. 19, but my best guess is that the sanctions against providing pot to minors, were included to make the initiative salable to the tough on crime, drugs are bad, they're poisoning our youth crowd. A necessary compromise to give it a shot at passing. Keep in mind that the proposition was written by activists and lawyers who have been fighting this fight for a very long time. They've done the polling to determine what has a chance of passing, and what doesn't.

I'm not a criminal lawyer, or a cop, so if anyone wants to compare current laws and penalties for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" with the specific sanctions in Prop. 19 against providing weed to kids, I'd be very interested.

Quote:

---

3. Prop 19 is solely designed to allow large scale cannabis production by politically connected corporations. Oakland has already started the process to license a Prop 19 Cartel mega-grow.

---

Yes a big Medical Marijuana grower has donated major funds to the Yes on Prop. 19 campaign, and is one of the architects of the effort. So what? My reading of the proposition says that every adult can grow a 5'x5' plot. How does that help an industrial grower of "medicine"? Sounds like baseless slander to me.

"... solely designed ..." Yeah, right. Prove it! More scary language, without substantiation.

Quote:

---

4. Most legal experts agree that Prop 19 is poorly written and will leave police and judges to enforce it at their discretion. For example, consuming cannabis would be illegal in the same "space" as a minor. Police and judges are free to interpret the word "space" to mean the same room, house, or entire apartment complex.

---

Who are these "most legal experts"? On the website for this list, there are opinions from two lawyers. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not qualified to evaluate their arguments. Prop. 19 was written with the help of lawyers. Lawyers support it. Who did the poll of every legal expert in the state, the nation, to determine what percentage oppose it, what percentage support it and how many don't give a toss? This is more propaganda language unsupported by facts.

Quote:

---

5. There is no need to rush into a law that will be difficult to change. There are better full legalization laws, including one set to be on the ballot in 2012.

---

How long do we have to wait? Prop. 19 is before the voters. If there's a need for additional propositions, or changes in the law, great, we'll deal with them when they're before us to decide. This argument is completely specious. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Quote:

---

6. Prop 19 will lead to the walmartization of the cannabis industry. And unfortunately, this will result in lower quality and fixed prices. Limited competition and government control will allow large scale growers to determine prices and dictate quality standards (or lack thereof).

---

Bullshit. Nobody can predict what will happen in a legal pot market. Or the underground one that is likely to continue. If trends in boutique consumer markets are any evidence, it's likely that quality will be emphasized, over quantity. Look at wine, coffee, chocolate, pastries. Does anyone see the big producers forcing the small ones out of the market? This one is even more total hogwash.

Quote:

---

7. Local governments will control the taxation, production, and distribution of cannabis. This is a touchy political issue; most local politicians won’t risk a backlash by allowing dispensaries in their city. This means many people will have to travel long distances or break the law to purchase cannabis.

---

Local control!!! Fuck Yeah!! Isn't that what all the Tea Partiers, States Righters, Shop Local, etc., etc. call for all the time? Is anyone having to drive long distances now to get their weed? Do you think the people who make a little, or a lot, of scratch off of weed sales, whether regulated and legal, or not, are going to let some market demand go unexploited? This is total "baffle them with bullshit." No basis in fact, of any predictable kind, whatsoever.

Quote:

---

8. Prop 19 will likely supersede prop 215, adversely affecting medical cannabis users by dictating grow size, possession amount, patient to patient sales, and location of use.

---

That's not what the language of the proposition says. It says that 215 takes precedence and should not be changed in any way. In spite of the abstruse argument by one lawyer on the No on 19 website, claiming this (again, I'm not in a position to analyze her assertions) the clear clause in Prop. 19 says 215 stays without revision. Separate issue. Apples and Oranges. This slam is a lie. Find a "majority of legal experts" to back her up, I might consider rescinding that claim. Without such proof, I'll stick with my refutation.

Quote:

---

9. Unbiased cannabis activists do NOT support Prop 19. This includes the late Jack Herer and the co-author of prop 215, Dennis Peron (see his video here).

