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

sso

Well-Known Member
whenever people come and denounce your claim and do it with nothing but insults.

they are either trolls or

doing it for money (usually intelligent enough to confuse many)

the trouble with business getting hold of mj, is that business has the money and politics is full of greedy trolls.
as in, they only listen to money and use the tactics i mentioned earlier to confuse the issue and bully folks into their line of thinking.

so sooner or later, we would have regulations restricting the people in favor of business.

its best to ignore people as that, since they will never come up with anything but a semi intelligent insult.
 

sso

Well-Known Member
that being said, it should be both commercial and free to grow for anyone, because of all those people that cant grow.

though..

i tend to think that the people that cant grow, theyre cares would be met.

why?

because most people that grow (and dont sell) are rather generous, knew this french farmer, grew 50 pounds everyyear (outdoors, in the mountains) and he gave most of it away.

most people can grow anyway, if they dont, they are lazy (or think they are too busy( usually greed for money)
since if it were legal, you could just plop a bunch down in windowsills and mj is hardly more hard to care for than most houseplants.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
whenever people come and denounce your claim and do it with nothing but insults.

they are either trolls or

doing it for money (usually intelligent enough to confuse many)
I explained my position many times. He just ignores it all and characterizes me as greedy. The insults didn't come until after that. So if you are talking about me, you're wrong. I denounced his claim using facts, unfortunately not everyone responds to facts. Ernest responds better to insults than logic. I prefer logic, but it's not always my choice.

the trouble with business getting hold of mj, is that business has the money and politics is full of greedy trolls.
as in, they only listen to money and use the tactics i mentioned earlier to confuse the issue and bully folks into their line of thinking.
Sure, you're not wrong about that at all. But the problem with ignoring business is that the majority of cannabis consumers acquire their cannabis through financial transactions, not through growing their own. So when you ignore those financial transactions when you're writing a law about cannabis, what you're doing is ignoring the rights of the majority of cannabis users.

Also when you take the money out of it, it takes the benefit to the majority of non-smokers out of it. We are talking about a law where every Californian gets a vote, not just growers. If you realistically want it to pass, you've got to give them a reason to support you. If you taxed cannabis and gave that money to our school system, you could gain the support of a lot of non-smokers who don't care about cannabis legalization, but do care about money going to schools. What Ernest is supporting basically just gives the middle finger to the majority of Californians. Why would they want to vote yes on that?

Also when you take business out of the law, you take away any chance for the proposed law to get any kind of serious funding. I know people might not want to hear that, but funding is required if you want a serious chance of the law passing. Who's going to donate a couple million dollars so we can have a law designed to allow Ernest to sell dime bags out of his house?

You can't only think about your ideals when thinking about cannabis law. You MUST think about the practical reality of it if you want that to be successful.

so sooner or later, we would have regulations restricting the people in favor of business.
A good point. By not addressing business, what you're doing is allowing corporate lobbyists to write the business aspect of the law. Do you really want them to do that for you? Don't you think we'd be better off with a law that puts restrictions on big business in cannabis and protecting cannabis consumers rather than have big business writing a law that tramples on small businesses and consumers?

If you fail to address the trade aspect of cannabis legalization, big business will do it for you. They will surely push for a law where cannabis is grown in those big mass production warehouses. By ignoring business, you'll be causing exactly what most people want to prevent.

its best to ignore people as that, since they will never come up with anything but a semi intelligent insult.
I believe I just addressed your entire post without any insults. So, not true. If someone like you comes along who makes an attempt to be thoughtful, they will be treated with respect by me. When someone ignores substance and just claims that everyone who disagrees with them is greedy and anti-legalization, they will get disrespected. Basically, I'll treat you similar to how you treat me.

I'm very capable with having a reasonable discussion on this issue. Just not with people like Ernest.
 

sso

Well-Known Member
I explained my position many times. He just ignores it all and characterizes me as greedy. The insults didn't come until after that. So if you are talking about me, you're wrong. I denounced his claim using facts, unfortunately not everyone responds to facts. Ernest responds better to insults than logic. I prefer logic, but it's not always my choice.

i do apologize then, i wasnt bothered to read all the threads, for reasons i will make clear later.

