Leagilization/Decriminalization

I thought it would be interesting to ask what members wanted and what they wanted as far as regulation.:D
I can start.

Decriminilization. no penalty for amounts up to 400 DRIED grams in the home and 56 on said person for personal use with no more then 10 plants per household.
No one under the age of 18 to possess/ Unless prescribed by a doctor.
sale or transfer of MJ of amounts less then 1 pound is leagle.
Sale to minors(under 18) from street venders is punishable for 5 years mandatory. I know flames are comming)
Minors with a MJ med card can get their script filled at a grow op.
States can regulate sale and taxes.
Federal tax of 5% per gram ( we have to pay off the bail out somehow.)

Anyone else have ides?
:jointsmile:

what's it matter man the gov is always gonna shoot us down they make more money with their fake war on terror and their fake war on drugs that they dont sell, that's what it should be called war on drugs we havent got paid for.we gotta find a new way to beat um at their own game somehow hopefully someone smarter than me will figure it out and let me know.

Just like the peeps in MI and MA did. They stood up and said wht they wanted.
Every plan has a starting point.
This is a starting point for talks for Leagilization/Decriminalization and hopefully standardization.
It isn't goona happen as long as peeps say it wont.
So you have choice sit at home and whine or do something.

obviously you knew it was coming, but why the 5 years mandatory? Just for weed? damn dude, thats kinda ridiculous.

I think if you want it Leagilized or Decriminalized you will need to start somewhere.
The American public has been fed bullshit for almost 100 years. if you leagize it then the pushers will target second graders. they used all kinds of scare tactics. So a harsh punishment will need to be offered in order to squash public fears about MJ and minors. Just like they have for Alcohol.
Once the public is past the baby in the crib hitting the hooka then the laws can be adjusted.

legalize it, same way as alcohol was legalized and regulated, u dont see alcohol companies pushing it on kids, nore legally selling it to non-adults

even tobacco companies are barred from advertising

yet i think mj has enough of a market to be an incentive for some people to create business

but sound regulation is VERY IMPORTANT if we dont want a backlash from such a move. already those who smoke it, find it or grow it rather easily and keep on smoking, use drug-test kits to dodge all the control and the world goes on as usual if all of this was done legally!!

we would just stop ruining lives and save big money and even make tax revenues

no matter how u look at it, except from the "moral" way of sending the wrong message to kids pov (like tobacco ads and alcohol ads are not the wrong message sent to kids, or do we want sober nation alltogether, just cant ban these 2 anymore???) its a win-win-win-win for everyone

Legalization:

Legal home growing for personal use without the need for a license - I would say 15 plants or fewer (this is a generous limit to allow for a few varieties of mother plants, small scale hobby breeding, etc.)

Licensed growing for sale - This would be similar to the licensing requirements for micro-breweries. This should require annual/bi-annual license renewal. These grow operations would be subject to health and safety inspections to avoid such dangers as mold, unsafe fungicides/insecticides used during bloom, and etc.

Legal sale at licensed stores with a system similar to current liquor licenses. Any coffee house, grocery store, liquor store, etc. should be able to apply for a license and sell Marijuana over the counter to adults. These licenses should be granted by the municipality just as current liquor licenses are.

As far as weight limits, why? Is there currently a limit on how much alcohol you can possess in your home? As long as anyone can purchase over the counter from local retailers then we don't need to worry about how much is personal use and how much is intent to distribute. I've never heard of anyone being busted for having too much Budweiser in their home without a license.

I make wine at home as a hobby. I am able to make 500 gallons per adult over 21 in my house per year.
Now why is it leagle for me to make an adictive drug like alcohol in mass quantity but yet illeagle for me to grow one benificial plant? CANYOU SAY "Pharma!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper777

I make wine at home as a hobby. I am able to make 500 gallons per adult over 21 in my house per year.
Now why is it leagle for me to make an adictive drug like alcohol in mass quantity but yet illeagle for me to grow one benificial plant? CANYOU SAY "Pharma!"

