Poll : Will you vote for legalizing for just the people this time and not business?

[cph]

There's no way we'll be able to keep big business out of it. When it goes national we the people wont have the say you did in cali. It won't be up to the individual voters but up to washington. were everything is big business. It doesn't matter to me what happens in cali my state isn't even medical and wont be anytime soon. after all we just elected a rep gov.

The best reason for legalization isn't for personnel consumption anyway. There are far better industrial reasons to legalize HEMP that are often forgot and never talked about.

Just my $.02...

 

[Ernst]

There's no way we'll be able to keep big business out of it. When it goes national we the people wont have the say you did in cali. It won't be up to the individual voters but up to washington. were everything is big business. It doesn't matter to me what happens in cali my state isn't even medical and wont be anytime soon. after all we just elected a rep gov.

The best reason for legalization isn't for personnel consumption anyway. There are far better industrial reasons to legalize HEMP that are often forgot and never talked about.

Just my $.02...

Thanks.. If I understand correctly that when we take action at the Federal level that the Feds will be on the hooks to include all States laws in establishing Federal Law.
It's vitally important in my opinion to have at least one really liberal State to offset the conservatism and greed factors once it does get adopted by Federal law.

Besides California is the example of progressive policies..

Obviously we cannot stop legal commerce but we can stop commerce from stopping us by firmly establish rights for the Individual.

 

[W N L]

I had a feeling though, prop 19 was going to fail because the people that were profiting from it didn't want the profit to end, just my oppinion, but now that the market is flooding in certain areas, hopefully people wont be so greedy this time around. I am on my first grow, still haven't thought of selling a bit of it, I pay too much to buy it, I feel as though I am making money by saving money... Just my $.02

 

[Ernst]

It is true that the cannabis market is based on supply and demand and that has been a game of cop and robber.

High prices because of it's illegal status and limited supply because of it's illegal status.

So to bring Cannabis into a free market brings with it a drop in prices. The Stock Market people call this a Market Adjustment.
Trying to curb the individual rights to cannabis and calling that Legalization for the people is just more prohibition in my opinion.

It;s the peoples intoxicant and we must establish generous rights to the plant for the sake of not only freedom but for the survival of the cannabis species itself.

 

[Ernst]

Bump

I'm cycling this poll back up.

Hey No voters I sure would like to read why we can't legalize for the people first.
Consider a post.

 

[undertheice]

i thought we had gone over this already in your previous thread, but i guess it takes some time for such things to sink in. unless you deal with the subject of sales you haven't dealt with the entire scope of legalization and sales means business. you can't just simply say that it's all right for ernst to set up his little shop and forbid marlboro from doing the same thing. you can't allow ernst to grow as much weed as he wants and to dispose of it as he sees fit, unless you are also willing to let everyone else do the same thing and that includes corporate interests and big business. your answer is to restrict and stunt the free market solution and that's no answer at all. you're so caught up in the harmlessness of our happy little plant that you've completely ignored the real world repercussions of introducing a new product into the legitimate marketplace. what you want is not legalization, it is the legitimization of the existing black market. you and those of like mind want to keep the club exclusive, to prohibit the expansion that the profit motive naturally leads to.

that you advocate allowing small time growers to become big time entrepreneurs is laudable, but you are naive to think that our safety infatuated society will allow an intoxicant to be unregulated. the generations that grew up surrounded by the propaganda of this nonsensical prohibition simply won't allow it. with that regulation will come the regulators and the sin taxes that support their bureaucracy. do you really think that ernst's fine cannabis shoppe is going to be able to support such a monster? no, it will take the revenue generated by commercial operations to keep the bureaucrats in red tape. it will take the financial power generated by big business to keep those regulations from becoming so restrictive as to make them impossible to follow.

no matter how many times you reword the question, you can't escape the fact that selling anything is business and demanding that business stay small is just a special interest pipe dream.