---

Some leaders in the Medical Marijuana movement/industry oppose Prop. 19. I am not privy to all of the inside politics. I do know that getting a bunch of activists to agree on anything as a seamless whole is not just herding cats. It's herding psychotic schizophrenic cats on Meth! (Actually the Meth might help with the schizophrenia, but that's another discussion.)

I surmise that the resistance in the Medical Pot scene has a lot to do with the fear that prices will plummet, and a legal market for pot will undercut their profits. Follow the money. The truth will out. Also I imagine that anyone who has spent decades distinguishing between medical and recreational uses for pot, and has been dedicated to arguing for the medical need, might be invested in keeping a clear division between the two.

And oh, I guess any cannabis activist who supports Prop. 19 has to be biased! Right? That's the logical conclusion from the first sentence quoted above. Q.E.D.

Quote:

---

10. The federal government has decided to not prosecute medical cannabis users. This will not be the case if Prop 19 passes. Many people believe that the passage of Prop 19 will bring an aggressive response from the feds, perhaps putting medical users at risk of losing access to medicine.

---

Repetition with more baseless assertion. A lie repeated often enough, becomes the truth. Unless people pay close attention and keep refuting the lie.

Holder said he'd come after a legal pot market in California if 19 passes. We'll see. The Feds did bust clinics early on. People went down for that. Then other states passed Medical Marijuana laws. We had a global financial crisis in which governments funds are mighty scarce nowadays. We'll see.

"This will not be the case..." And you know this because? Bold assertion is not proof of anything. Even though it's good rhetoric. Holder was blowing smoke. Time will tell. Otherwise there's nothing to back this claim up.

"...perhaps putting medical users at risk of losing access..." Lot's of wiggle room in that "perhaps". But it's pure unfounded speculation.

Divide and conquer. If recreational users get a break, the sick will suffer!!!! Uh huh. We know this because? .... The fact is nobody knows this. It's just alarmist rhetoric to undercut support for this incremental step towards legalization. Straight up fearmongering.


The Drug Policy Alliance supports Prop. 19. If you don't know who they are, you should. They're the lead national organization opposing the Drug War with facts, reason and political organizing. They are the main architects of a reformed national drug policy based on harm reduction and decriminalization. (Note I didn't write legalization. It's an interesting debate, read up on it.) If Ethan Nadelmann supports Prop. 19, that means the, "majority of drug law reform experts" support it.

If you're on Facebook, I recommend Lazara Allen's thread with Laura Hamburg for additional discussion and factual recitation.

Prop. 19 won't completely rescind all drug laws regarding marijuana. Everybody who thinks that complete legalization without any regulation is on the agenda of political possibility in the near future, raise their hand.

Hey, we have a majority of experts who agree!!! Too bad I can't see through my screen, and out from yours, to do the hand count and prove it.

On the other hand everybody can look at polls, lists of supporters, lists of donors and statements of support, and make up their own mind.

Just don't let anybody use scare quotes and empty speculation to influence your thinking. Unless you like being a dupe.

Thank you well spoken.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

OK, since no one else......

---

Oh! my! one of those. You are sadly mistaken. How do you think we got into so much trouble with all the foreclosures? Because someone passed an initiative that people didn't understand. Look where that got us. There is a better ballot to vote yes on coming 2012. I will be voting yes then. You can think what you want. But people like you are one of the reasons we are where we are today.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:

WRONG!

Veeja, Ossenbeck, and "projectpeace" are using the typical smokescreen arguments of Conservatives, whose real agenda is to keep marijuana illegal because their deeply held feelings continue to view it (erroneously) as a menacing street drug.

Vote yes on 19

Edward

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Veeja:

... You are sadly mistaken. How do you think we got into so much trouble with all the foreclosures? Because someone passed an initiative that people didn't understand. Look where that got us. ...

---

Veeja,

Thanks for your previous post complimenting my refudiation, oops! I mean refutation, of the anti - 19 rhetoric.

But I'm puzzled. I'm a fairly close reader of the news, although I am no expert in mortgage finance law. (Boring!?)

I do not recall the issue of summary foreclosures, without the proper documentation and in a few documented cases without any valid documentation at all, being linked to any ballot initiative, in any state in this country. This is a totally new claim, from what I know.

Can you back it up with some documentary basis?