---

um, thats not quite legal man:D
Alabama petition to change homemade wine law

Thats kewl, But I am not in Alabama. But I never even hit the 100 gallon mark let alone 200.
But still it is just plain BS!
Thanks for the heads up too.

Put the safer substance on the same playing feild as the already legal drugs: alcohol and tobacco.

Decriminilization is a lousy idea because it in no way solves the problem of organized crime that has become inextricably linked with the sale of weed. Full legalization is all that makes any sense.

To attach ANY punishment to weed is an injustice, I think. It shouldn't be treated like alcohol or tobacco because that would place it in the same category as dangerous and deadly poisons that it is somehow socially acceptable to consume. Rather, the legal age for cannabis should be lower (16, I think), and if you sell to someone who's under that age, you should get a moderate to low fine, with multiple offences resulting in a possible loss of licence. Any talk of a jail sentence is just ridiculous.

But if it was up to me, this would be important: corporatism would have to be kept out of weed. If it were up to me, laws would be enacted so if you have any sort of weed business, you can only employ a maximum of 10 people. Keep it a strictly Mom and Pop type thing, you know? As it stands, every toke we take is a fat gob of spit in the face of the DEA, the government, and the world of Big Business that would rather have us on cigarettes and pharmaceuticals. If pot were corporatized, we'd just be deepthroating the established order like any other consumers, so I'd want to see it restricted to small business.

If the corporations get their hands on weed, its purity will be lost!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt

Decriminilization is a lousy idea because it in no way solves the problem of organized crime that has become inextricably linked with the sale of weed. Full legalization is all that makes any sense.

To attach ANY punishment to weed is an injustice, I think. It shouldn't be treated like alcohol or tobacco because that would place it in the same category as dangerous and deadly poisons that it is somehow socially acceptable to consume. Rather, the legal age for cannabis should be lower (16, I think), and if you sell to someone who's under that age, you should get a moderate to low fine, with multiple offences resulting in a possible loss of licence. Any talk of a jail sentence is just ridiculous.

But if it was up to me, this would be important: corporatism would have to be kept out of weed. If it were up to me, laws would be enacted so if you have any sort of weed business, you can only employ a maximum of 10 people. Keep it a strictly Mom and Pop type thing, you know? As it stands, every toke we take is a fat gob of spit in the face of the DEA, the government, and the world of Big Business that would rather have us on cigarettes and pharmaceuticals. If pot were corporatized, we'd just be deepthroating the established order like any other consumers, so I'd want to see it restricted to small business.

If the corporations get their hands on weed, its purity will be lost!

---

Underage use is not appropriate - the recreational use of an intoxicating substance requires sufficient maturity to keep balance and moderation. Most 16 year olds do not have this level of maturity - 18 or 21, preferably 21.

I have no problem with underage medicinal use - with a doctor's prescription. It would be entirely irrational to allow 16 year olds to purchase for recreational use, however.

-------------

As for keeping the corporations out: there is nothing special about Marijuana that makes it uniquely worth protecting from corporate interests. A solid case could be made for providing an advantage to smaller businesses in general to help counteract the general trend of wealth concentration and consolidation - this could be achieved through a wide variety of means: For instance distance from origin taxes on physical goods such that a local sales tax is exempted on goods produced within the same county, a low in-state tax rate is payed on goods from outside of the county but within the same state, and a higher out-of-state tax is payed on goods produced in another state, and finally an imported goods tax is payed on anything produced overseas. This is a pretty crude example, but it is a means of helping keep markets from concentrating to a handful of large companies whose efficiency of scale prevent competition from upstarts and who tend to push smaller established firms out of the market.

------------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAmKowalski

Underage use is not appropriate - the recreational use of an intoxicating substance requires sufficient maturity to keep balance and moderation. Most 16 year olds do not have this level of maturity - 18 or 21, preferably 21.

I have no problem with underage medicinal use - with a doctor's prescription. It would be entirely irrational to allow 16 year olds to purchase for recreational use, however.