 

[doc111]

i thought we had gone over this already in your previous thread, but i guess it takes some time for such things to sink in. unless you deal with the subject of sales you haven't dealt with the entire scope of legalization and sales means business. you can't just simply say that it's all right for ernst to set up his little shop and forbid marlboro from doing the same thing. you can't allow ernst to grow as much weed as he wants and to dispose of it as he sees fit, unless you are also willing to let everyone else do the same thing and that includes corporate interests and big business. your answer is to restrict and stunt the free market solution and that's no answer at all. you're so caught up in the harmlessness of our happy little plant that you've completely ignored the real world repercussions of introducing a new product into the legitimate marketplace. what you want is not legalization, it is the legitimization of the existing black market. you and those of like mind want to keep the club exclusive, to prohibit the expansion that the profit motive naturally leads to.

that you advocate allowing small time growers to become big time entrepreneurs is laudable, but you are naive to think that our safety infatuated society will allow an intoxicant to be unregulated. the generations that grew up surrounded by the propaganda of this nonsensical prohibition simply won't allow it. with that regulation will come the regulators and the sin taxes that support their bureaucracy. do you really think that ernst's fine cannabis shoppe is going to be able to support such a monster? no, it will take the revenue generated by commercial operations to keep the bureaucrats in red tape. it will take the financial power generated by big business to keep those regulations from becoming so restrictive as to make them impossible to follow.

no matter how many times you reword the question, you can't escape the fact that selling anything is business and demanding that business stay small is just a special interest pipe dream.

It would seem that most people are driven by self-interest (I know, shocker), and empathy seems to be in short supply these days. Yes, it's true, there are a lot of folks who would LOVE to see cannabis re-legalized, but we often forget that as hard as we may be working toward that end, there are others just as dedicated to seeing that never happens. Every time someone acts a fool and drugs or cannabis can be associated with that behavior, it sets us back. We're on a treadmill, I fear, when it comes to re-legalization. We've made a lot of ins with medical cannabis, but actually repealing prohibition for the sake of recreational use is no closer to reality than it ever was IMO. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[undertheice]

It would seem that most people are driven by self-interest (I know, shocker), and empathy seems to be in short supply these days.....

it is self-interest that must be utilized to pass any sort of legalization. the self-interest of the growers (both present and potential), the smokers, the anti-legalization crowd, the business community, the politicians and the taxpayer at large most of all. we are greedy little creatures, all of us, and we seldom allow an advantage to anyone else unless we derive some benefit as well. empathy, altruism and justice are fleeting and almost never carry the day.

we can appease the die-hard prohibitionists only through alcohol-like regulation. the taxpayers and the politicians can be enticed with the promise of tax revenues and business will be happy with a new marketplace to explore. of course most of the smokers are going to be happy with anything that allows them to enjoy their pastime without fear. aside from those who simply can never be won over, it was mostly those who depend on this prohibition for their livelihood that kept 19 from passing by a slim margin.

 

[doc111]

it is self-interest that must be utilized to pass any sort of legalization. the self-interest of the growers (both present and potential), the smokers, the anti-legalization crowd, the business community, the politicians and the taxpayer at large most of all. we are greedy little creatures, all of us, and we seldom allow an advantage to anyone else unless we derive some benefit as well. empathy, altruism and justice are fleeting and almost never carry the day.

we can appease the die-hard prohibitionists only through alcohol-like regulation. the taxpayers and the politicians can be enticed with the promise of tax revenues and business will be happy with a new marketplace to explore. of course most of the smokers are going to be happy with anything that allows them to enjoy their pastime without fear. aside from those who simply can never be won over, it was mostly those who depend on this prohibition for their livelihood that kept 19 from passing by a slim margin.

Exactly! Which is why it's going to take regulations and compromise, and a lot of it, if we are ever to end this ridiculous prohibition. All interested parties should have a say in this, not just the government and the growers. Repeal of prohibition will have an impact on society at large and there will have to be mechanisms in place to test people on the spot for "Driving under the influence". There is currently no way to do this (none that I'm aware of anyway). The smell in residential areas could become an issue (not everyone likes the smell of cannabis). The problems are more than I can list here but these are a couple of examples. I don't want the government and big business to be the only ones benefitting from re-legalization either, but we have to make a choice. Do what's right, or continue the madness. I'll take the first choice.

 

[donmagicjuan]

i vote yes meaning decriminalized

 

[undertheice]

I don't want the government and big business to be the only ones benefiting from re-legalization.....

we already know that those with the most capital to invest will be the ones best positioned to take advantage of any new marketplace. this is a basic truth of the capitalist system that has allowed us to create so much wealth in the first place. further, we need only look at the taxes involved in the sale of a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of booze to know that the government is going to take its pound of flesh no matter what the people have to say about it. even if a bill were passed tomorrow that included no taxes, we'd soon find ourselves swamped with regulatory fees and sin taxes to enrich our greedy legislators.

