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

Would you vote for a people only legalization in 2012 and not business?

  • Yes

    Votes: 57 90.5%
  • No

    Votes: 6 9.5%

  • Total voters
    63

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Look don't turn this into "Ernst is the problem"
Says the guy who calls everyone who disagrees with him greedy.

You're advocating something that only benefits people who grow their own bud and ignores the majority. I think those people should have the right to do their thing and not be messed with by law enforcement. But I also think everyone else deserves protection too. Unfortunately you've been blinded by your own self interest.

By the poll numbers you two are the minority
Yeah, because you framed the question in a misleading way and this is a forum filled with growers.

If it was a statewide poll that framed the question in a non-biased way, what you are supporting would get about 2% of the vote statewide. Of course you don't care about what the people of California think. This is about what's best for Ernest.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
WARNING: SARCASM ALERT

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.
Of course, how could I have been so stupid. This isn't about passing a law so Ernest can sell dime bags out of his house. This is about Ernest's freedom to grow 200 pounds a year for personal use and so he can "give it away".

It makes perfect sense. Everyone who wants to start a legal business and earn a living is an evil capitalist pig. Real people with integrity want to grow 200 pounds for "personal use" and to "give away", then since they are poor from giving away their 200 pounds they qualify for government assistance too!

If only those evil people who want to work for a living would get out of his way.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Says the guy who calls everyone who disagrees with him greedy.
.
LOL Your first like is redundant.

The first post I read today 4111..

I need to review since this is going to help you to see the light so I'll do my best in a few minutes.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
I'll stop with the hate when you stop with the sleazy lies. You brought my contempt on yourself.
Well politics is entertaining so to keep the readership interested we will keep the what do you call it; "Sleazy Lies."

Lets see what we can do besides defending our individual sand castles.

The goal is freedom for us all. On that we should all agree.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Dan Kone > Says the guy who calls everyone who disagrees with him greedy.

You're advocating something that only benefits people who grow their own bud and ignores the majority. I think those people should have the right to do their thing and not be messed with by law enforcement. But I also think everyone else deserves protection too. Unfortunately you've been blinded by your own self interest.

-----


That suggests I should defend. Well, lets talk about my greed.

What is that?
Am I selling the 5 or 6 thousand AAA seeds I have in the seed box and making bank? Uh.. No not yet.
Am I selling produce at $50 a gram because it's hyped up and extreemly profitable? No I have my jars full and am not even growing for a whole season. Medical use.
Am I representing people who are important to be friends with so I get to be part of the "In Crowd." No I'm actually a loner eccentric.

So I have greed. I want all the attention by posting as many posts as I can. Even to the level of computers posting Spam.

---------------------

Dan Kone > Yeah, because you framed the question in a misleading way and this is a forum filled with growers.

Framed the question in a misleading way? What is the question?

The Question is "Would you vote for a people only legalization in 2012 and not business?"

How is this misleading? But, lets skip that for the moment.



Dan Kone > If it was a state-wide poll that framed the question in a non-biased way, what you are supporting would get about 2% of the vote state-wide. Of course you don't care about what the people of California think. This is about what's best for Ernst.

Well so far what I have experienced State Wide is that the new Prop 19 crew's forums are blocking open discussion.

What is best for Ernst?

Okay lets go there.. That's cool.

What would be best for Ernst who lives in Turlock California and out in the open everyday as a known cannabis person.
I would benefit from a State level law that grants me rights to grow plants outside wherever I live.
I currently cannot grow any plants outside without being evicted for it. So yeah for me to have a state level law protecting me would really do something good for me and everyone else.
That would be Horticulture rights.

Now do have any other charges? I can't think of anything else I do. No sales. A little private medical to medical seed trades happen from time to time. No parties or partying with the weed I grow. I am afraid of being arrested.
So No crimes for partying with the weed I grow would help me if I do get out and make new friends. I'm sure I would go to Grow-Shows and Grow-Parties. So yeah I would benefit from freedom.

Have I skipped any of your points?

-------------------

What I am suggesting is because Proposition 215 was a popular initiative and it passed with over 50% we cannot afford to ignore the power of Cannabis freedom for the People.
That a Prop 215 type initiative can lay the foundation of future cannabis business rights is a serious concern we all can support.

It has been said that the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. I believe we should be able to take steps when we cannot ride.
Propositions 19 prove that there is no easy ride to cannabis freedom for all.
That we are then forced to take steps is the wisdom of being dedicated to making the journey.

Dan the Monkey on our legalization Backs is Business.