Sure, you're not wrong about that at all. But the problem with ignoring business is that the majority of cannabis consumers acquire their cannabis through financial transactions, not through growing their own. So when you ignore those financial transactions when you're writing a law about cannabis, what you're doing is ignoring the rights of the majority of cannabis users.

most whom would grow or get it from a friend if it were legal (some gardens would be full id think and plenty to share, hey check out my new strain dudes!,and so on)

Also when you take the money out of it, it takes the benefit to the majority of non-smokers out of it. We are talking about a law where every Californian gets a vote, not just growers. If you realistically want it to pass, you've got to give them a reason to support you. If you taxed cannabis and gave that money to our school system, you could gain the support of a lot of non-smokers who don't care about cannabis legalization, but do care about money going to schools. What Ernest is supporting basically just gives the middle finger to the majority of Californians. Why would they want to vote yes on that?

since, those people are insane (caring more about money than people, wanting to people to get killed or tortured over something thats none of their business in the first place but ok with it if it makes a buck for them??) i dont really give a fuck, best left to those with experience with that sorta insanity.i think that breed is dying off anyway. im just waiting.

Also when you take business out of the law, you take away any chance for the proposed law to get any kind of serious funding. I know people might not want to hear that, but funding is required if you want a serious chance of the law passing. Who's going to donate a couple million dollars so we can have a law designed to allow Ernest to sell dime bags out of his house?

again, something so insane, ill keep out of it.

You can't only think about your ideals when thinking about cannabis law. You MUST think about the practical reality of it if you want that to be successful.

i have no deals but ok

A good point. By not addressing business, what you're doing is allowing corporate lobbyists to write the business aspect of the law. Do you really want them to do that for you? Don't you think we'd be better off with a law that puts restrictions on big business in cannabis and protecting cannabis consumers rather than have big business writing a law that tramples on small businesses and consumers?

thats a fine idea, but who will get politicians to make such a law? with tons of lobbyist with full pockets to insure othervise?
politics are too corrupt, its impossible to fix without cutting down the whole tree.


If you fail to address the trade aspect of cannabis legalization, big business will do it for you. They will surely push for a law where cannabis is grown in those big mass production warehouses. By ignoring business, you'll be causing exactly what most people want to prevent.

people will always take care of the trade,no matter if unlawful or not, wether it goes to fund war and elite parties (taxes)
is inconsequential in the big picture.


I believe I just addressed your entire post without any insults. So, not true. If someone like you comes along who makes an attempt to be thoughtful, they will be treated with respect by me. When someone ignores substance and just claims that everyone who disagrees with them is greedy and anti-legalization, they will get disrespected. Basically, I'll treat you similar to how you treat me.

hehehe, nice. thanks and ditto. (there are a lot of fuckyou´s on this site, i think many have become just overdefensive)

I'm very capable with having a reasonable discussion on this issue. Just not with people like Ernest.
oh. id give him another chance.
 

sso

Well-Known Member
here´s the thing, there is the way the world works and there is how many dream it should be.

since the dreamers havent figured it out yet (but have figured out most improvements)

they need to rely on the realists.

being mostly too angry about the reality and busy figuring out how to improve it, to actually take part in "reality"
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
SSO -

You might not like the fact that many non-smokers won't vote for something that doesn't benefit them, but dismissing it as insane doesn't make it less true. Same goes for the money it takes to make something law. If you really want legalization passed, you have to consider those things or it will fail.

You call it insanity, and you might be right. But it's also the way the world works.

thats a fine idea, but who will get politicians to make such a law? with tons of lobbyist with full pockets to insure othervise?
If not Richard Lee and Co, Phillip Morris or other similar companies. Do you really think we are better off with them writing the law rather than have a ballot measure where voters get to decide?

people will always take care of the trade,no matter if unlawful or not, wether it goes to fund war and elite parties (taxes)
is inconsequential in the big picture.
It's not inconsequential if you buy your cannabis instead of grow your own. That's most people. Most people care very much that they can buy their cannabis from local growers rather than mass produced schwagg. A law that doesn't address their needs fails to address the needs of the majority of cannabis users.

