Legal to grow and possess illegal to sell

[spandy]

I just reread this.
Did you really mean what you typed or what?

How many people do you know who don't sell and keep it personal that have been busted?

 

[ChesusRice]

How many people do you know who don't sell and keep it personal that have been busted?

2

 

[Fogdog]

If you don't grow or sell, they are both the same.

I edited your post to put my spin on what you said. Plenty of people get busted for personal grows in states that don't allow it. Legal to grow at least eliminates one part of prohibition.

 

[ChesusRice]

I edited your post to put my spin on what you said. Plenty of people get busted for personal grows in states that don't allow it. Legal to grow at least eliminates one part of prohibition.

If it is Legal to grow and possess it also knocks the legs off prosecuting selling.

You would literally have to advertise You are selling, be witnessed by a cop that you were selling or put up a roadside stand

Right now all they need is a scale and some weed to prosecute

 

[Rob Roy]

That's a non-starter. This assumes willing participation by the plaintiff. DuPont refuses to acknowledge harm even when evidence to the contrary is presented. What non-coercive means would bring DuPont to an arbitrator or the courts for that matter? What non-coercive means would get them to pay when damages are levied? What self defensive force can be used when a family and a community has been unknowingly poisoned and their land rendered unusable by the activities of their large corporation-neighbor?

Article reference: http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-beautiful-parkersburg/

You assume some fantasy world where cooperative farmers just get along. Also you assume that people will not act in their own interests even though their activity harms others. You are a simpleton.

In the absence of government your example would not exist and neither would Dupont, at least not in the way you know them now.

Dupont is a government protected and created corporation, as are all corporations. Government allows real people to exist in business and to do shitty things "legally" and still be several layers away from personal responsibility don't they?

Sometimes you seem so stuck in the present paradigm that you are unable to even imagine what could be and hence are unable to see the idiocy of repeating the same things over and over, and wondering why you get the same result, but you're not alone, "Einstein".

It seems like what you might be asking is, "in the absence of a single coercion based entity (government as you presently know it) how would people be able to arbitrate disputes in an equitable way and why would it be better than the current way ? "

Would you care to discuss that in a generic sense?

 

[Rob Roy]

I edited your post to put my spin on what you said. Plenty of people get busted for personal grows in states that don't allow it. Legal to grow at least eliminates one part of prohibition.

Yes, it's sort of like giving slaves a shorter work day or a few less beatings. It does nothing to remove the fact they are STILL slaves though.

The right to grow, possess, trade in and consume ANYTHING, does not come from government. They are an intrusion and by "regulating" cannabis, they are simply looking to profit from something you already have the right to do without them.

Proposals that include prohibitions on amounts, trade etc. are just there to generate revenue for Massa and designed to create and continue more unneeded bureaucracy and give cops, jailers, prosecutors, judges, parole officers, "drug" counselors, etc. something to do. Yo get to pay for all of it too. They also serve as reinforcement to the erroneous idea that rights are revokable privileges from government.

By accepting some kind of hairbrained "compromise" we not only acquiesce to the idea that THEY set the rules over us, we help to forge our own chains in all future things, which aren't marijuana related where our peaceable behavior can be "regulated" for no other reason than "they" say so.

The default position should be freedom, not "permission" with a bunch of unnecessary limits, and penalties for disobeying.

 

[Rob Roy]

So it's better to have full prohibition vs. Having the ability to legally grow and possess?

False dichotomy is suggested by your list of choices.

You present it as if there are only two possible options. There are more. You forgot freedom.

The best option, which I think you cannot deny is return things to their natural state, and leave it up to the peaceful individual to decide.

Which is to say if you like cannabis and want to grow it, eat it, fuck it, shit on it, make a head dress out of it to wear while riding your harley down the street, sell it, smoke it or snort it, those choices are not somehow limited by a group of people with guns that call themselves your leaders.

By compromising with government. you not only compromise your own freedom, you enable the loss of freedom of others, not cool.

 

[ChesusRice]

False dichotomy is suggested by your list of choices.

You present it as if there are only two possible options. There are more. You forgot freedom.

The best option, which I think you cannot deny is return things to their natural state, and leave it up to the peaceful individual to decide.

Which is to say if you like cannabis and want to grow it, eat it, fuck it, shit on it, make a head dress out of it to wear while riding your harley down the street, sell it, smoke it or snort it, those choices are not somehow limited by a group of people with guns that call themselves your leaders.