[QUOTE="Mad" Miles;123711]
OK, since no one else has bitten the bullet, here goes:



Thank you, Mad Miles. I needed that.

I appreciate you taking the time.

~Claire

Actually, I don't have time to back anything up on this thread. I am very busy. But look what the banks were able to get away with. Not to mention these big corporations. And I'm not the most knowledgeable person on the subject myself. Maybe I should have not brought up forecloser. But I do have some knowledge in medical cannabis. And you can't grow very much medicine in a 5 x 5 space. People that are sick will be working around the clock all year just to get enough medicine. And when the price plummets the reason for quality going down will be because you wont be able to afford to grow quality medicine. You obviously don't know how much it cost to grow ,or understand how much time is invovled. Especially if you want organic. And Sears has already started the process to sell products for growing. People will still be willing to buy underground and pay more money for better medicine. I do want it to be legal. But I am patient. Let do this the right way. Not half assed. Haven't we learned anything. Lets get our head out of the clouds. Be smart. Don't let big business run the show. Because that is exactly what is happening. A few people with lots of money cutting out the small guy. If you don't mind that by all means vote yes. I will save my vote for 2012. The vote that will include all of us.
By the way! There will still be crime because of it. (IT WILL STILL BE ILLEGAL) under federal law. And right now under 215 it is legal in California to grow your medicine. And now with the bill Schwarzenegger pasted. You can have an ounce on your person out there in the world. You can have more at home. Please don't say I don't want it to be legal. Because I do. I just don't want all of us to regret not waiting for a better initiative. One that is right for all.

[QUOTE="Mad" Miles;123714]Veeja,

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

Veeja,

Thanks for your previous post complimenting my refudiation, oops! I mean refutation, of the anti - 19 rhetoric.

But I'm puzzled. I'm a fairly close reader of the news, although I am no expert in mortgage finance law. (Boring!?)

I do not recall the issue of summary foreclosures, without the proper documentation and in a few documented cases without any valid documentation at all, being linked to any ballot initiative, in any state in this country. This is a totally new claim, from what I know.

Can you back it up with some documentary basis?

---

Veeja,

Proposition 19 does not change 215 state law and county / municipal regulations one iota.

It only applies to non-patients. Not patients.

Your fears are completely unfounded, and from my reading of the news and commentary, the only basis for those fears is anti - 19 propaganda.

There is no threat to Medical Marijuana from Prop. 19. None.

"Sears is selling grow equipment..." Good! Although why, once it's "legal" it will be better to grow it outdoors, better for the environment. And other than security, it is already better to grow your medicine outdoors. Cheaper, cleaner, less impact on the environment.

Did you see the article about the artists' collective on Hood Mountain that grows medical to support their art projects? All outdoors from what I could tell.

On legal/not legal, state vs. federal is the issue, Medical Marijuana is illegal according to the Federal government. That hasn't changed and won't be changed by Prop. 19. It will take congress or a constitutional amendment to decriminalize pot nationally. That day is coming. Prop. 19 is a step in that direction.

There is no compelling argument against Prop. 19. Unless your goal is to keep pot illegal.

There are many compelling arguments for Prop. 19.

If you seriously think Prop. 19 is some kind of threat to your access to "medicine", prove it. So far nothing I've heard or read does that. Unless you count rhetoric, rumor mongering and scary turns of phrase, without any factual foundation, as proof.

If you do, then you already know the God Damn Scum-Sucking Socialists! are out to enslave us all, there's no hope, and Prop. 19 is just another of their ploys to destroy America (U.S.). If you believe all that, I'm afraid you're beyond the reach of reason and persuasion.

And by the way, those GDSSS!!! were behind Proposition 215. They've already got you firmly grasped in their hoary claws!!!!!

Keep smoking. Although vaporizing or eating discrete amounts is better.

Shhh.... Don't tell the GDSSS!!!!

(Your fears are completely unfounded, and from my reading of the news and commentary, the only basis for those fears is anti - 19 propaganda. )

Do you believe everything you read in the paper.?
Vote however you like. I personally don't have time to go back and forth. I gave my two cents. And it sounds like I might have a little bit more knowledge about the cannabis industry. I am not a lier. You have called me that more then once (maybe not your exact wording) about the reason I would vote no for this initiative. Good luck to you and everyone else. I hope it goes the way you expect it to.:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:

Proposition 19 does not change 215 state law.....