The commercial growing, selling, and buying of cannabis is part of legalization. You may not like that fact, but it is still a fact. Failure to address those issues is a failure to bring real legalization.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
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.
How absurd. If it's legal for everyone to grow, use and trade cannabis how is that a handful of people?

We want cannabis to be legal. Not to go to jail or lose their job because the smoked, grew or traded cannabis. The usual reasons we all want cannabis legal.

The point is to take a safe first step like prop 215.

Commerce needs to stand by. They have a lobby in Washington D.C. Dan. Commerce is doing just fine already.

I'm doing what I can to tell you that an "all or nothing" initiative like the two Propositions 19 is not that safe step since it's two strikes for propositions 19 and one home run for the people proposition 215.

We already have retail. We already have delivery services Dan. What we don't have is freedom for the people.

Do you understand?

I'm okay with separate efforts of Cannabis Freedom for the people and another one that expands cannabis industry but not an "all in one Initiative failure" again. Safe first step for the people not Sweetheart deal for industry.

Like I say it's time we all work together and get that "runner on base" so the game can go on.
In case you missed the last vote? WE LOST BUT INDUSTRY STILL MAKES BANK.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
that being said, it should be both commercial and free to grow for anyone, because of all those people that cant grow.

though..

i tend to think that the people that cant grow, they're cares would be met.

why?

because most people that grow (and dont sell) are rather generous, knew this French farmer, grew 50 pounds every year (outdoors, in the mountains) and he gave most of it away.

most people can grow anyway, if they dont, they are lazy (or think they are too busy( usually greed for money)
since if it were legal, you could just plop a bunch down in windowsills and mj is hardly more hard to care for than most house plants.
It radical to think that one could just borrow a pound from a friend for nothing legally.

We don't have seed saving or heirloom variety growers but we could. Cannabis could be rescued as a species if the people are the stewards of cannabis.

I too feel that Commerce will survive just fine if we simplify our efforts for 2012 and that there is already commerce with cannabis. If anything the areas that can have a brick and mortar retail now will be the areas that expand sales to all first and the areas that ban dispensaries now will be the last areas that will allow brick and mortar retail but that all people are free equally across the State will be the actual "Cannabis Revolution" that clears the way for Commerce.

It's a choice of what we do first not an either or choice.

The idea is that prop 215 was popular and prop 19 wasn't. That means California isn't ready to vote for cannabis commerce yet so why do an all or nothing like prop 19 again for 2012 or 2014?
Why not simplify and try a safe first step of legalize for the people first?
If we cannot pass legalization for the people we simply can't pass anything in 2012.
It's that simple. Either we gamble again or we play it safe and win.
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
i'm not quite sure what planet you're living on, but it must be a confusing place. i have repeatedly and exhaustively explained my position on this and each time you have merely side-stepped my arguments, repeating your own mantra of "horticultural rights" and decrying the greed of everyone but yourself. this last response, a meaningless little tirade against bankers and a wikipedia cut and paste job comparing the terms horticulture and tillage, is as laced with insanity as most of your other responses. why you insisted on wasting the space to quote my post twice is beyond me, but i guess it at least increased the page count of this thread by a bit. considering the lengths to which you have gone to try and prove that cultivation somehow excludes the very plants one is to cultivate, it would seem you have taken hair-splitting lessons from some of our other members. as for the whole banker thing, i have no idea where that came from. perhaps you are unable to recognize greed in anyone under a certain income level and completely fail to understand its universality.

the one tiny piece of your last few posts that wasn't meaningless drivel was the simple question of what war i am fighting. though i have often alluded to it, i don't think i've come out and completely stated it in this thread. it is simply a war for self-ownership, the right of every individual to do with himself and his possessions whatever he desires. the fight for legalization is only a small part of that larger goal, but it is one that happens to be dear to my heart. what you propose is, as i and others have tried to explain to you, not legalization. legalization gives access to all the people, not just those few with the time, place and expertise to grow. it must include the commercial side of the equation, as this is how the majority of smokers are going to gain access, and allow everyone the right to use whatever resources are at their command to fulfill the demand that true legalization produces. this includes business interests as well as the small grower, because to exclude them is to limit the rights of the individual to choose how best to use their own resources.