the first question you have to ask yourself is why you should care how much someone else makes. the greatest sin of the california liberalism that ernst seems to think will aid in legalization is its use of envy. as long as the people retain the right to grow their own little slice of heaven, what does it matter that r.j. reynolds makes a mint off of those too lazy to till the earth? smaller growers can form co-ops to compete with the corporate interests and high quality boutique shops will undoubtedly have their place along side the mass produced, commercially oriented conglomerates. what is the problem with allowing business interests their head, to increase interest in what we all know to be a relatively harmless and enjoyable pastime? this is just the price we must pay for going mainstream.

the second question is, what makes you think that this particular commodity should be exempted from the heavy hand of government? this is no magic bullet destined to change the world as we know it. it's no mystical doorway to spiritual enlightenment. we know it has many medicinal qualities, but it's no grand panacea that is going to heal the world. for the vast majority of smokers this is just a way to relax, have a good time and slightly alter one's outlook on life. the greater question should be why we allow the state such unfettered access to our private wealth in every facet of our lives. just as legalization should be seen as a step toward our demand for self-ownership and the right to engage in such harmless pastimes as we see fit, we should be demanding some accounting of why our government is allowed to abscond with the people's wealth at an ever increasing rate and with little or nothing to show for it.

 

[Ernst]

Who needs to deal with the entire scope?

The Argument here is supporting a safe bet in 2012 so we avoid defeat at the polls again.
That safe and simple first step is Horticulture rights for the People.

The nature of the thread is to argue an all or nothing initiative like prop 19 or a for the people initiative like prop 215.

Let look at what happened. Prop 215 passed with a majority of voters across the demographics.Prop 19 failed with a majority of voters across the demographics.

Is it possible that we could waste another election cycle if we try another all or nothing initiative?
We are at Strike Two for all or nothings and a Home Run for "For the people."

Remember, historically speaking, a sweetheart all or nothing initiative will make enemies out of a a majority of voters across the demographics by the history of both prop-19 attempts.

This is a discussion of following the only politically successful strategy California has ever known in Legalizing cannabis in California. For the people Prop 215

So now that is clear back to your wonderful contribution.

i thought we had gone over this already in your previous thread, but i guess it takes some time for such things to sink in.

That is unnecessary and sets the tone fot the discussion as a personal attack. Sucks and looks stupid.

unless you deal with the subject of sales you haven't dealt with the entire scope of legalization and sales means business.

This is not about an entire scope this is about a safe and simple first step of legalizing for the people and not-business.
Business can do their own thing either in 2012 or later when the good people of California allows them to.

you can't just simply say that it's all right for ernst to set up his little shop and forbid marlboro from doing the same thing. you can't allow ernst to grow as much weed as he wants and to dispose of it as he sees fit, unless you are also willing to let everyone else do the same thing and that includes corporate interests and big business. your answer is to restrict and stunt the free market solution and that's no answer at all. you're so caught up in the harmlessness of our happy little plant that you've completely ignored the real world repercussions of introducing a new product into the legitimate marketplace. what you want is not legalization, it is the legitimization of the existing black market. you and those of like mind want to keep the club exclusive, to prohibit the expansion that the profit motive naturally leads to.

Legalizing for the people is separate from legalizing for business.
If we adopt laws that treat Cannabis like a Goods, like wine, then we surly establish an industry and at the same time can and will restrict private citizens from cannabis Horticulture rights..
If we treat Cannabis like a plant one can grow, harvest and share we create freedom.

There is business already.
Legalizing for people won't change that.

There is black market.

Legalizing for the people will more than likely flood the market but it's artificially priced now because it is illegal so a market correction has to take place under any scenario including an all or nothing modified and improved prop 19.

that you advocate allowing small time growers to become big time entrepreneurs is laudable, but you are naive to think that our safety infatuated society will allow an intoxicant to be unregulated. the generations that grew up surrounded by the propaganda of this nonsensical prohibition simply won't allow it. with that regulation will come the regulators and the sin taxes that support their bureaucracy. do you really think that ernst's fine cannabis shoppe is going to be able to support such a monster? no, it will take the revenue generated by commercial operations to keep the bureaucrats in red tape. it will take the financial power generated by big business to keep those regulations from becoming so restrictive as to make them impossible to follow.

Are you saying we would be better off with staying illegal for the people or severely impeded the cannabis freedom they experience such as "5x5 if you own property" just because business has to ride the backs of the people in 2012 to get the deal they want? That an all or nothing approach in 2012 is right because of what you state in this reply?

no matter how many times you reword the question, you can't escape the fact that selling anything is business and demanding that business stay small is just a special interest pipe dream.