-------------

As for keeping the corporations out: there is nothing special about Marijuana that makes it uniquely worth protecting from corporate interests. A solid case could be made for providing an advantage to smaller businesses in general to help counteract the general trend of wealth concentration and consolidation - this could be achieved through a wide variety of means: For instance distance from origin taxes on physical goods such that a local sales tax is exempted on goods produced within the same county, a low in-state tax rate is payed on goods from outside of the county but within the same state, and a higher out-of-state tax is payed on goods produced in another state, and finally an imported goods tax is payed on anything produced overseas. This is a pretty crude example, but it is a means of helping keep markets from concentrating to a handful of large companies whose efficiency of scale prevent competition from upstarts and who tend to push smaller established firms out of the market.

------------

---

I agree underage use isn't appropriate, I merely lowered slightly the age that separates underage from "of age." My argument being, of course, that 18 is fine for booze and smokes, but weed is a healthier substance than either of these, therefore the policy should be slightly more lenient. 21 is just ridiculous: I can't think of a single thing you shouldn't be allowed to do when you reach adulthood at 18.

I agree there's no rational reason weed should be protected from corporations, other than the obvious (which is that ALL goods should be free from such a cesspool), I was just stating what I'd prefer. If Weed Corporations sold joints by the pack, they'd never get my money...I'd grow my own or buy from a small business.

Decriminalization is not a goal, it is a stepping stone TO our goal; legalization.

Decriminalizing cannabis will not be of particular interest to the government because you cannot tax and regulate something that is still technically illegal. The black-market will still remain, and we will still have the slight paranoia at the thought of having to pay a fine should someone come knock on your door. This thought, however, is alot better than current reality, whereas if someone were to knock on your door and smells your grow op, and that person be representing the authority, you will get jail time. I'd take the fine, wouldn't you?


Legalization is the next step after that. This way, it's possible for the government to put in place some type of regulation and taxes. However, it won't be that effective because not everyone is going to get a license, particularly people who already grow now. Legalization would mainly benefit businesses who would be able to sell marijuana over the counter, such as convenience stores, liquor stores, grocery centers, and even restaurants and bars. (How would you like to sit down to dinner and order a side OG Kush to come with your appetizer?) Such businesses would require a license, licenses are purchased from government. That is instant cash for our government, which is actually a good thing in this way.

Also, said establishment should be required to list their source of cannabis, file how much is purchased by the establishment, to allow for taxing the transaction.

I think the plant itself should have never been illegal...its a plant.. a weed... something that has been here forever..and will be here after we are all long gone.

The government paid farmers to grow Hemp back in WW2......

I still say its a plant...... let it grow:D

Hemp can put a nice dent in the logging industry ....weyerhaeuser wouldnt like that

If President-elect Obama does what he says he will, and cuts programs that are wasteful, he'll definitely be cutting the miserably-failing "War on Drugs".

He'll keep his word, Joe. The guy's got a spine of steel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beachguy in thongs

If President-elect Obama does what he says he will, and cuts programs that are wasteful, he'll definitely be cutting the miserably-failing "War on Drugs".

He'll keep his word, Joe. The guy's got a spine of steel.

---

they need to take the drug tzar and his office and fire him and his staff as the first thing he does. How many lives has that office destroyed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper777

they need to take the drug tzar and his office and fire him and his staff as the first thing he does. How many lives has that office destroyed?

---

Far too many. If anyone needs a trial for crimes against humanity, it's John Walters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt

Far too many. If anyone needs a trial for crimes against humanity, it's John Walters.

---

While we may have distaste for the office and its policies, remember that this office exists to enforce/implement current public policy. We need to focus on changing that policy rather than directing fruitless anger at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAmKowalski

While we may have distaste for the office and its policies, remember that this office exists to enforce/implement current public policy. We need to focus on changing that policy rather than directing fruitless anger at it.

---

Fair enough, but it really doesn't do any harm to vent a little about the tyrannical propaganda masters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by overgrowthegovt

Fair enough, but it really doesn't do any harm to vent a little about the tyrannical propaganda masters.

---

True, but neither the most productive nor pleasant use of one's mental time.