i fully agree that we should all be allowed to grow our own crop and am somewhat frustrated by the limitations imposed on personal grow size. decades of experience have shown me the truly benign nature of our humble herb and i would love to see it freely traded by anyone, but i also realize that our society as a whole is not ready to see what is now considered a harmful schedule one drug for what it really is. that even proponents of legalization such as you refer to its commercial possibilities as "legal drug dealing" shows just how deeply the years of reefer madness propaganda have embedded themselves in the public's psyche. only by allowing the public at large to see weed as just another commodity, traded in the open marketplace as any other, can that stigma be removed and the restrictions on its use eased.

i realize there is little point in repeating these and the other facts of the situation to someone who refuses to face reality. what you see as legalization only pertains to your small world and would exclude huge portions of the population from the rights you seek. this may not matter to you, but it is part of the larger picture and vital to that much sought after equality in its truest form. this is a matter of regaining our rights, stolen by an aggressive bureaucracy, and not simply of allowing the few to indulge their passions.
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
The idea is that prop 215 was popular and prop 19 wasn't.
once again you're blowing smoke. 215 just managed to clear the voters with a little over half the ballots cast and 19 was defeated by nearly the same margin. all this means is that democracy has failed us once again, that a slim majority can trample the rights of everyone else. in addition, 215 was couched in terms of medical need and played to the emotions of the voters, while 19 was merely a play for regaining our right to self-ownership, a right that runs contrary to the liberal agenda in this all too blue state.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
i'm not quite sure what planet you're living on, but it must be a confusing place. i have repeatedly and exhaustively explained my position on this and each time you have merely side-stepped my arguments, repeating your own mantra of "horticultural rights" and decrying the greed of everyone but yourself. this last response, a meaningless little tirade against bankers and a wikipedia cut and paste job comparing the terms horticulture and tillage, is as laced with insanity as most of your other responses. why you insisted on wasting the space to quote my post twice is beyond me, but i guess it at least increased the page count of this thread by a bit. considering the lengths to which you have gone to try and prove that cultivation somehow excludes the very plants one is to cultivate, it would seem you have taken hair-splitting lessons from some of our other members. as for the whole banker thing, i have no idea where that came from. perhaps you are unable to recognize greed in anyone under a certain income level and completely fail to understand its universality.

the one tiny piece of your last few posts that wasn't meaningless drivel was the simple question of what war i am fighting. though i have often alluded to it, i don't think i've come out and completely stated it in this thread. it is simply a war for self-ownership, the right of every individual to do with himself and his possessions whatever he desires. the fight for legalization is only a small part of that larger goal, but it is one that happens to be dear to my heart. what you propose is, as i and others have tried to explain to you, not legalization. legalization gives access to all the people, not just those few with the time, place and expertise to grow. it must include the commercial side of the equation, as this is how the majority of smokers are going to gain access, and allow everyone the right to use whatever resources are at their command to fulfill the demand that true legalization produces. this includes business interests as well as the small grower, because to exclude them is to limit the rights of the individual to choose how best to use their own resources.

i fully agree that we should all be allowed to grow our own crop and am somewhat frustrated by the limitations imposed on personal grow size. decades of experience have shown me the truly benign nature of our humble herb and i would love to see it freely traded by anyone, but i also realize that our society as a whole is not ready to see what is now considered a harmful schedule one drug for what it really is. that even proponents of legalization such as you refer to its commercial possibilities as "legal drug dealing" shows just how deeply the years of reefer madness propaganda have embedded themselves in the public's psyche. only by allowing the public at large to see weed as just another commodity, traded in the open marketplace as any other, can that stigma be removed and the restrictions on its use eased.

i realize there is little point in repeating these and the other facts of the situation to someone who refuses to face reality. what you see as legalization only pertains to your small world and would exclude huge portions of the population from the rights you seek. this may not matter to you, but it is part of the larger picture and vital to that much sought after equality in its truest form. this is a matter of regaining our rights, stolen by an aggressive bureaucracy, and not simply of allowing the few to indulge their passions.