---

I'm a mail-in voter, and I've already cast my vote in favor of 19. I see the concerns people have, and they sound like very reasonable concerns. Having read them I still voted in favor of the the measure.

I see the 2012 election as being one where marijuana laws will be adjusted after 19, as 19 does after 215. To me 19 is just a small incremental step forward. I think it will move counties and politicians forward on marijuana legalization. As with 215 its impact will be felt more in changing public mores than defining ultimate marijuana laws. Since it "Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older", there will be a lot of experimentation and adjustment.

I'm not concerned at this point about major corporations hogging all the business. It will probably mimic the beer & wine worlds. I think there'll still be hesitation to put major investment capital into it until it's had time to be hammered on and tinkered with in CA communities. I especially believe this after the recent federal chest thumping on the issue. There will need to be a few court cases run through to the Supremes at least, to get the issue clarified enough to suit the big corporations. "The wheels of justice grind slowly". I'm thinking that it will take at least two years to work through the various legal processes; just in time for the 2012 election to further clarify California's will.

Last I heard, one can obtain cocaine with a doctor's prescription. Some people are prescribed wine. I don't see the problems some see involving age of the medical purchaser, or adults smoking in the vicinity of under-21's. Oh, someone with a stick up their .... may decide to test the law in that area. But there's too much precedent already set about use-around-minors of other legal intoxicants, for pot use, as widely accepted as it already is, to be significantly different.

In strategy there's a belief that it's always important to move forward. Prop 19 isn't the answer, but it moves us a small bit incrementally forward.

I respect your decision. I understand your stance on prop 19. I would like to think by passing it now it will lead the way for the 2012 ballot. Whether it passes or not we are at least moving forward for legalization. We are standing up and saying this is what we want. I'm still 99% sure I will vote no for now. I just think it might be harder to change it if we pass this one. I could be wrong.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Tars:

I'm a mail-in voter, and I've already cast my vote in favor of 19. I see the concerns people have, and they sound like very reasonable concerns. Having read them I still voted in favor of the the measure.
...

Last I heard, one can obtain cocaine with a doctor's prescription. Some people are prescribed wine. I don't see the problems some see involving age of the medical purchaser, or adults smoking in the vicinity of under-21's. Oh, someone with a stick up their .... may decide to test the law in that area. But there's too much precedent already set about use-around-minors of other legal intoxicants, for pot use, as widely accepted as it already is, to be significantly different.

In strategy there's a belief that it's always important to move forward. Prop 19 isn't the answer, but it moves us a small bit incrementally forward.

---

Thanks, Miles ... we needed that!
Rev. Allorrah Be
Mobile Minister
Circles of Light Ministries
:heart:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Veeja:

I respect your decision. I understand your stance on prop 19. I would like to think by passing it now it will lead the way for the 2012 ballot. Whether it passes or not we are at least moving forward for legalization. We are standing up and saying this is what we want. I'm still 99% sure I will vote no for now. I just think it might be harder to change it if we pass this one. I could be wrong.

---

If Prop 19 gets defeated, it will be interpreted as the "people" saying that they do not want marijuana legalized. It will be a big set back.

Now is the time to move forward! Anything else will be, in retrospect, a huge set back. If 19 goes down, I highly doubt that a more liberal proposition will be put forward and pass in 2012. On the other hand, if 19 passes, and the world doesn't come to an end, it could be liberalized/ Norml-ized further.

Remember, politics is the art of the possible, not the ideal.
Don't let the "perfect be the enemy of the good".

This is a huge step for the wider society. Remember we live in an exceptional area, and this law is for the whole state. This is a well crafted proposition to take it as far is can go, and still get a majority vote.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Veeja:

(Your fears are completely unfounded, and from my reading of the news and commentary, the only basis for those fears is anti - 19 propaganda. )

Do you believe everything you read in the paper.?
Vote however you like. I personally don't have time to go back and forth. I gave my two cents. And it sounds like I might have a little bit more knowledge about the cannabis industry. I am not a lier. You have called me that more then once (maybe not your exact wording) ...

