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

[Ernst]

My .02...

Vote with your feet and take to the streets! Get people at State Capitals and City Halls and tell them to light up.
Waiting for politicians to "give freedom" might work, but people have to take their freedom sometimes. This is one of those times.

Organize or go to a 4/20 protest. Bring signs, call newspapers, shoot video and post, bring friends. Stop begging for freedom.

ACTION!

Organize the people before we send them out!
I worked the initiative for CCI and without an organized network people will fade against the pressures.

This is a hollow suggestion.

 

[Ernst]

How about you reader?

Freedom for the non-commercial use like prop 215 or we stay illegal for as long as it takes to make commercial sales protected under law?

Greed or Weed? You pick.

 

[Dan Kone]

My .02...

Vote with your feet and take to the streets! Get people at State Capitals and City Halls and tell them to light up.
Waiting for politicians to "give freedom" might work, but people have to take their freedom sometimes. This is one of those times.

Organize or go to a 4/20 protest. Bring signs, call newspapers, shoot video and post, bring friends. Stop begging for freedom.

ACTION!

Protesting will do nothing. Collecting signatures to get something on the ballot is the best option. Even then I've come to the conclusion that no matter what people do, it'll still be illegal federally.

 

[Dan Kone]

Well Dan, Think about it.

I assure you my opinion is well thought out.

Maybe we will be right here in 2013 discussing this again if we push another prop 19 all or nothing when we all could be free since people already have cannabis shops but the people still go to prison for cannabis horticulture.

What you are advocating isn't legalization.

Greed over Freedom? Better to take it in simple steps then to fail again.

You're the one being greedy here. You want a law that helps you personally and leaves the majority of people who consume cannabis unprotected. Shame on you.

 

[Dan Kone]

How about you reader?

Freedom for the non-commercial use like prop 215 or we stay illegal for as long as it takes to make commercial sales protected under law?

Greed or Weed? You pick.

Your form of "legalization" makes everyone who buys or sells cannabis a criminal. The majority of people buy their cannabis and would still be criminals under what you're supporting. That isn't legalization. It's selfish.

You can keep ignoring that fact all you want but it'll never go away.

 

[Chad Sexington]

If it can be legal to people, why shouldn't it be legal to big business. As long as I can grow my own, it doesn't bother me. I can grow my own potatoes, yet others can grow hectres upon hectres of potatoes. Not a big deal.

 

[cruzer101]

I am a patient here in California and voted no on total legalization. But just like many other voters I voted yes on taxing the product. My thinking behind this is that there is no way anything is going to get passed without benefiting the majority of the voters. A good portion of the people who don't use or grow were swayed by the fact the state needs money, Tax law passed. The state is now seeing income. A small portion of the people who are growers voted no for obvious reasons and I would think most users (still a small portion) voted yes.

I think its the non users that need to be swayed, even with all the propaganda in the past they have personal experiences with pot and realize it is not as dangerous as they have been told. They just need a reason. Well, the money the state receives now from the dispensaries could keep law enforcement or emergency personal employed, Keep schools from closing or reopen parks. I think that is first base. Win the vote for total legalization by benefiting the majority. Yes, we are all greedy, work on that. I am surprised you got any yes votes at all here at a growers fourm.

 

[Ernst]

I assure you my opinion is well thought out.



What you are advocating isn't legalization.



You're the one being greedy here. You want a law that helps you personally and leaves the majority of people who consume cannabis unprotected. Shame on you.

Dan we both can agree on Legalization.
If I use some algebra such as A+B = C where the result is all the things we want to do we can accomplish C by accomplishing A and B separately.

Dan the score is two strikes against the all or nothing Initiative. Fact Dan and One Home Run for Prop 215 a for the people and not commerce.

So we should try the A this time where A = Legalize for the people and wait on B which is Commerce which is the big bitch the Federal Government is down on.

So Are you saying Dan that since you want C that we the people cannot have A and then later B so we can get to C?