I am not even suggesting a business initiative in 2012. I am advocating a safe simple prop 215 like step that any voter any place can read and understand.

I think we still need to work of separating concepts here.

I'm suggesting a simplified initiative that all Californians can support who support cannabis reform.
I believe you are arguing for an compound initiative that does "it" all or does nothing but waste another election cycle like prop 19 did.

Am I correct so far?

I am promoting the radical idea of clearly establishing horticulture rights to cannabis for the human not-commercial citizen first so that we avoid a loss the next time we try and vote. We got our ass kicked if you recall.

Fine with me if there is a second separate Initiative authorizing business.. It's that mixing them all together is gamble that we will more than likely lose than win.
Again I point to Prop 19 in 2010

Is it not better to gain a little than to lose it all once again?

This is not about business it's about cannabis freedom for the people first as a safe step.

These issues really are separable issues and I am pointing out the score of this ball game and it's Two Strikes for all in ones and home run for "For the people." Do you think a third all or nothing is the right next step?
Are we willing to lose in 2012 because we cannot pass an all or nothing business likes?

Perhaps it is time to Bunt! At least we can get a runner on first base and stay in the game!

I look forward to our discussion. Thanks for keeping the conversation going.

 

[undertheice]

Legalizing for the people is separate from business.

you still don't get it, business is a part of the people. we each conduct business every day. it isn't some mythical beast or alien power structure, it is merely people engaged in the process of buying and selling things. whether it is goods or services, whether it is just two people or an enterprise employing thousands, it is all business. you seem so bothered over the 25 sq. ft. limit and the idea that someone is going to make a business of this thing, but at the same time you are admitting that business is exactly what you are talking about. unless you and your friends plan on smoking pounds of weed all by yourself, you plan on selling at least some of that bounty and that is business.

this bizarre idea that "the people" consists only of the little guy is a load of crap. "the people" is also ceos and wall street bankers, it isn't just people like you. even that buffoon in the oval office is one of "the people" once he relinquishes his powers. until then he is just another cog in the bureaucracy, one of them, the enemies of the individual. i realize that the modern liberal's concept of "the people" doesn't include anyone above a certain net worth, but they are citizens as well and deserve the same rights as joe blow in the studio apartment down the street. they deserve the right to use their assets as they see fit and if that includes having a thousand acres of weed grown and sold, then so be it. anything less is not legalization.

 

[Ernst]

you still don't get it, business is a part of the people. we each conduct business every day. it isn't some mythical beast or alien power structure, it is merely people engaged in the process of buying and selling things. whether it is goods or services, whether it is just two people or an enterprise employing thousands, it is all business. you seem so bothered over the 25 sq. ft. limit and the idea that someone is going to make a business of this thing, but at the same time you are admitting that business is exactly what you are talking about. unless you and your friends plan on smoking pounds of weed all by yourself, you plan on selling at least some of that bounty and that is business.

this bizarre idea that "the people" consists only of the little guy is a load of crap. "the people" is also ceos and wall street bankers, it isn't just people like you. even that buffoon in the oval office is one of "the people" once he relinquishes his powers. until then he is just another cog in the bureaucracy, one of them, the enemies of the individual. i realize that the modern liberal's concept of "the people" doesn't include anyone above a certain net worth, but they are citizens as well and deserve the same rights as joe blow in the studio apartment down the street. they deserve the right to use their assets as they see fit and if that includes having a thousand acres of weed grown and sold, then so be it. anything less is not legalization.

I'm not having a problem with the separation of the two but it looks like you are clinging to it for dear life.

If we say this applies to private citizens not engaged in commercial activities we are limiting scope to just the people not in business.
Horticulture rights is what I am saying..
The right to grow and breed plants as a private citizen.

On the chance I am wrong please explain why business and private citizens are one thing.

 

[Ernst]

I open it up to anyone..

Is a private citizen the same thing as a business?

Are they separable by legal definition?

This is the conversation we all have to have and on a State level.

 

[doc111]

I open it up to anyone..

Is a private citizen the same thing as a business?

Are they separable by legal definition?

This is the conversation we all have to have and on a State level.

