The Dan Kone Thread of Legalizing For Us All.

[Michael Sparks]

That the organized drug dealing will magically disappear? How does that work?

hopefully it will fade. like business do that don't have a costumer base. Supply & Demand or they will change their practices and adapt.

I take it an increased police presence will do the actual work of stopping the already entrenched black market?

The black market will exist as long as there are things illegal, just as mans desire will be there.

 

[Dan Kone]

Okay. It's popular to point out deluded points so let me try.

Who and what army are going to stop the Cartels? The Federal government has backed off not stopped the Narco-trade.

You don't usually need violence if you're capable of conscious thought. Law enforcement clearly isn't the answer. We've been fighting the drug war for since Nixon and we are still losing. When it comes to violence, drug cartels are better at it than we are.

That's why we take a new approach. Legalize the commercial sales and cultivation of drugs and drug cartels no longer become the preferred distributors of drugs. If they aren't selling drugs, they aren't much of a drug cartel anymore.

During prohibition the government tried to stop black market alcohol sales using force and violence. They failed. When prohibition ended and people were given a choice, the people spoke with their wallets. They chose to buy their beer from legal businesses rather than alcohol cartels.

That is proof that a commercial solution can solve a drug cartel problem and end a black market.

Now where is your proposition Ernest?

 

[Dan Kone]

Who wont have customers?

The drug cartels. People aren't going to choose to purchase cannabis from a dangerous violent gang member when they can buy it at a store.

The very people who make my fast food here?

Local citizens in your community. In all likelyhood, the people who visit these forums are the type of people who would be involved in these dispensaries.

What i think is there is a lack of experience of living and working with the very people we think our Laws are going to magically transform.

And yet after alcohol prohibition the alcohol cartels eventually faded from existence. History says commercial legalization is the best way to fight a criminal cartel.

I agree we need to take charge and change thing but to think a piece of paper will magically transform whole communities and disrupt the cartels is lite on reality.

Sure, because they will still sell cocaine, meth, heroin. Legalize commercial sales of all drugs and these cartels would have no reason to exist. But cannabis is their top selling product resulting in ~30-60% of their sales I believe. Take away the market that allows them to make that money and you're taking away a lot of their power.

We can effect change is a subtle way.. We can legalize for the people and skip the industry this time.. Let our law enforcement benefit from not needing to arrest our people for cannabis.

By ignoring the commercial aspects of legalization you're handing it all over to philip morris types with their chain stores and massive cannabis warehouses. Is that what you really want? Does your proposition stop that? Where is your proposition Ernest?

 

[HarryCarey]

Were talking about the cartels and marijuana not fastfood restaurants am i right? The availability of legal sources for better quality products will greatly discourage the consumption of the black market goods. Not getting heated here.... just involved in the debate, can you hack it

Im not really referring to the commercial production of ganj either, even if we got your horticulture rights initiative (which is a good idea as well, it should be like any other plant -i.e. tomato, that everyone can grow but I dont think enough people agree with that to get it passed)
these effects will come about over time just as Dan has pointed out in the alcohol wars of the 20's

This will not stop these same cartels from attempting to import other black market items that are still profitable nor am i saying that we would immediately shut them down, but as i pointed out if legalization is enacted the organizations that are fighting the cartels will have more resources available to them and in theory could do a better job managing there influence........but it will stop them from profiting so heavily on marijuana in the US

 

[HarryCarey]

Damn it dan you must type faster than me........sorry for basically repeating you

 

[Michael Sparks]

I agree. simply put

 

[Dan Kone]

Damn it dan you must type faster than me........sorry for basically repeating you

I'm a master of interwebs!

nerdlife!

 

[Ernst]

In this town drug dealing is split on the White and The Mexican lines.

The two are rather well established. Think of it as the skirmish line of a Civil War.

That there are wealthy white on the East Side generally and that there are lower economic areas elsewhere doesn't mean that if it comes down to reducing the power of the White side of life including reducing the economic stability of the White drug trade while the other side is still strong is a non-starter.
That is a reason prop 19 failed that many do not understand.

So when it comes to disarming the armies no one is going to buy into a law that deals in a new player "The Medical Marijuana Cartel."

I doubt that anything more than Horticulture rights, use rights and private trade will be of any benefit for this situation and I would suggest that this situation happens more places in California than we realize.