What is is Dan Legalization for the people or Profits for industry?

Dan is it Greed over Weed? Are you willing to shit on us all to make Bank Dan?
A+B=C but we need to work on A first; Legalization for the People because the last time I checked a Corporation doesn't smoke weed or go to prison.

 

[Dan Kone]

Sorry, but it's hard to take you seriously when you are clearly advocating something that benefits you and a small percentage of cannabis consumers while leaving the overwhelming majority out in the cold.

Why do you think the overwhelming majority of cannabis consumers, the people who don't/can't grow their own are less worthy of legal protection than you are?

Why the false choice of having a law that is just like prop 19 or a law that only benefits a small portion of people leaving everyone else out in the dark? Why not a law that is fair for everyone?

Why the hell would people who are not cannabis consumers vote for a law that benefits them in no way but strengthens black market drug dealing instead of a law where they benefit through tax dollar generation.

You are clearly just looking out for yourself and could care less about the majority of smokers and non-smokers alike. This is California, not the republic of Ernst. We need a law that is beneficial to everyone, not just you.

What you propose is both selfish and incredibly naive.

 

[Ernst]

Your form of "legalization" makes everyone who buys or sells cannabis a criminal. The majority of people buy their cannabis and would still be criminals under what you're supporting. That isn't legalization. It's selfish.

You can keep ignoring that fact all you want but it'll never go away.

No no.. Retailers other than dispensaries are already criminals except for Dispensaries. Nothing would change there.

What would change is Horticulture and private trade rights for us all.

People would be Legal to trade between themselves.

Now opening a Super Mart of weed will just have to wait.

I would think all us small time growers would love this since the big box weed sellers would have to wait.

Who is greedy Dan? This looks more and more like A is the right thing doesn't it.

Think if I can trade with you legally then I can grow the Big Bud and You can grow the Purple Haze and we can exchange bud legally.
As long as our behaviour doesn't violate the commerce laws we would be good to go.

So if you are in favour of the little guy getting a crack at weed first then you want to work with me and Legalize the A first as a safe first step.

Remember TWO STRIKES FOR PROP 19 AND A HOME RUN For legalizing for the people first Prop 215.

So Dan Change your vote yet?

 

[undertheice]

Greed or Weed?

even as you posts reach spam-like proportions, you still manage to give me a laugh now and then. you're practically asking for this prohibition to endure for decades to come. if the choice really is between greed and weed, greed will win out every time. greed is universal. it is nothing more than man's natural self-interest run amok and the man without self-interest soon dies of neglect and want. no one does anything unless they believe they will receive something in return. even the thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours i invest in various charitable endeavors each year are not entirely given for the sake of altruism. i get something in return for my efforts. it makes me feel good and lets me believe that the individual can eventually make some difference.

all of your altruistic delusions are little more than a sham. read through the posts you have inundated us with in the last month or so and embrace the greed you've shown to us all. the calls for increased taxation of the rich and caps on personal wealth practically scream of greed, less for them means more for you. the idea of removing business from the new industry of marijuana production and sales is designed to enrich the community of smaller growers, of which you are a part. the very concepts of forced communism and socialism are rooted in envy, that kissing cousin of greed, and pressed forward by the powers of authoritarian greed. one of the greatest hypocrisies of modern liberalism is that its entire platform is based on selfishness and jealousy, the selfish lust of the political elite for power and the mindless jealousy of the masses for that which others have earned, even as it decries those base tendencies. though you try to occupy the moral high ground and claim that all your efforts are to the benefit of society as a whole, the liberties you would erode through your actions diminish the worth of the lives you claim they would preserve. today's liberalism is a game of quantity over quality, the ends justifying the means and the illusions of safety and equality. one has to wonder if any of you are so naive as to believe that these tactics have any chance of overcoming that most basic of human tendencies, self-interest, or if it ever can or should be overcome.

