what you say doesnt make sense. weed is not cheap right now. supply is not abundant and new taxes mean more money for the state. lucky for me i have a job. but 12%+ unemployment is a fact. 1/10+ workers are unemployed. this provides legal jobs, get over yourself. theres no reason mmj business will fail. just decrease in popularity. the growers, bud tenders, and managers from the shops that go outa business (it might be tough on em for a lil bit but theyre part of the abuse problem you admit) they will simply have to either open non medical establishments and/or look for jobs at these legal establishments, its not like they are losing a skill, and having worked at a medical shop, that can go on their resume and probably get them a job easily workin a bud bar or grow farm/facility. as i said, for the govt to make it unreasonbly expensive to do so is counterintuitive because how can they make money off a business that wont work? why is the fact that people can use 215 as a loophole and it being written into 19 a bad thing? it is written into it, already quoted the part that says it. it should make this prop even better from your perspective. you claim to have read 19 and understand what it says, i say do it again
and when did dick lee stop being an activist and become a politician? once it passes that part on severability is outa his hands, sure he can start a new bill that might lessen the restrictions, which is a good thing, but i would think the severability of it is there for when or if the federal govt move in on the state wouldnt you? id gladly take a humble retread over a bloody war.
with less than 30 days these discussions shouldnt be happening. read the prop, look up the codes and legal jibberish, understand what you can and cannot do, and be prepared for a shaky start. oh and ofcourse please vote yes and convince for a better worldview on pot as well as prosperity for the state of california.
When did I say that weed was cheap? And do you live in california? do you know how much dank is grown here? There is PLENTY of supply. This only means money for the state if it actually is used, meaning that people have to choose commercial MJ, which there is an obvious attractive competitor - MMJ. And, to say that this creates jobs is only taking into account one part of the equation - what about the jobs lost, if the courts determine through severability, that there are indeed no protections for MMJ and the whole system goes kaput? Then you will have tons of jobs lost, and I already live in a city where there have been thousands of jobs lost as a result of dispensary closures. And I would never assert the generality you lend to unscrupulous folks in the MMJ community to everyone in MMJ...I have met some really good people.
As far as counterintuition (which has been the entire underlying theme of my premise), I see it as shark-like, but smart, business practice to price your competitiors out of the arena by advocating for higher taxes and fees...and it makes the job easier on the state to allow them to do so: less oversight with higher returns.
The loophole of 215 only exists IF 19 leaves 215 intact...which I have said it makes no sense for 19 to leave 215 intact! And I really dont need to re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-read the bill, I have copies in my car, at home, on my phone, literally everywhere.
Severability....why in gods name did he even put the clause in there? It hands the keys to courts, not legislature or voters, to determine 19, which will determine 215. And if you dont know about Steve Cooley, then I suggest you learn...he is dangerous. And the severability clause just gives the courts the power to strike whatever they wish from the bill while retaining the rest (i.e, the "protections" lent towards 215 can easily be taken out because in reality 215 is not a part of 19 and could easily be found to be outside of the statutory construction of the bill, thus bye bye "protections" and hello "notwithstanding").
And these last days are the most important days to keep on keepin' on! I wont stop, and I definitely wont be voting yes.