So I have promoted that we change things by legalizing for the people only in 2012 so that we skip this war and change things with freedom.

 

[Dan Kone]

Were talking about the cartels and marijuana not fastfood restaurants am i right?

I didn't quite follow that either.

The availability of legal sources for better quality products will greatly discourage the consumption of the black market goods. Not getting heated here.... just involved in the debate, can you hack it

Also commercial legalization leads to price competition. The average cannabis consumer benefits greatly by not having to pay inflated black market prices.

Under what I proposed people who wish to grow their own can do so, people who wish to purchase their cannabis will be able to do so safely and much cheaper than they do now, people who wish to grow/sell cannabis for a living can do so with out the threat of law enforcement or being bullied by monopolistic mega-corps, non-smokers get more school funding, and the black market where cartels thrive goes away.

Everyone wins (except the cartels).

 

[Dan Kone]

So I have promoted that we change things by legalizing for the people only in 2012 so that we skip this war and change things with freedom.

Have you? Where is your proposition Ernest? You've seen mine. What ya waiting for?

 

[Michael Sparks]

Freedom isn't quite free, i cannot phantom the sacrifices that will be made for this policy. i only hope we can all come together and make it happen w/o the bitching and griping

 

[HarryCarey]

Yes there will still be drug dealers, Im not saying there wont be.......but there will no longer be the allure of easy weed money as it is today so they will have to specialize in coke or meth or whatever the hell else will make them money but we will be stronger in resisting.......your initiative will not stop these cartels from producing coke or anything else but marijuana, are you claiming it will?

 

[Michael Sparks]

In this town drug dealing is split on the White and The Mexican lines.

there is segregation still present in today's world, this could be attributed to the "money changers" what benefits one doesn't benefit the whole.

The two are rather well established. Think of it as the skirmish line of a Civil War..

What do you precept could be the solution to this dilemma? social economics plays a major role in this matter.

That there are wealthy white on the East Side generally and that there are lower economic areas elsewhere doesn't mean that if it comes down to reducing the power of the White side of life including reducing the economic stability of the White drug trade while the other side is still strong is a non-starter.
That is a reason prop 19 failed that many do not understand. .

While it is know that areas of poverty reduce themselves to not ideals methods of what can be defined as hustling they are doing what they know to acquire capital, nor do i condone this, it is another product of social economics the behavioral byproduct.. what do you perceive can bring a solution ?

once we uncover the truth we must find a solution to the problem that faces us

 

[Ernst]

My every word is my report Dan.

I don't believe at this point that you know what living in California is like.

We don't have any dispensaries here. We are a No Vote county.

Why would we vote Yes for your proposal here?

This cannot be about beating a Man and has never been such a thing in any thread I have worked except the Pretend Soldier from my point of view.

So why will the No Voters vote for your proposal?

 

[HarryCarey]

Legalization of consigning of buds at your local shop would also reduce the gap between the "east side" and "white side" by offering a legal venture for these east side criminals to partake in rather than illegal trades

 

[Michael Sparks]

damn good question, i would think the appropriate answer is why not, if we can bring about change, although it does seems a bit greedy to ask those that have no interest to vote on such a policy to do so, I ask what is there to lose in doing so, unlike anything else there are pro's and con's. we all have our own perspectives that is what makes us differ but if the good out weighs the negative give it a go.

 

[Ernst]

there is segregation still present in today's world, this could be attributed to the "money changers" what benefits one doesn't benefit the whole.

What do you precept could be the solution to this dilemma? social economics plays a major role in this matter.

While it is know that areas of poverty reduce themselves to not ideals methods of what can be defined as hustling they are doing what they know to acquire capital, nor do i condone this, it is another product of social economics the behavioral byproduct.. what do you perceive can bring a solution ?

once we uncover the truth we must find a solution to the problem that faces us

Yes there will still be drug dealers, Im not saying there wont be.......but there will no longer be the allure of easy weed money as it is today so they will have to specialize in coke or meth or whatever the hell else will make them money but we will be stronger in resisting.......your initiative will not stop these cartels from producing coke or anything else but marijuana, are you claiming it will?