understanding that greed is an integral part of humanity allows us to understand what must go into crafting any legalization legislation, everyone must win. weed will become a business when legalized and profits will be made, there are simply too many people who already partake and that demand will be met. insisting that any portion of the population be removed from that marketplace is not only constitutionally abusive, it is a sure-fire way to doom that legislation to defeat. remember, everyone must win to some degree. just as in the larger picture, legalization depends on harnessing the inherent greed of the population. in response to my last post in this thread you claimed "It's this idea that a world is it's economics is the thing that is insane" and i wholeheartedly agree. no society is solely defined by its business community, but that community is an integral part of the whole. the success of a society, especially in today's world, is dependent on the growth and management of its business and business does not grow through punishment. it is encouragement, incentive and confidence that allow business to grow and the rest of society along with it. restriction, over-regulation, usurious taxation and, when folks like you have their way, exclusion are the preferred forms of punishment in the arsenal of the liberal agenda and these are the self-defeating tactics of the liberal establishment's short-sightedness. these are the punishments inflicted on the business community to satisfy the whims of mob mentality and to enrich the representatives of the state. the more intelligent, enlightened and constitutionally correct approach is to consider restriction and regulation only as means to avoid the direct abuse of others, to tax only in an equitable manner and never to exclude anyone from any portion of the legitimate marketplace. but of course we know there is nothing intelligent or enlightened about our unresponsive representatives and they consider the constitution to be only an archaic and irrelevant piece of history.



yes, i know i prattled on a bit. i just have only so much time to post here and i'm probably a bit too high to be totally coherent. i pop in here for a few minutes from time to time and i find it rather disturbing how casually some folks throw around ideas that run so contrary to the ideals of freedom. some of you are all too willing to toss out the very tenets that have afforded us our many liberties and seem intent on demanding that the rest of us follow suit. unless the most basic rights of everyone are respected, the rights of none of us can be considered secure. i keep on seeing these posts that seem to indicate that some folks believe we can finally reach a measure of comfort for everyone if only some are forced to give a bit more, but that isn't what it's all about. no one can be guaranteed a home, a decent living, a full stomach every night or even that they will be alive in the morning and there is no end of the road to aim for. no person or institution can ensure us anything other than the right to freely choose how we may go about getting these things for ourselves and that freedom of choice is the one thing we must hold onto most dearly.

 

[Dan Kone]

understanding that greed is an integral part of humanity allows us to understand what must go into crafting any legalization legislation, everyone must win. weed will become a business when legalized and profits will be made, there are simply too many people who already partake and that demand will be met.

I'd like to know who he thinks is going to pay for this to get on the ballot and the advertising required to get it passed.

I guess in his deluded imagination everyone in California is going to donate $100 they worked for so we can pass a law that allows Ernst to sell dimebags out of his house. That should go over well.

insisting that any portion of the population be removed from that marketplace is not only constitutionally abusive, it is a sure-fire way to doom that legislation to defeat. remember, everyone must win to some degree. just as in the larger picture, legalization depends on harnessing the inherent greed of the population.

Not only is that abusive to sellers/buyers, it's abusive to tax payers in general. No one benefits from the law he wants except personal growers and people who want to sell bud out of their house. Everyone else loses. I guess as long as it protects Ernest, that's all that counts.

 

[Ernst]

Nope wrong again.

Why is Legalizing for the people only first prohibition?

I'll work with your novella as we chat.

even as you posts reach spam-like proportions, you still manage to give me a laugh now and then. you're practically asking for this prohibition to endure for decades to come. if the choice really is between greed and weed, greed will win out every time. greed is universal. it is nothing more than man's natural self-interest run amok and the man without self-interest soon dies of neglect and want. no one does anything unless they believe they will receive something in return. even the thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours i invest in various charitable endeavors each year are not entirely given for the sake of altruism. i get something in return for my efforts. it makes me feel good and lets me believe that the individual can eventually make some difference.