Why is this about beating me down?

Let me read your post again. It's almost off topic.
So are you for legalizing for the people or not? That post is rather confusing.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
once again you're blowing smoke. 215 just managed to clear the voters with a little over half the ballots cast and 19 was defeated by nearly the same margin. all this means is that democracy has failed us once again, that a slim majority can trample the rights of everyone else. in addition, 215 was couched in terms of medical need and played to the emotions of the voters, while 19 was merely a play for regaining our right to self-ownership, a right that runs contrary to the liberal agenda in this all too blue state.
It passed. So it is an example of success. It didn't have any commerce clauses or tangled up industry wording.

On an off-note; Did you like the movie series Matrix? I think we all dug Matrix 1 and were all happy with Matrix 2 but by the time the delayed, reworked, delayed and reworked again, Matrix Three was here we were turned off that the message was we must come to terms with the Machine and our hero is a Machine Messiah who looks like a catholic priest.
My point is be Matrix 1 this time. Follow the White rabbit not the Machine Messiah.

White Rabbit Jefferson Airplane. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WANNqr-vcx0

I believe we are hung up on selling weed rather than being free.

Beatles : Tomorrow never knows http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TV5KzwZCdc
 

undertheice

Well-Known Member
Why is this about beating me down?

Let me read your post again. It's almost off topic.
So are you for legalizing for the people or not? That post is rather confusing.
perhaps you've encountered shaw's quote, ""I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." well i've finally reached the point where i'm going to be taking his advice to heart concerning this asinine discussion. unlike you, i see little point in constantly repeating myself, especially when i receive nothing in return but regurgitated tripe and twisted half-truths. do you really want to know why your ideas are foolish? well read what i have already posted in your laundry list of repetitive threads and look honestly at what you propose, if you can.

yes, this has become about you. you've forced it to be so with your constant whining and nonsensical litany against the evils of commerce. we get it. you don't want big business to sully the good name of our humble herb. well grow up and join the rest of us here in the real world. believing that the existing black market will magically turn legitimate if we are all just allowed to produce as much as we want is the stuff of childish daydreams and i'm simply to old and tired for these silly games. congratulations, you've won. i'll cede the field, allowing you your victory out of sheer boredom and an inability to drill even the most simple concepts through your thick skull.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
perhaps you've encountered shaw's quote, ""I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." well i've finally reached the point where i'm going to be taking his advice to heart concerning this asinine discussion. unlike you, i see little point in constantly repeating myself, especially when i receive nothing in return but regurgitated tripe and twisted half-truths. do you really want to know why your ideas are foolish? well read what i have already posted in your laundry list of repetitive threads and look honestly at what you propose, if you can.

yes, this has become about you. you've forced it to be so with your constant whining and nonsensical litany against the evils of commerce. we get it. you don't want big business to sully the good name of our humble herb. well grow up and join the rest of us here in the real world. believing that the existing black market will magically turn legitimate if we are all just allowed to produce as much as we want is the stuff of childish daydreams and i'm simply to old and tired for these silly games. congratulations, you've won. i'll cede the field, allowing you your victory out of sheer boredom and an inability to drill even the most simple concepts through your thick skull.
Why are you not going to join with all of California and legalize?

It's a long road to 2012 and no doubt we have to work it out.


Your posts are all about you my friend.

[video=youtube;g--Vlij1X1Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g--Vlij1X1Y[/video]
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
So what about that Market?

Who owns it if the people can grow all they want?

I think it would be the people since local prices will offset the Cartels; both foreign and domestic.

Is that realistic if in 2012 people can grow all they want?

I would assume that at first the price of weed would plummet but as any pet shop retailer can tell you, you don't make your money on selling the pet you make it on selling the pet supplies.

So at first the businesses that will boom will be supply stores. Yet the really huge thing isn't that someone can buy weed it is that everyone will garden once again.
Probably grow flowers and food too.
Folks may learn to compost their yard materials and kitchen waste thus adding to the health of the planet.

