10 reasons to vote NO on prop #19
Someone actually goes to the trouble to get the facts, clearly & intelligently present them to you, and you still want Prop 19. I give up! Fact is, I'm 63, & I've never been without weed since I was 22, and the fact that it was illegal didn't really bother me all that much, either, and I did get busted for selling in the 80's! And no matter what the govt & the money men do, I'll still have it, and I won't be getting it from them. The worst they can do is keep me from being a commercial grower, so I guess I'll just retire, move to my house in Mexico & keep on tokin'! You guys can live with the results of your actions, and you ain't gonna like 'em!
10 reasons to vote NO on prop #19
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesteve
Someone actually goes to the trouble to get the facts, clearly & intelligently present them to you, and you still want Prop 19. I give up! Fact is, I'm 63, & I've never been without weed since I was 22, and the fact that it was illegal didn't really bother me all that much, either, and I did get busted for selling in the 80's! And no matter what the govt & the money men do, I'll still have it, and I won't be getting it from them. The worst they can do is keep me from being a commercial grower, so I guess I'll just retire, move to my house in Mexico & keep on tokin'! You guys can live with the results of your actions, and you ain't gonna like 'em!
so if 19 passes what changes for you? why do you think it should not be approved? I don't really see a reason in your paragraph.
If you have always been able to acquire herb illegally I just don't understand how 19 will limit access for anyone?
10 reasons to vote NO on prop #19
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesteve
Someone actually goes to the trouble to get the facts, clearly & intelligently present them to you, and you still want Prop 19. I give up! Fact is, I'm 63, & I've never been without weed since I was 22, and the fact that it was illegal didn't really bother me all that much, either, and I did get busted for selling in the 80's! And no matter what the govt & the money men do, I'll still have it, and I won't be getting it from them. The worst they can do is keep me from being a commercial grower, so I guess I'll just retire, move to my house in Mexico & keep on tokin'! You guys can live with the results of your actions, and you ain't gonna like 'em!
vaya con dios, amigo. :D pack lots of ammo. :thumbsup:
just kidding, seriously I have not heard one single arguement yet for voting no that holds any water. All I've heard is peoples opinions, speculation and general confusion about the issue. where are the facts that you are refering to?
10 reasons to vote NO on prop #19
Quote:
Originally Posted by VapedG13
Ten Reasons to Vote No
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 isn??t an arrestable offense. And soon this amount will be a simple civil infraction. Prop 19 doesn??t make any improvements to decriminalization or prop 215.
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.
3. Prop 19 is solely designed to allow large scale cannabis production by politically connected corporations. Oakland has already granted a license to the Prop 19 Cartel.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
9. Unbiased cannabis activists do NOT support Prop 19. This includes the late Jack Herer and the co-author of prop 215, Dennis Peron.
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
I disagree 100%... Yes on 19... Its simple logic...
10 reasons to vote NO on prop #19
Quote:
Originally Posted by boaz
vaya con dios, amigo. :D pack lots of ammo. :thumbsup:
just kidding, seriously I have not heard one single arguement yet for voting no that holds any water. All I've heard is peoples opinions, speculation and general confusion about the issue. where are the facts that you are refering to?
I could say exactly the same thing for voting yes on 19. All I hear is speculation about how only wonderful things would happen... all without acknowledgement of potential problems, which really need to be intelligently discussed prior to blindly supporting either side.
I don't support it because I feel it victimizes medical patients by making them have to compete with the general smoking public. I also don't like the fact that the govt would massively exploit our industry with regulations for the small time growers, but fails to mention regulations on the "walmart" weed suppliers or how those would be enforced. No, I don't trust the government's word that 19 will not interfere with medical access.
A simple decriminalization would be the first step in the right direction. If that was the ultimate goal of 19, it wouldn't have any of this tax and regulate nonsense. Smaller steps could make legalization a reality. If you get the big issue out of the way, you don't need a "one size fits all poorly" bill. If one step is taken, we can all examine it's effects and decide what happens next. Placing that in the hands of the govt is not a good idea. Don't confuse regulation and legalization. The govt cares about money and votes. If 19 were the right thing for medical and recreational users and all other groups alike, it wouldn't be set up for the government to make money off of at our expenses.
The government wants money, and it's found something to exploit. It doesn't want to help us, it wants to use us for financial gain.