all of your altruistic delusions are little more than a sham. read through the posts you have inundated us with in the last month or so and embrace the greed you've shown to us all. the calls for increased taxation of the rich and caps on personal wealth practically scream of greed, less for them means more for you. the idea of removing business from the new industry of marijuana production and sales is designed to enrich the community of smaller growers, of which you are a part. the very concepts of forced communism and socialism are rooted in envy, that kissing cousin of greed, and pressed forward by the powers of authoritarian greed. one of the greatest hypocrisies of modern liberalism is that its entire platform is based on selfishness and jealousy, the selfish lust of the political elite for power and the mindless jealousy of the masses for that which others have earned, even as it decries those base tendencies. though you try to occupy the moral high ground and claim that all your efforts are to the benefit of society as a whole, the liberties you would erode through your actions diminish the worth of the lives you claim they would preserve. today's liberalism is a game of quantity over quality, the ends justifying the means and the illusions of safety and equality. one has to wonder if any of you are so naive as to believe that these tactics have any chance of overcoming that most basic of human tendencies, self-interest, or if it ever can or should be overcome.

understanding that greed is an integral part of humanity allows us to understand what must go into crafting any legalization legislation, everyone must win. weed will become a business when legalized and profits will be made, there are simply too many people who already partake and that demand will be met. insisting that any portion of the population be removed from that marketplace is not only constitutionally abusive, it is a sure-fire way to doom that legislation to defeat. remember, everyone must win to some degree. just as in the larger picture, legalization depends on harnessing the inherent greed of the population. in response to my last post in this thread you claimed "It's this idea that a world is it's economics is the thing that is insane" and i wholeheartedly agree. no society is solely defined by its business community, but that community is an integral part of the whole. the success of a society, especially in today's world, is dependent on the growth and management of its business and business does not grow through punishment. it is encouragement, incentive and confidence that allow business to grow and the rest of society along with it. restriction, over-regulation, usurious taxation and, when folks like you have their way, exclusion are the preferred forms of punishment in the arsenal of the liberal agenda and these are the self-defeating tactics of the liberal establishment's short-sightedness. these are the punishments inflicted on the business community to satisfy the whims of mob mentality and to enrich the representatives of the state. the more intelligent, enlightened and constitutionally correct approach is to consider restriction and regulation only as means to avoid the direct abuse of others, to tax only in an equitable manner and never to exclude anyone from any portion of the legitimate marketplace. but of course we know there is nothing intelligent or enlightened about our unresponsive representatives and they consider the constitution to be only an archaic and irrelevant piece of history.



yes, i know i prattled on a bit. i just have only so much time to post here and i'm probably a bit too high to be totally coherent. i pop in here for a few minutes from time to time and i find it rather disturbing how casually some folks throw around ideas that run so contrary to the ideals of freedom. some of you are all too willing to toss out the very tenets that have afforded us our many liberties and seem intent on demanding that the rest of us follow suit. unless the most basic rights of everyone are respected, the rights of none of us can be considered secure. i keep on seeing these posts that seem to indicate that some folks believe we can finally reach a measure of comfort for everyone if only some are forced to give a bit more, but that isn't what it's all about. no one can be guaranteed a home, a decent living, a full stomach every night or even that they will be alive in the morning and there is no end of the road to aim for. no person or institution can ensure us anything other than the right to freely choose how we may go about getting these things for ourselves and that freedom of choice is the one thing we must hold onto most dearly.

 

[Ernst]

Stop with the hate.

You look like an ass.

I'd like to know who he thinks is going to pay for this to get on the ballot and the advertising required to get it passed.

I guess in his deluded imagination everyone in California is going to donate $100 they worked for so we can pass a law that allows Ernst to sell dimebags out of his house. That should go over well.



Not only is that abusive to sellers/buyers, it's abusive to tax payers in general. No one benefits from the law he wants except personal growers and people who want to sell bud out of their house. Everyone else loses. I guess as long as it protects Ernest, that's all that counts.