---

Veeja, re-read some of your posts and try to think about why you believe what you believe.

Quote:

---

Actually, I don't have time to back anything up on this thread. I am very busy.

---

You ask us to accept your expertise while admitting that you're using examples that you don't even know are relevant (the foreclosure analogy). You infer a personal attack - being called a lier - when Miles is making a more general observation. The comment "Do you believe everything you read in the paper" adds nothing, either - there no evidence that anyone here does believe everything they read, but it's a know-nothing (historical reference, not personal) type of argument; you certainly can learn things from news and commentary. (this post, by the way, isn't an attack either - I'm pointing out some ideas to consider and giving some context as to why they're relevant here).

(By the way, anyone who saw this pre-edit: I'm fair game too! how did I miss -that-... Latecomers, you'll just have to wait till next time.)

This is what Miles said:
(Your fears are completely unfounded, and from my reading of the news and commentary, the only basis for those fears is anti - 19 propaganda. )

He has said this many times to me after I said I am for legalization ,just not this initiative. That to me say's I'm a lier.
(I could say maybe Miles is big business and is throwing his weight around because he will make big profits, and thats why he is not willing to except other people opinions. So he has to call them a lier. and he has to speak loud and throw his weight around so everyone will side with him.) but i won't because I don't know that to be true. He needs to stop saying I am bias , when he is wrong. I don't want to see anyone go to jail. growers,smoker, whatever.

As far as the foreclosure thing: Iv'e all ready said I should not have used that as an example. But there has been some initiatives past that have made big business profit off other people misfortunes. I don't have time to go look up those initiatives. When I do i will come back and point them out. But come on you have to remember what the banks were able to get away with and we baled them out. They did'nt use that money for the little guy. They lined there pockets. What could we do about it? Thats just one example. I'm not an expert. But I have some knowledge within the cannabis world. Are you an expert? Do you think Richard Lee from Oaksterdam was thinkin about others in the business. No he has the money to throw at this. He stands to make it big. Unless the feds take him out. He had a lot to do with this initiative. I commend him for sticking his neck out. But not how it is written.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

Veeja, re-read some of your posts and try to think about why you believe what you believe. You ask us to accept your expertise while admitting that you're using examples that you don't even know are relevant (the foreclosure analogy). You infer a personal attack - being called a lier - when Miles is making a more general observation. The comment "Do you believe everything you read in the paper" adds nothing, either - there no evidence that anyone here does believe everything they read, but it's a no-nothing (historical reference, not personal) type of argument; you certainly can learn things from news and commentary. (this post, by the way, isn't an attack either - I'm pointing out some ideas to consider and giving some context as to why they're relevant here).

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Veeja:

... That to me say's I'm a lier.....

---

You have been pulled over by the WaccoBB spelling police:
(Officer I. Manal):

According to Merriam-Webster:
LIAR:


Definition of LIAR

: a person who tells lies

Examples of LIAR

• She called him a dirty liar.
• liar when he started claiming that he was an astronaut>

Origin of LIAR

Middle English, from Old English lēogere, from lēogan to lie — more at lie First Known Use: before 12th century


Related to LIAR

Synonyms: fabricator, fabulist, fibber, prevaricator, storyteller

Thank you for that incite. I understand this. That is why I'm torn ,and say I'm 99% on the no side. I am not in politics and don't pretend to know how it all works. But I do think if this passes as is you will see it cause a lot of trouble and confusion ,that most people did not for see.
Are you saying in the past when an initiative didn't pass the first time ,when it came up again it wasn't taken serious? I know your not. But it is a dilemma, because I understand your thought process on this one. It's definitely a hard one to figure. None of us really know how things will turn out if it passes. All as we can do is guess.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

If Prop 19 gets defeated, it will be interpreted as the "people" saying that they do not want marijuana legalized. It will be a big set back.

Now is the time to move forward! Anything else will be, in retrospect, a huge se back. If 19 goes down, I highly doubt that a more liberal proposition will be put forward and pass in 2012. On the other hand, if 19 passes, and the world doesn't come to an end, it could be liberalized/normlized further.

Remember, politics is the art of the possible, not the ideal.
Don't let the "perfect be the enemy of the good".