I live here in Turlock. Come visit. This is a town that has the most Churches per capita in not only the USA but the world.
Let me tell you what the No voters here are about.
First, "Not in my neighbourhood" is their mantra. They are mostly talking about middle class white neighbourhoods. You should see how nice their old style homes and neighbourhoods are on the East Side of the tracks are. I walk to the farmlands for exercise so I walk through these idyllic streets to go East.
So White fearful wealthy voters want to keep their white wealthy idyllic concept of America safe.
They will vote against raising minimum wage and vote to increase the police force.
They will vote against dispensaries and vote for more prisons.
They will vote against Unions and donate to right wing political causes who work to repeal reproductive rights of woman.

They sleep well knowing that at night the police cars station themselves to respond quicker to their geographic area than the West Side of the Tracks.

Now I live on the tracks so I'm right in between the two realities and the West Side is where the East Side doesn't want people to have rights to grow cannabis.
Mexicans and poor white folks along with every other average wage earning type populate the West Side.

So What will Cannabis freedom of a 5x5 nature do for The West Siders? Absolutely nothing. This area will still enforce oppression on the West Side.
Dan only full rights to Horticulture on the State level and not the Jurisdictions will turn the West Side free!

So Dan when you say that we have to carry an all or nothing again in 2012 or beyond you are saying the West Side deserves what it has and nothing more.

We can stop importing from the Mexican cartels if we have Cannabis freedom, who by the way are now shipping to Australia. We can grow in the sun under full cannabis Horticulture freedom if we push a first safe step.

So Dan, What is it that stops you from joining the West Side>? Is it that you only believe in the East Side of America?


I doubt this East Side Community will support any legalization so my measure will be the ratio of Yes vote vs No votes; however, the East Side of America voted for prop 215 so our best hope in this is that they will vote for a prop 215 style freedom for people and not business again.

Drug Pushing is still their fear. Business means loss of control for the East side of America so Business is a lead weight for passing Cannabis freedom. Look at the two prop 19's

So how about it cannabis people? Shall we Turn The West Side of America green for the People first or take a chance the only Green of Cannabis in 2013 is the Cash in the drawers of legal Cannabis businesses?


-----------------

That's a good reply Dan.. Free of most razing.. How about it can you separate the desire for a slam dunk all in one ready made industry version of cannabis freedom and stand by us West Siders?

What do you say?
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
I am now going backward through to reply to everyone.

Thanks for participating each and every one.

History-Channel-Marijuana.jpg
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Says the guy who calls everyone who disagrees with him greedy.

You're advocating something that only benefits people who grow their own bud and ignores the majority. I think those people should have the right to do their thing and not be messed with by law enforcement. But I also think everyone else deserves protection too. Unfortunately you've been blinded by your own self interest.



Yeah, because you framed the question in a misleading way and this is a forum filled with growers.

If it was a statewide poll that framed the question in a non-biased way, what you are supporting would get about 2% of the vote statewide. Of course you don't care about what the people of California think. This is about what's best for Ernest.
Dan shouldn't the Majority be the ones who can grow their own? Are you suggesting that the majority are those who sell to those who cannot grow?

Oh you might be saying freedom to BUY cannabis.. Dan We already have that. What we don't have is the right for everyone to Grow their own.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
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. :dunce:



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.

Well maybe we should organize and then start raising funds.

I am free to work for 2012. I am willing to live on the slimmest of incomes to work for 2012 full time.

And yeah that there could be a Wall some place we can erect where each donor name is chiselled into like the Vietnam War memorial. We would after all be ending a very long and costly war.

Maybe some wealthy people would help or we could collect donations until it's done.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
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.
---------------------------------------------------------

Quote Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
Greed or Weed?

Reply by Ernst Berg

I cannot come up with a blog to counter so I will divide your reply up and reply piecemeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
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.

>> How is Horticulture and Private trade prohibition? This is a totally backward position from all I can tell.



> 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.


>> Does it free you form Death? If so you have the better idea if not then you are deluded.


> 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.


>> This has more to do with discrediting me personally than debating the Legalizing for the people first.



> 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.

>> So the doctrine of the Bankers is the God we should worship. I remind you that people are the basis of society. I remind you that there are already business selling Cannabis.

> So you are crying the cry of Freedom for the Banks first and The People can take what is left.
I wonder what Hitler has written on the subject.


>> 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.

> We are talking about legalizing for us all to practice proper Horticulture with Cannabis and Trade freely in non-commercial ways. This is called Cannabis freedom for the People.
What War are you fighting?


---------------------------------------

I appreciate that the No people are posting. However I find it ironic that some how No Cannabis Freedom for the People is the Freedom we all need?

Let us stop and think. Do we want the State Level right to put Cannabis in our Gardens?
Do we all want the ability to share Cannabis with friends and Family?
Do we want to seed save and trade Cannabis seeds?
Do we want to breed heirloom varieties and grow out extra plants to refresh seed stock even though we basically toss the plant produce on the compost pile after we get the seeds?