 

[Ernst]

Look don't turn this into "Ernst is the problem"
By the poll numbers you two are the minority.

 

[Ernst]

Dear reader.

At this time there is a potential to grab market share for a few wealthy corporations if we keep Full Horticulture rights for the people a crime.

If you have to buy your weed because you cannot grow it profits will be higher than if you can just borrow a Quarter Pound from your neighbour till your own harvest.
People who want you and I to accept less that full Horticulture rights and private trade rights do so for profit motives.
They don't want the market flooded they don't want you free.

Go on Guys tell them why legalizing for the people first is a problem.

 

[Dan Kone]

No no.. Retailers other than dispensaries are already criminals except for Dispensaries. Nothing would change there.

What would change is Horticulture and private trade rights for us all.

People would be Legal to trade between themselves.

Ahhh. Here we go. The truth finally comes out.

You could give a shit less about people's rights. The only right you really want to fight for is the right for you to sell dimebags out of your house. This is all about what is best for Ernest.

You've got a lot of nerve calling me greedy. You're the real pig here.

You know you're too stupid to run your own legal business. You're afraid that everyone else will run more successful businesses. So what you want is legalize black market dealing, because it's easier. Even people like you can handle that.

Thanks for finally telling everyone what you really want.

When you say you don't want to address business, you're flat out lying. You just want to exclude every type of business except the one you think you're capable of running.

You are worse than Richard Lee. At least Richard Lee was willing to give something back to the community off the money he is making in the form of tax dollars. You want what is best for you alone.

Now opening a Super Mart of weed will just have to wait.

You are out of your mind if you think the majority of Californians would prefer legalized black market dealing in residential neighborhoods over cannabis dispensaries.

Who is greedy Dan?

You are. You're a selfish pig.

As long as our behaviour doesn't violate the commerce laws we would be good to go.

What you're proposing does violate commerce laws. Forget the type of product. If it were tomatoes it would still be illegal.

So if you are in favour of the little guy getting a crack at weed first then you want to work with me and Legalize the A first as a safe first step.

Bull shit. I would never work with you under any circumstances. You're a selfish pig and a stupid one at that. Nothing you suggest is the answer to anything. It's also incredibly unrealistic.

So Dan Change your vote yet?

lol. Exactly the opposite. I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt in the past. I've tried to look past the fact that you're incredibly stupid and have no idea what you are talking about. But now that I see what you're really up to I'm going to go with my initial instincts of despising you and everything you stand for.

edit- I realize some of the things I say in this post are harsh. But they are also well deserved.

 

[Dan Kone]

Stop with the hate.

You look like an ass.

I'll stop with the hate when you stop with the sleazy lies. You brought my contempt on yourself.

 

[Dan Kone]

Dear reader.

At this time there is a potential to grab market share for a few wealthy corporations if we keep Full Horticulture rights for the people a crime.

If you have to buy your weed because you cannot grow it profits will be higher than if you can just borrow a Quarter Pound from your neighbour till your own harvest.

What about the people who live in situations where they can't grow at all? Oh, that's right, you don't give a shit about them. You just want to sell dime bags out of your house.

 

[undertheice]

WARNING: SARCASM ALERT

What about the people who live in situations where they can't grow at all? Oh, that's right, you don't give a shit about them. You just want to sell dime bags out of your house.

i'd thought he'd made it quite clear what he was advocating, something he likes to call "horticultural rights". you know what that is, don't you? it's one of those new rights invented by the lunatic fringe that allows them to indulge their fantasies while convincing the rest of us that this is a debt owed to them by society. we are all supposed to believe that everyone needs to grow an unlimited number of plants, with no intention of selling any of their crop and regardless of who might own the property it is grown on. of course we have to completely redefine the concept of private property, if not abolish it altogether, but that's just capitalistic hogwash anyway. since he intends to include no provision for sales, he undoubtedly plans on growing several tons of high quality weed to simply give away and expects everyone else to do likewise.