This is a huge step for the wider society. Remember we live in an exceptional area, and this law is for the whole state. This is a well crafted proposition to take it as far is can go, and still get a majority vote.

---

Thank you for pointing that out. I am not the best speller. But considering that ,and how bad I was in English. I have gone very far in life. And am a very happy and comfortable person. LOL!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Tars:

You have been pulled over by the WaccoBB spelling police:
(Officer I. Manal):

According to Merriam-Webster:
LIAR:


Definition of LIAR

: a person who tells lies

Examples of LIAR

• She called him a dirty liar.
• liar when he started claiming that he was an astronaut>

Origin of LIAR

Middle English, from Old English lēogere, from lēogan to lie — more at lie First Known Use: before 12th century


Related to LIAR

Synonyms: fabricator, fabulist, fibber, prevaricator, storyteller

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Veeja:

Thank you for pointing that out.

---

Veeja - just to be accurate here, I didn't quote you in my "Spelling Police" post; I didn't quote anyone in that post. That was intentional. I wasn't intending to be personally critical, so please don't misunderstand what happened. My intention was just to have a little fun with the word. If I'd felt I needed to quote anyone there, I would've quoted the multiple people who misspelled it. A moderator edited my post after the fact and added the quote.

I guess I appreciate the intent, but the carry-through may have created an unfortunate impression.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Tars:

...A moderator edited my post after the fact and added the quote.

I guess I appreciate the intent, but the carry-through may have created an unfortunate impression.

---

That would be me.
Please accept my apologies for any hurt I may have caused.

No Worries! My feelings are not hurt. I still haven't figured out if there is a spell check here on Wacco. I am a seamstress and I do architectural glass art and design. Luckily I'm good with math and an eye for detail.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Tars:

Veeja - just to be accurate here, I didn't quote you in my "Spelling Police" post; I didn't quote anyone in that post. That was intentional. I wasn't intending to be personally critical, so please don't misunderstand what happened. My intention was just to have a little fun with the word. If I'd felt I needed to quote anyone there, I would've quoted the multiple people who misspelled it. A moderator edited my post after the fact and added the quote.

I guess I appreciate the intent, but the carry-through may have created an unfortunate impression.

---

I am surprised so many ganja choosing people are against full legalization. I know Prop 19 is not a perfect law, but when it comes down to it, the police should not have power over us because we choose marijuana over alcohol sometimes. And they do. Huge power. even when it's made a misdemeanor. The power to search our bodies, our blood, our piss, our cars, arrest us, smash down our doors, take away federal financial aid for students. And they use this power, the police and DEA goons, while swigging six packs in the privacy of THEIR homes, mostly against people of color and those who cannot afford lawyers. Hundreds of thousands of lives are ruined by our governments war on marijuana. It has to end somewhere. Voting for Prop 19 will not be the end. But it will be the beginning of the end.:Yinyangv::wink:

The Prop 19 issue is up again, as in "stoners against prop 19". Well, I'm not a stoner, but I know a lot of stoners - and we are ALL voting FOR prop 19.

I was confused before, too, but I read through a number of opinion pieces, read a breakdown of the prop itself, and talked to a bunch of my buddies on the front-lines of the marijuana rights movement.Here's my summation:

1. Medical trumps this prop, as well as the senate bill that was just signed in by the Gov.

2. A vote FOR prop 19 is a vote AGAINST the drug war.

3. A vote FOR 19 is a vote FOR legalization as an ideal. Conversely, if this is reversed, the appearance to the rest of the country is that California is AGAINST legalization.

4. Prop 19 does not make laws of prohibition stronger.

5. Make changes on the local level, and the law changes on the local level.

6. The marijuana movement has been incremental, and will continue to be so. Want better propositions? Become a lobbyist, befriend a lobbyist, talk to your reps. Want better local laws? Become an advocate.

And, to quote some of my favorite local mj advocates:

Carole Brodsky; "Read taxandregulate.org. If we don't pass this it will take years to get something else on the ballot. 19 is FAR from perfect but it's a stepping stone, imho."

