Quote Originally Posted by blackhash
So the State raking in 7.3 million on licensing in a week isn't an example of Revenue? And them altering Amendment 20 and my right to not be prosecuted for selling to another patient also isn't linked to Revenue?

I smell a stinky drug-dealing dispensary owner here. Not bacon, troll, or donuts.

As if the dispensary folks didn't have a "fuck em' attitude when they set up shop? And really, if the po-po didn't bust these folks selling openly how will they track the behind-the-scenes sales the average patient will continue to make? I hate to tell ya, but selling pot is ILLEGAL whether you have a card or not in the eyes of the Fed so tryin to get all high and mighty is pretty ridiculous and shows how blinded many folks are these days who never wore those blinders before.

they sure aren't gonna fight this starting at the bottom, now are they? LOL
Just totally lol if you are referring to me with the bolded.

blackhash, you seem like a nice person, but your posts are just so full of "OMG GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY FUCK THE FEDS" alarmism. I don't think it's needed. It should be obvious to anyone reading these threads that pot is illegal federally, so I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your posts.

Plus, the 7.3 million in revenue is a RESULT of 1284/109, not an excuse that it's bad. Do you understand this? I don't think the state would be enjoying that income if 1284/109 didn't pass, so I'm unsure of why you point out that this revenue is a reason to be anti 1284/109?

edit:[edit]If you can't see that business' lobby to politicians for power I dont know what to tell you other than wake up. Your tax theory is seriously flawed.

We agree that lobbyist's can have an effect on legislation and how it's passed. Until you provide information that mattcook says, 'this is the reason for the 5 patient cap', then you think one thing and I think another as for the cause of the 5 patient cap. I think my reasoning is more likely, you still think it was the big bad dispensaries. Can you provide any information or explain to me why your explanation is more likely than mine? If you don't have proof (I don't), then please give me your opinion. We don't have to be wrong or right, we can disagree and still have a discussion. I don't understand why that seems so hard. You present your argument that MMC's are responsible for the 5 patient cap, I present my argument that the state dept of revenue is more likely responsible for the 5 patient cap. People read the thread, they make their own opinion, and everyone is more informed than they were yesterday.

I don't know why you continue to think this is an us-versus-them battle or something. Let's all try to be aware of current legislation, regulations, rules and deadlines, and act accordingly. I don't expect to live my life the same way that you do, and I'm not telling you how to. I don't understand why we can't have an intelligent discussion on these subjects that we disagree on.