Dare to want more than the right to buy cannabis. Grant yourself full horticulture rights and private non-commercial trade rights.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Wikipeda The Horticulture Entry. After that I will post the Cultivation Data.

-----------------------------------
Horticulture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hybrid tomatoes growth by hydroponic methods on straw bales


Horticulture is the industry and science of plant cultivation including the process of preparing soil for the planting of seeds, tubers, or cuttings.[1] Horticulturists work and conduct research in the disciplines of plant propagation and cultivation, crop production, plant breeding and genetic engineering, plant biochemistry, and plant physiology. The work involves fruits, berries, nuts, vegetables, flowers, trees, shrubs, and turf. Horticulturists work to improve crop yield, quality, nutritional value, and resistance to insects, diseases, and environmental stresses. Horticulture usually refers to gardening on a smaller scale, while agriculture refers to the large-scale cultivation of crops.[2]
Contents

[hide]

[edit] Etymology

The word horticulture is modeled after agriculture, and comes from the Latin hortus "garden"[3] and cultūra "cultivation", from cultus, the perfect passive participle of the verb colō "I cultivate".[4]
[edit] Areas of study

Horticulture involves eight areas of study, which can be grouped into two broad sections - ornamentals and edibles:

  • Arboriculture is the study of, and the selection, planting, care, and removal of, individual trees, shrubs, vines, and other perennial woody plants.
  • Floriculture includes the production and marketing of floral crops.
  • Landscape horticulture includes the production, marketing and maintenance of landscape plants.
  • Olericulture includes the production and marketing of vegetables.
  • Pomology includes the production and marketing of fruits.
  • Viticulture includes the production and marketing of grapes.
  • Oenology includes all aspects of wine and winemaking.
  • Postharvest physiology involves maintaining the quality of and preventing the spoilage of horticultural crops.
Horticulturists can work in industry, government or educational institutions or private collections. They can be cropping systems engineers, wholesale or retail business managers, propagators and tissue culture specialists (fruits, vegetables, ornamentals, and turf), crop inspectors, crop production advisers, extension specialists, plant breeders, research scientists, and of course, teachers.
Disciplines which complement horticulture include biology, botany, entomology, chemistry, mathematics, genetics, physiology, statistics, computer science, and communications, garden design, planting design. Plant science and horticulture courses include: plant materials, plant propagation, tissue culture, crop production, post-harvest handling, plant breeding, pollination management, crop nutrition, entomology, plant pathology, economics, and business. Some careers in horticultural science require a masters (MS) or doctoral (PhD) degree.
Horticulture is practiced in many gardens, "plant growth centres" and nurseries. Activities in nurseries range from preparing seeds and cuttings to growing fully mature plants. These are often sold or transferred to ornamental gardens or market gardens.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horticulture
===============

Tillage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Cultivation)
Jump to: navigation, search

Cultivating after early rain.


Tillage is the agricultural preparation of the soil by mechanical agitation of various types, such as digging, stirring, and overturning. Examples of human-powered tilling methods using hand tools include shovelling, picking, mattock work, hoeing, and raking. Examples of draft-animal-powered or mechanized work include ploughing (overturning with moldboards or chiseling with chisel shanks), rototilling, rolling with cultipackers or other rollers, harrowing, and cultivating with cultivator shanks (teeth). Small-scale gardening and farming, for household food production or small business production, tends to use the smaller-scale methods above, whereas medium- to large-scale farming tends to use the larger-scale methods. There is a fluid continuum, however. Any type of gardening or farming, but especially larger-scale commercial types, may also use low-till or no-till methods as well.
Tillage is often classified into two types, primary and secondary. There is no strict boundary between them so much as a loose distinction between tillage that is deeper and thorougher (primary) and tillage that is shallower and sometimes more selective of location (secondary). Primary tillage such as ploughing tends to produce a rough surface finish, whereas secondary tillage tends to produce a smoother surface finish, such as that required to make a good seedbed for many crops. Harrowing and rototilling often combine primary and secondary tillage into one operation.
"Tillage" can also mean the land that is tilled. The word "cultivation" has several senses that overlap substantially with those of "tillage". In a general context, both can refer to agriculture generally. Within agriculture, both can refer to any of the kinds of soil agitation described above. Additionally, "cultivation" or "cultivating" may refer to an even narrower sense of shallow, selective secondary tillage of row crop fields that kills weeds while sparing the crop plants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultivation======================


When we are being offered Cultivation we are being offered the dirt plants grow in not the growing the plants itself.


It was a clever deception that prop 19 offered us Cultivation of a 5x5 or 25 sqft space and we assumed we could grow plants as if we had rights.
The truth is Prop 19 tried to Trick us into thinking we would be free when all it was actually doing is establishing legal Drug Dealing.