Sure the idea of getting $400 an ounce is fast disappearing even today as all other crops are inflating in price but cannabis is deflating and as it should.
The situation with any legalization is more produce is available and so it has become with Medical in California and hard times for all.
So too it will be with full horticulture rights so why try and push commerce when the market has to correct anyway.
Let the people win, let the market stabilize then we take up the cause of commerce and trade.
We are in for a crash still in California. It ain't over and in my mind if the people need to trade weed privately in non-commercial ways I am all for it while we go through another phase of the major economic adjustment; the Great Recession.

So it's not so win or lose it's cycle with us on to 2012.

Lets get a cycle of legalizing for the people as a safe bet and work from there.

Baby step.. State wide rights to grow cannabis even if you live next to a church.

We won't ever be free if we compromise on freedom.



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

[video=youtube;6TV5KzwZCdc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TV5KzwZCdc[/video]
 

Timmahh

Well-Known Member
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...
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.:weed:


These are all some very valid points. I only went in to page 7 so far. but interesting thread. not sure if this has been touched on or not after pg 7.

Full Legalization. what can it mean? now, we have the anit marijuana crowd. now matter what truths/facts/cures it may offer, these folks will never be onboard. this is the left fringe, that every debated topic has. their message, is typically, dont smoke pot, dope is for dopes. My question, is that their sole motive? or just the motive being sold to them?

what does that mean you say? that makes no sence? but doesnt it?
allow me to paint you a picture from my perspective.
Thier is a Much Much larger picture not really looked at here. In the posts above, their is a few lines that elude to my thoughs, but it barely touches on the subject. so i ll expand the scope below.

Monday, Apirl 4th, 2011. The US Federal Government, including all facets of Legislature, Judicial, Presidential, and Economical facets, overwhellingly pass for total legalization of Canabis and Hemp. (if you do one you have to do both).

so heres one scenario that can play out.

the passage, empties the prisons of marijuana convictions, and these people are no longer felons. they are released, without so much as a "our Bad". just out. now im not sure on the number, but im guessing that equates to around 500,000, maybe a million people off of the taxpayers backs and on the streets. nationwide, probably in the millions.

now, fact is most of them will have no where to go. maybe 25% will be able to pick up their life where they left off with a little adjustment period. the other 75% will have to make due. think about that for a minute.
Now, Prisons being 60% less populated, will mean a 50% reduction is work staff. again, not sure on the number here, but im guessing 75,000 to 100,000 people being laid off remember not just prison workers, but any services they use, will have a reduction is staff and loss of sales. IE Food Services, Utilities, ect. and yes, this would save us as tax payers billions over time, but intially it ll add another 100,000 people to the already stressed unemployment lines.

just a fact people. im not making this up, its logical cause and effect.

now, dont get me wrong here, im a longtime smoker, and think Marihuana should of never been made illegal in the first place. And in that meaning, should of never been convicted and jailed. But i wear no rose colored glasses about the implicatons of 400,000 to 1,000,000 newly released individuals on the street with no home, job, money...And 100,000 and possilbly more new unemployedment benefit seekers.


scenario number 2.


same deal, full legalization.

your John. You live in Kansas, and you are a Rye/Wheat/Corn Farmer. you rotate your grows as to not overly strip the soil of nutriants for one strain. 3 yrs ago, you grew corn. it cost you $4.35 cents an acre to grow, and you sold it for $5.45 an acre for a profit of $1.10 an acre

2yrs prior you grew Wheat at $1.23 an acre, and sold it for $2.46 an acre, doubling your investment (yes, farming is a form of investment).

last year you grew rye. cost you 6.34 and acre to grow but it sold for 16.34 an acre, by far your most productive crop in rotaion, but the harshest as far stripping the soil of nutes ect...

so this year, hemps legal to grow, and John want to give hemp a try. figures another crop for the rotation cant be bad, and futures on hemp sales are good. its a wide open fresh market. John decides hes not going to grow for the medical community at this point, but decide instead to grow for the new bio fuel facility up the road. They are making high quality, high effecient bio fuel out of hemp (this is an actual high probability of being done. current research is showing High promise of the abilty of bio fuel from hemp with its fast and east grows, that offers more energy per ounce than corn or soy or cooking oils can). John decides he needs to run a small test crop of hemp.