Laura Hamburg: "To Our Growers --The Bread and Butter of Our Local Economy:
Please Vote YES. Once prohibition is lifted, it will come down to quality. And that's where we excel. There is E & J Gallo Brandy and there's Germaine-Robin. We are the small, family farmers who produce the world's best hand-crafted, artisan, organic, GMO-free marijuana. That economically protects us. YES on 19 says we will harness this vital economic engine to create a revenue steam for our communities. YES says stop raiding us. YES says stop putting us in jail. YES to Legalization."

Please vote yes on prop 19. This is our first chance to make a united stand against prohibition. We've gotta start somewhere.

Voting this down would be like voting IN prop 8 - the "defense of marriage" act. California is becoming one of the more bass-akward states in the union!

If prop 19 fails here, it's a blow for the legalization movement country-wide. Seriously.

Proposition 19: A Black Perspective

https://colorofchange.org/prop19/yeson19.pdf

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

https://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...21x500.png&t=1

The election is upon on us, and I know that one proposition that is of great interest to many of you is Prop 19 - Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.

A good summary of it's provisions is on Ballotpedia.

And a blog entitled "Stoners Against the Prop. 19 Tax Cannabis Initiative" has been making the rounds lately.

I do not agree with it on some fundamental grounds.

First, I think it's disingenuous to not acknowledge that Cannabis prohibition has in effect created a huge subsidy for multitudes of pot growers. Rightly or wrongly, I suspect many will vote with their own financial interest to defeat Prop 19. I'll be most interested to see if Humboldt County votes to legalize its major economic engine.

Secondly, regardless of the specifics of the measure and the arguments against it by the "stoners", I think this is a landmark step to acknowledge and take responsibility for appropriate use of Cannabis.

While the current "medical" marijuana system is quite flexible, its application results in what is tantamount to fraud. Countless people, no doubt that includes many of you, have gotten "medical recommendations" with a wink and a nod (and $100). It's a sham.

Let's restore some integrity and acknowledge that lots of people use it in a "recreational" (literally re-create) way and that shouldn't be illegal. Steps to regulate and tax it, along similar lines to alcohol, is an appropriate way for society control this powerful herb, which can be used as well as abused.

This is just the first step, and it crosses is big line, even if we've inched up to that line via de-criminalization and compassionate use, and it doesn't take us very far across the line, but none-the-less it crosses a huge symbolic line.

We've all dreamed about this day. It's time to make it real!

---

Thought you all might get a kick out of this video on you tube about prop 19. It's an animation of exactly what weve been discussing here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6sGzY_HzZg

I've been offering a daily reason to vote for Prop 19 over at facebook. Here's today's reason to vote for Prop 19:


As marijuana becomes "commercialized" it will either go in the direction of strictly pharmaceutical use *or* recreational & pharmaceutical use. If mj legalization stays in the pharmaceutical realm, we're looking eventually at pharmaceutical standards. With recreational use, there is m...ore room for the mom'n'pop grower to keep growing, and with 19, even selling.

Commercialization is inevitable. We are moving toward regulation. There's now two ways about that. Currently the DEA (drug enforcement agency - deals with controlled substances that are illegal) is what controls "regulation".

Sooner or late...r, with a movement toward legalization of marjuana, the possibilities for regulation are the DEA, FDA (food and drug alliance - deals with pharmaceutical and food standards), or ATF (alcohol, tobacco, and firearms).

The FDA requires massive testing, and if the medical use only trend continues, we're looking at an inevitable end-point of pharmaceutical control. THAT will take mj production solidly outside the sphere of small growers. This will also mean the DEA is still involved regarding any recreational use - as scheduled drugs (medications) are illegal once in the black market.

This is what we want to avoid. Moving toward recreational use allows for local boutique production, like microbreweries. Sure, there's the possibility of big business getting their fingers in the pie, and some people will drink Coors (metaphor) while some will opt for Racer 5. Some will opt for staying even closer to home, and drink only locally brewed, organic beer, like is available at The Brewery in Ukiah (the first fully organic brewing company in the country). Some will brew their own.

Beer is controlled by the ATF. But no one - from basement brewers to Coors - is breaking the law, therefore the ATF is not busting anyone. Local law enforcement deals with infractions on existing laws - from DUI/DWI to underage use.