This gets really murky. I'm not a lawyer so I can't say what the "legal" definition says about it. You have to remember that the U.S. is the main signatory to an international treaty banning cannabis. The problems facing repeal of prohibition at ANY level, be it state, local, or federal, are too numerous to discuss here. You can't backdoor this issue. You can't sneak it in under the guise of something else. You can't get it in on a technicality. I believe cannabis will be re-legalized eventually but I believe we are still quite a ways off from that. How long, I can't say. You don't just live in a state my friend. I'd wager you live in a town/city, perhaps a township, Parish or county. You also live in a country, and all of these governing bodies have some level of say and control over these types of issues, whether we like it or not. They are not going to allow an intoxicant to be unregulated. Not gonna happen. I wish it weren't so, believe me, I do, but it's pie in the sky my friend. Every gov. agency is going to want their slice of the pie and the agencies who profit from prohibition will need something to replace cannabis with. Don't underestimate the opposition. They are passionate about their beliefs as well, and have mouths to feed just like you and I. This isn't going to be an easy fight, and I admire your apparent dedication and tenacity, but we as a group need to become more cohesive and find some common ground on issues which would be sensible, and pallatable to most parties involved. This isn't just about California, and the rest of the world is looking at Cali and watching how this is all going down. You guys will set the tone for the conversation that needs to happen before any serious attempt at decrim. or repeal of prohibition can occur.

 

[Ernst]

Nice reply.

One point both the Anti-Cannabis and the Pro-Cannabis can agree on is that cannabis industry already exists.
I had a conversation with a local land owner-farmer and we exchange views.

The only thing the Anti-cannabis people can do is keep up that local jurisdiction of not-in-my-neighbourhood. Since cannabis industry is growing everywhere it can already.
I explained how the anti-cannabis people could have an impact of the direction cannabis legalization is going. That by supporting a "for the people only" approach that supports "horticulture" that it would have an impact on how we finally come to terms with our de facto-legalization because of prop-215.
He was rather shocked but I could tell he realized the ship was sailing already.
The other thing he showed shock about was that he supported keeping cannabis away from under age people and he supported stopping the gangs making money from cannabis. When I pointed out that slowly the supply lines would thin and the profit would fade if people could go to a shop and buy cannabis and that a shop asks for I.D. he was really shaken.
I can't tell you if he had a change of mind but I can tell you he understood the folly of not in my neighbourhood.

So then, What happens if an Initiative passes that instructs our State to grant Horticulture rights to all citizens not just Medical. Because you can't say that we will never have horticulture rights.
could such a move create a foundation on which all future laws can be built?

I see a simple easy to understand initiative as the only way.
Perhaps the compromise that seals the deal isn't on control alone maybe it is one on economics.

Maybe the way to take that first United step is to support legalizing for people and skip all the rest.
Regulation is going to happen but establishing that everyone has a right is the way to go rather than Dry County- Wet County as prop 19 did. In my opinion.

I live in Red County central. Capital of HomeLand Security for California. My family jas lived in the are since 1880's I understand.
My Father fought for civil rights and farm labor right along side of people like César Estrada Chávez.
So I know what the struggle is about and my suggestion is we dump the profit motive and focus on rights for people.

But tell me what chance do we have if we try another all in one initiative again?
If we make it grand for business anti-drug pusher folks will vote no.
If we make it a lame-horse for Horticulturists such as 5x5 if you own property we will vote no again.
What is the focus that every one can agree on if not rights for people and skip business?

Thanks for continuing the conversation.

 

[Ernst]

You know I have read everything written here and thousands of articles before.

I believe that those telling us we cannot pass a simple 215 like initiative to grant rights to cannabis to all Californians are blowing smoke up our butts.

I believe that money interests are not going to help us wake up and legalize. The big question is are they working against us?

Is it possible to pass a simple Initiative that grants rights to Californians as private citizens to cultivate and practice proper horticulture with the cannabis plant that doesn't require a jumble of legal wrangling that going up against the Federal laws requires.
Private non-commercial horticulture is very doable.
I believe it is the only thing moderate conservatives will support that we liberal pro-cannabis people can also support.

If a person can have medical use then they damn well can have private use.

I believe we are being lied to and used. We need to get a simple first step on the books that we can build on and forget an all in one initiative that serves business more than it serves freedom for the people.

Forget the burdon of carring the needs of cannabis industry this next vote or the next vote and focus on simple language anyone can read for themselves!

For the People first in 2012!

 

[a mongo frog]

why cant we just keep it medical ? for fuck sake. keep it medical.

 

[Ernst]

Medical will not go away.

But how about something like prop 215 that gives non-medical rights and also eliminates plant limits for medical?
Oh add protect you on the job too.

We will get what we fight for..
We get nothing if we don't fight!