So John converts his one barn to indoor grow facility for his test crop. cost was around 7,000 for equipement, not including seeds, fertilizers ect... outside he grows his usual rotation of corn.
being farming is a long term investment, he figures he can retrofit one of the older barns that has minimal use, and then has the abilty to control exacting grow enviroment to maximize grow and get max potential investment.
the cost for John to do this test grow is minimal when compared to what it cost him to plant any of his other crops and maintain them thru the grow, less the actual seed itself. he calculates to actually field the hemp, would run him around $13.78 an acre.

now the seasons done. Johns Corn grow net was worse due to the increased cost of fuel this year. he only made $.47 cents a bushell.
next years crop with increased fuel cost doesnt look any brighter. the rye is looking good to plant being his biggest cash crop per investment dollar, but doing a crop 2 yrs apart will serverly hurt the soil, and cost 4 times as much to replentish for the Wheat crop if he does rye now. Should John follow his grow cycle, he ll grow wheat. As noted, the increased fuel cost, now has caught up with his suppliers and other businesses he uses to be a farmer. projections show where he made $1.23 on wheat profits last yr., is only looking to net, $.42 per bushell proit in 2012.


why is this all important? keep reading.



John makes his Test Marihuana harvest. the crop cost John 5000.00. only the seeds and cost to grow the seeds is included in this figure, equipment is of a test nature, and is written off on taxes so is a mute point to John at this stage.

Johns havest sells down at the CanaBioFuel facility for 25,000.00. He has hemp of medium/high quality, and has a decent yield due to seed selection and being a competant farmer.

So Johns Test grow for Marihuana nets him 20,000.00 profit and cost him the same on average, of the cost to grow his usual Food related crops, per acre.

Now, John and his wife set back and do the calculations. It would cost $.78 per bushell at current cost, but with the yield, he could of effectivly made back $2,0000 per bushell if the yeild was even 1/2 of what it was indoors.

John decides hes done growing food crops, and shift his farm to biocanafuel crops for 2012. In 2012, John does amazingly well, even with the high cost of fuel, his investment has been returned in huge margins
his 500,000.00 grow costs neted over 15 million on the sale of the crop, and it really didnt hurt the soil at all, as John just used minimal fertilizers due to hemps natural fertile growth pattern of being in the weed variety of plants.

in 2014, 60% of all US Food Farmers have switched to the far more profitable Hemp Farming industry.



so there are a couple scenarios that are very real and probable. lets not forget, Marijuana/Hemp isnt just about getting high, relaxing abit, or as a person with a medical issue, just medicine. the uses for it are limitless. From Medicine to, Fuel, to Safe Plastics, to Ropes stronger than steel ect.. now imagine if this industry sprung to life Monday Am... How many years would it be until we had NO farmers caring to grow low profit food, when they can make SUCH a profit growing the natrually heardy, natrually highly reproductive (endless supply of seeds for next years/rotations crop). even after the market stabilized, the cana crops would out net any food crop by 100s of times for profitability.
you can see where im going with this.


now take the bio fuel facility. the fuel they produce is 50% effecient. this puts a major crimp in the crude oil industry. OK good for earth, but now we have another major industry, dumping 50% of its work force.

what about plastics. that industry takes a hit, but can adapt readily to move from fossile fuel produced plastics to hemp produced plastics. So while initially this industry takes a large hit, it rebounds in a few years unlike the crude oil industry, who are not farmers, they are well drillers.

now factor in the other industry that would be effected by full on legaliztion.
Medical, Industrial, Service, Manufacturing, ect.....
we are talking Billions of people effected on both sides of this coin. got good and horendous effects, some consequential, some casualties of a changing society/industry, and a complete restructuring of the way life is lived compared to how it is today.

the one thing that wont change in all of this, is the elites grab for money, which brings power.



fact is, full on legalization has many enemies, not even known. you can take the law, and the medical community out of it, and find more than enough powerfull industries with MUCH to lose if marijuana was fully legalized.