By compromising with government. you not only compromise your own freedom, you enable the loss of freedom of others, not cool.

Rob why don't you start a new thread to discuss your ideas instead of molesting every thread you come across with your lunacy?

 

[Rob Roy]

Rob why don't you start a new thread to discuss your ideas instead of molesting every thread you come across with your lunacy?

The irony is great. You are the one that proposed continued "molestation" of some people, which is self evident as your legislative proposal contains prohibitions of some actions that free and unmolested people would be able to do without the kinds of legislation you have proposed.

Look in the mirror, there's your molester....Chester.

 

[ChesusRice]

The irony is great. You are the one that proposed continued "molestation" of some people, which is self evident as your legislative proposal contains prohibitions of some actions that free and unmolested people would be able to do without the kinds of legislation you have proposed.

Look in the mirror, there's your molester....Chester.

Keep typing I'll continue not reading

 

[Rob Roy]

Keep typing I'll continue not reading

When you put your head in the sand Ostrich, you don't become invisible, you just become blinded to what is really going on.

 

[ChesusRice]

When you put your head in the sand Ostrich, you don't become invisible, you just become blinded to what is really going on.

Ramble on

 

[Rob Roy]

Ramble on

Thank you, I think I will.

How does your proposal help people that want to engage in free trade with other peaceful people? What gives anyone the right to limit how other peaceful people engage in free trade ? Isn't that restriction just as onerous as restricting how a person treats their own body?

 

[ChesusRice]

Thank you, I think I will.

How does your proposal help people that want to engage in free trade with other peaceful people? What gives anyone the right to limit how other peaceful people engage in free trade ? Isn't that restriction just as onerous as restricting how a person treats their own body?

I'm sorry I don't understand. Can you be more clear?

 

[Rob Roy]

I'm sorry I don't understand. Can you be more clear?

Sure, thanks for asking.

You own yourself, but you, nor anybody else owns other people. How's that, Prohibitionist?

 

[ChesusRice]

Sure, thanks for asking.

You own yourself, but you, nor anybody else owns other people. How's that, Prohibitionist?

Thanks for contributing to the thread count

 

[Rob Roy]

Thanks for contributing to the thread count

You're welcome. Do you get a special pat on the head for having a high number of posts in a thread you started?

Here's a biscuit. Good doggy, now go bite those people over there engaging in peaceful and voluntary trade, so you can get a bigger biscuit.

 

[ChesusRice]

For those who live in prohibited states. The Fastest way to legalization is:

Legal to grow and possess, illegal to sell

 

[Harrekin]

For those who live in prohibited states. The Fastest way to legalization is:

Legal to grow and possess, illegal to sell

Bit naive to believe the Govt will dramatically change their stance unless SOMEONE is making money out of it, right?

 

[Fogdog]

In the absence of government your example would not exist and neither would Dupont, at least not in the way you know them now.

Dupont is a government protected and created corporation, as are all corporations. Government allows real people to exist in business and to do shitty things "legally" and still be several layers away from personal responsibility don't they?

Sometimes you seem so stuck in the present paradigm that you are unable to even imagine what could be and hence are unable to see the idiocy of repeating the same things over and over, and wondering why you get the same result, but you're not alone, "Einstein".

It seems like what you might be asking is, "in the absence of a single coercion based entity (government as you presently know it) how would people be able to arbitrate disputes in an equitable way and why would it be better than the current way ? "

Would you care to discuss that in a generic sense?

I have no idea what planet you live on or what species you are part of. Certainly not this planet and not homo sapiens. You have an active imagination though, I'll give you that.

So you reject the existence of DuPont? Umm, well, its true that if history never happened, humans were ethereal beings of pure thought and all humans could just create their own universe and world to live in then your world might not have DuPont or government in it. Mine would be populated with all sorts of interesting people. I'd leave government goons out and DuPont. But I won't bore you with my fantasy.

Sorry, I'm not interested in debating a hypothetical world with a paradigm the you imagine. If you want to discuss something that touches the real world then give me a specific real world example and pose a question around it then maybe we can talk.

Now, getting back to the real world, you talk about how you would use defensive force to protect yourself against the depredations of DuPont. What exactly would that be if your family were poisoned by them and toxic waste from their dump site adjoining your property contaminated well and surface water, rendering your property unusable?