Legal Drug Dealing is something California doesn't want at this time in our history and still we already have dispensaries and delivery services everywhere.


Legalize for the People First and let us see how it will go before we try and push legal drug dealing down the throats of the voters so they can have rights to the dirt plants grow in.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Okay You two..

You have a full agenda here. It's on you No people to tell us why Cannabis Freedom for the People first is dead wrong.

Also I welcome you to come out of the Cannabis closet and let us know who you really are.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Dan shouldn't the Majority be the ones who can grow their own? Are you suggesting that the majority are those who sell to those who cannot grow?

Oh you might be saying freedom to BUY cannabis.. Dan We already have that. What we don't have is the right for everyone to Grow their own.
No, the majority can't/don't grow their own. Not everyone has the space to do it, or they have kids, or simply don't have the time.

How do you figure we have the rights to buy cannabis but not grow it?
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Okay You two..

You have a full agenda here. It's on you No people to tell us why Cannabis Freedom for the People first is dead wrong.
You can call a pidgin a duck, but it still doesn't quack. You're taking something that is not legalization, calling it legalization, then saying anyone who's against your personal interests is against legalization. I'm in favor of legalization. I'm just not in favor of the Ernest want to grow/sell out of his house law.

Also I welcome you to come out of the Cannabis closet and let us know who you really are
Sorry officer, not going to happen.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
No, the majority can't/don't grow their own. Not everyone has the space to do it, or they have kids, or simply don't have the time.

How do you figure we have the rights to buy cannabis but not grow it?

You failed to mention the biggest problem is the don't have the right to.

Was that on purpose?

You do agree with me the common citizen who grows cannabis faces prison don't you?
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
All that effort and today you are a lame-duck about it all?

Ignorance is no defence Dan. Are you ignorant or just running away from the best debate you will ever have?

After all that you two are all hot air? pffft.... Wow.



You can call a pidgin a duck, but it still doesn't quack. You're taking something that is not legalization, calling it legalization, then saying anyone who's against your personal interests is against legalization. I'm in favor of legalization. I'm just not in favor of the Ernest want to grow/sell out of his house law.



Sorry officer, not going to happen.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
You failed to mention the biggest problem is the don't have the right to.

Was that on purpose?

You do agree with me the common citizen who grows cannabis faces prison don't you?
You ignored the question. Why have a law that protects growers only and not the common cannabis consumer? Most people who consume cannabis do not grow. The law you advocate doesn't protect the majority of cannabis consumers who buy their cannabis.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Are you ignorant or just running away from the best debate you will ever have?

After all that you two are all hot air? pffft.... Wow.
I'm pretty far from ignorant. There are a lot of things people could say about me, but stupid, uninformed, and ignorant are not among them. This is far from the best debate I've ever had. It's not even a debate. You are too simple to have a real discussion about this. You keep avoiding the fact that you law only helps a small group of people and ignores the needs of the majority. Also that it does not benefit non-smokers at all. Non-smokers represent the majority of voters in California. It's unlikely that any of them will support a law that does not do anything positive for them.

You are delusional, transparently selfish, and a simpleton Ernest. What you're advocating is worse than anything Richard Lee could dream up.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
You ignored the question. Why have a law that protects growers only and not the common cannabis consumer? Most people who consume cannabis do not grow. The law you advocate doesn't protect the majority of cannabis consumers who buy their cannabis.
We have to work on the State level. Grant the Slaves rights to crops.

In this case Crop is Cannabis and slaves are the consumer.
Am I wrong?
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
I'm pretty far from ignorant. There are a lot of things people could say about me, but stupid, uninformed, and ignorant are not among them. This is far from the best debate I've ever had. It's not even a debate. You are too simple to have a real discussion about this. You keep avoiding the fact that you law only helps a small group of people and ignores the needs of the majority. Also that it does not benefit non-smokers at all. Non-smokers represent the majority of voters in California. It's unlikely that any of them will support a law that does not do anything positive for them.

You are delusional, transparently selfish, and a simpleton Ernest. What you're advocating is worse than anything Richard Lee could dream up.
What the hell. You are probably right.

I'm not in the frame of mind to counter.

I don't understand what your locus is. I will defer to compassion.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
We have to work on the State level. Grant the Slaves rights to crops.

In this case Crop is Cannabis and slaves are the consumer.
Am I wrong?
I have no idea. You really aren't saying much. You're also ignoring the main point as usual. I'll keep repeating myself until you address it.

The majority of cannabis consumers are NOT growers. The majority of Californian's are NOT growers.

Why have a law that ignores the majority of cannabis consumers needs? Why on earth would the majority of people in California vote for this law?

You're pushing for a law that benefits you and a handful of people while leaving everyone else out in the cold.
 
Top