I am not thinking volume and market share I am thinking Cannabis Freedom. That is what the people want. That is what any proposal like a remade Prop 19 has to pitch to get folks to vote yes because those already making Bank do not want to lose market share so they need to manufacture consent to become a Cartel of their own if they are not granting full Horticulture, Use and private non-commercial trade rights with the Initiative they offer.
Don't say that large commercial grows isn't competition or that limiting the average citizens horticulture, use or private non-commercial trade isn't market control. I don't buy that.
To get results as I believe you two expect my town to believe then there would have to be retail locations everywhere at once and a supply line offering superior produce at low low prices.
It won't happen! Communities will maintain control of their Jurisdictions which there are about 600 of in California.

The way to go is to create a free market among the people. Sure they may trade some weed and some may try and supply the black market but I promise you that there are already people selling drugs and that finding a local market will not be easy since many dealers will snitch out other dealers to grab market share.

We cannot create a bold new free cannabis market into California with a Law.
That is ridiculous.
Maybe in down town Oakland there is a new free cannabis market if you have a licensed franchise from the City of Oakland but in Any Town California Cannabis commerce of any kind is a target of most communities officially while in many places there is an underground.. A black market if you will.
Only when the profits in weed drop low and it is no longer the target of large profits will we win the war. We will win if the people have full rights to the plant and it's use and trade.
So do we Californian's want to take back the weed? Then we have to put that Gun of legal Horticulture, Use and private non-commercial trade in the hands of the people.

Freedom in this case means Horticulture, use and private trade rights for the people.

 

[Dan Kone]

My every word is my report Dan.

What report? Where is this?

I don't believe at this point that you know what living in California is like. We don't have any dispensaries here. We are a No Vote county.

lol? I've lived in Cali most of my life. I've lived in 707, 510, 415, 408, 831, 209, 805, and 310. I'm pretty sure I know what living in Cali is like.

I know Turlock very well. I have family that owns a dairy there and I have a booty call in turlock. I'm familiar with it.While the modesto suburbs might be short of dispensaries, you've got tons of delivery services. You even have a collective operating in Turlock and you don't even know it. lol.

Why would we vote Yes for your proposal here?

It brings in money to the school. But at a certain point you've got to take responsibility for living in Turlock. It's one of the most conservative towns in America. You choose to live there.

So why will the No Voters vote for your proposal?

Tax money that bypasses the state education bureaucratic and goes directly to local schools. My proposition gives them a tangible benefit at the local level. You'd be surprised. People like schools.

What in your proposal gives no voters a reason to support what you are proposing. Come to think of it, where is your proposal?

It's really hard to compare our two proposals when your proposal doesn't exist. Took me 10 minutes to come up with one. It's not that hard. What's the hold up?

 

[Ernst]

I'll review this later.

I'm sleepy and not focused after that last doobie.

 

[Dan Kone]

That is what any proposal like a remade Prop 19 has to pitch to get folks to vote yes because those already making Bank do not want to lose market share so they need to manufacture consent to become a Cartel of their own if they are not granting full Horticulture, Use and private non-commercial trade rights with the Initiative they offer.

My proposal eliminated all the main complaints of prop 19. Rather than ignore the problem, I presented a solution.

Don't say that large commercial grows isn't competition or that limiting the average citizens horticulture, use or private non-commercial trade isn't market control. I don't buy that.

My proposition takes the mega-corp element out of the equation entirely. It eliminates big business from the process.

By ignoring the commercial side of legalization you are insuring that congress will right the law. Richard Lee types and/or anti-cannabis people will be lobbying congress for a law that shuts down the little guy and promotes their own interests.

By ignoring the problem, you're becoming the cause of what everyone doesn't want to see. Mass producing schwag monopolies. You may not care if marlboro takes over the California bud trade, but a lot of people do.

The way to go is to create a free market among the people. Sure they may trade some weed and some may try and supply the black market but I promise you that there are already people selling drugs and that finding a local market will not be easy since many dealers will snitch out other dealers to grab market share.

Basically your solution is to legalize black market dealing. I promise you, that wouldn't go over well with the voters. You have to be concerned with more than what benefits you personally. We all live in this state, smokers and non-smokers a like. This isn't The Republic of Ernest. The idea that people could start legally dealing out of their houses will not be popular amongst non-smokers.

Also you're not giving non-smokers any incentive to vote for you.