For those that say we need no government, i say you better grab a history book. without some form of simple government to guide the citizens forward for the benefit of all, we ll end up with the wild west, where the people that are ruthless have the power. Their has to be some Govermental representation, and a military force to protect the people at large, not against them selves, but agains real crime. regulations (ie, John the farmer can only grow hemp on 15% of his farm, the other 85% must be dedicated to food crops) are what will keep things in balance. so in 2017, we still have food to eat, and medicine that is affordable, and our kids arnt sold into prostitutive slavery for the new Gangis Khan.


no government pretty much equates to full on anarchy. live and let die if you will. every man for himself, and before long, things will be right back where they are currently. that is to say, a few power mongers forcing their will on the population in their "REGIME".

Those unwilling to learn the history, are doomed to repeat it.
 

sso

Well-Known Member
i like the idea of government for the people and by the people.
too bad its never been implemented (At least not for all the people)
today you aint worth shit, if you aint got money.

kinda why i tend to stay at societies edges, if you swim in too much shit, you tend to drown in it.

edit : only halfcivilized halfmonkeys need government, sadly it seems that the great majority is just that, or is that just government propaganda? you are so stupid you need us.

anyway it turns, the majority is stupid enough to need a government (anyone stupid enough to listen to the government, by default needs the government as a willing slave)
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Nice posts you two. +K for the content Timmahh.

More content :)

There is industry agreed. I just see that as the domain of our State's Congress and Governor and I see allowing people to have Horticulture rights as the domain of voters.
I doubt, but I don't know, if anyone is really concerned with the effects outside of their local purview.
I wrote about East Side and West Side so the primary division is class and economic boundaries. How do we negotiate for Cannabis rights when the basic divisions all over the State of California are similar. We don't. We use the popular vote to pass the most common and basic of all cannabis issues; Horticulture rights , use rights and private non-commercial trade rights such as seed sharing and plant material.

I don't see it as trying to do it all in one since they are different struggles.

I mean here I want to grow a plant outside but I bet I'll be arrested for something if I do and probably evicted. So until we make an effort to reach the people everywhere with cannabis freedom under the law we still have a war.

Prop 19 solved parts of these issues for an attempt at an all in one buy allowing for Wet Counties and Dry Counties but that was just selling out some of us to the war while others profited from the war.
Both sides want to keep the war going since it's about economics in both camps. The boundaries I have called the East side and the West side here is the heartland of the No vote and the New Orleans of parties would be places that are in the Yes vote regions.

Is there a middle ground on cannabis freedom for the people? Is there an all in one that will fly with full Horticulture rights for the people or will we be sacrificing freedom for industry alone.

--
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Is there a middle ground on cannabis freedom for the people? Is there an all in one that will fly with full Horticulture rights for the people or will we be sacrificing freedom for industry alone.

--
Sure, there is a middle ground. But you seem to have no interest in that what so ever.

There is definitely a place in between prop 19 and your legalize selling bud out of your house idea.

A collective system like the one we have now for medical could be set up. That system seems to work reasonably well. It's creating a lot of middle class cannabis jobs. That would have to start with limits on grow sizes though. Failing to set limits = legalizing Richard Lee style warehouse grows.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Sure, there is a middle ground. But you seem to have no interest in that what so ever.

There is definitely a place in between prop 19 and your legalize selling bud out of your house idea.

A collective system like the one we have now for medical could be set up. That system seems to work reasonably well. It's creating a lot of middle class cannabis jobs. That would have to start with limits on grow sizes though. Failing to set limits = legalizing Richard Lee style warehouse grows.
Are you talking about industry or cannabis horticulture for each one of us?

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

I just reread you post and edit..

Dan please we know each other enough now to skip lying in the thread.
your legalize selling bud out of your house idea.
Dan that is not what has been said.

Dan is proving that if we allow Dan types to draft our Cannabis Freedom it will be a war on the private citizen.

So Dan I dismiss your post of some other ground we can all work from.

You can't stop the hate. I take it you make money off of Cannabis sales.
 
Top