10 reasons to vote NO on prop #19
after some long reading,im still for the yes vote.But the only thing is federal law wont change,although the state says it's legal,it's still illeagal under federal law,same as with mmj,still illeagal under federal law,so it really isnt going to make a diffrence on the federal part wich is what we want to change....
so if it does go through with the yes vote i will be happy,but then the president is going to have to change federal law......wich will not happen.
i may be wrong may be right,but only a few months away and we will see.
10 reasons to vote NO on prop #19
There's a loophole for ya. The goverment can decide one what to do for medical marijuana on the state level, and for the most part, if you adhere to the state laws the federal government won't have much of a say.
For "legaliziation" in general, it's a different ballpark. Marijuana is still classified with cocaine and heroin as far as the federal government is concerned. Prop 19 could very well dictate a change in regulations for medical users, but the federal govt could remove parts of prop 19 (such as the general decriminalization part) and keep the rest of it. This would mean that medical users would have to deal with the burden of more restrictions and pay a non specified amount of tax for their medicine, which would possibly become more difficult to grow themselves legally due to further regulations. All while the people who voted on the bill are stuck with nothing becuase most of them are not medical patients, and marijuana for personal use would still be illegal.
That scenario is a real possibility given the federal governments track record.
10 reasons to vote NO on prop #19
Quote:
Originally Posted by stormin94
There's a loophole for ya. The goverment can decide one what to do for medical marijuana on the state level, and for the most part, if you adhere to the state laws the federal government won't have much of a say.
For "legaliziation" in general, it's a different ballpark. Marijuana is still classified with cocaine and heroin as far as the federal government is concerned. Prop 19 could very well dictate a change in regulations for medical users, but the federal govt could remove parts of prop 19 (such as the general decriminalization part) and keep the rest of it. This would mean that medical users would have to deal with the burden of more restrictions and pay a non specified amount of tax for their medicine, which would possibly become more difficult to grow themselves legally due to further regulations. All while the people who voted on the bill are stuck with nothing becuase most of them are not medical patients, and marijuana for personal use would still be illegal.
That scenario is a real possibility given the federal governments track record.
Why is it that the US Government has a patent on Marijuana:wtf:
Quote:
Are they confused in Washington, D.C., or just deceptive? That is the burning question. You be the judge. According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency ??The FDA noted ??that no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use.? This statement was released to the general public after the Feds filed a patent on pot, to corner the market on many of its medicinal uses.
On the one hand, United States federal government officials have consistently denied that marijuana has any medical benefits. On the other, the government actually holds patents for the medical use of the plant.
Just check out US Patent 6630507 titled "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants" which is assigned to The United States of America, as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services
I say there are hidden agendas involed with legalization we know very little about
10 reasons to vote NO on prop #19
Quote:
Originally Posted by VapedG13
I say there are hidden agendas involved with legalization we know very little about
Of course there is. How many chemical additives etc, can be replaced by a natural substance like hemp oil???? Its all about money and greed, not one thing to benefit humanity as a whole. But to line an individuals pockets. Notice corporate growers wanting to pop up. Keep cannabis free so no one can profit from it only. It only has the value placed on it arbitrarily. Supply and demand, simple economics. If any and all can grow, grow grow, where is the corporate value? :D
10 reasons to vote NO on prop #19
I'm not a lawyer but I do have extensive law enforcement experience.
Prop 19 will not supersede prop 215 and SB 420. We will continue to get our recommendations and we will continue to grow as we are now.
What I don't like about prop 19 is that while it won't supersede 215 and 420 it does potentially criminalizes medical patients who medicate in their homes if they have children living with them who are under the age of 18.
The writers of the proposition bent over so far to please the prohibitionists that they??re helping to create a whole new class of criminals.
Maybe I should explain further...
In the State of California peace officer and private citizen powers to arrest are basically the same for misdemeanors. For felonies however; while a felony must have actually been committed for a private person's arrest, peace officers are granted far more leeway if it turns out a crime was not committed. Smoking in the presence of an individual under 18 will be a felony per prop 19.
So while it will take a while for the courts to clearly define the parameters as it relates to the law on the presence of juveniles in the company of medical marijuana patients, a lot of patients are going to be left open to arrest by law enforcement officers for ingesting their cannabis meds in the presence of said juveniles.
