The Dan Kone Thread of Legalizing For Us All.

[Ernst]

Horticulture is actually the small scale reliance of domesticated crops (growing for yourself) not relying on mechanized technology, cultivation is intensive agriculture which involves the repeated use of the same land and requires mechanized technology such as irrigation (large scale) more industrial purposes. I say cannabis because it sounds more formal.

I've been going by Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horticulture

The private collections are the ones for us.
Agriculture is closer, from what i understand, to what you mention in my opinion.

I see the word cultivation defined differently but horticulture includes "cultivation."

What reference do you use?

 

[Michael Sparks]

its just the way i was taught, I can see how Wiki explains it but i disagree.

 

[Michael Sparks]

Maybe the misconception is with intensive agriculture.

 

[Ernst]

The important thing is that any law we get makes it clear we have the rights to Horticulture. That means breeding and growing.
That's why a size limit on the ground space is wrong.
How can we breed right if we are forced to put all our plants in one space?
Seed savers need to grow out seeds to make fresh seeds because seeds do not last for ever.
And so on.
So the idea of limits on the people is wrong unless the goal is to generate a new form of prohibition.

 

[Dan Kone]

Where is Dan?

planting stuff

 

[Dan Kone]

The important thing is that any law we get makes it clear we have the rights to Horticulture. That means breeding and growing.
That's why a size limit on the ground space is wrong.
How can we breed right if we are forced to put all our plants in one space?
Seed savers need to grow out seeds to make fresh seeds because seeds do not last for ever.
And so on.
So the idea of limits on the people is wrong unless the goal is to generate a new form of prohibition.

That also makes commercial grow houses in residential neighborhoods legal. People won't support that. A limit of 99 plants is federal. You don't really get a choice on that.

The limits are necessary to stop people from running illegal for profit businesses out of residential neighborhoods.

 

[Michael Sparks]

Ernst, I agree that we do need to have a clear, defined outline of all that goes into such a policy, I keep getting this feeling it is all for nothing, do you think (trying to change) this is designed to distract us from all the issues circling the world like a vulture (currently) What i mean that these laws put in place just to keep the prisons filled and generating far more (revenue in taxes) then the sales and taxes of marijuana, we know and have seen what the benefits were in California, we have to keep in mind we are NOT in control of what occurs in our country much less the world, as we believe these are great plans of action and at the very least we are trying to work within the system, for obvious reasons i hesitate and hush the good feeling that this would be and could be, that it will be what we want and it wont be perverted and added to 'big brother' files that are stored about you and I and all of those that are involved in anything that goes against what the interests of those that control various aspects of all that we look toward for responsible and decisive action. We Want Change! lets make it

 

[Ernst]

planting stuff

Cool. Commercial or Medical?

 

[Ernst]

Ernst, I agree that we do need to have a clear, defined outline of all that goes into such a policy, I keep getting this feeling it is all for nothing, do you think (trying to change) this is designed to distract us from all the issues circling the world like a vulture (currently) What i mean that these laws put in place just to keep the prisons filled and generating far more (revenue in taxes) then the sales and taxes of marijuana, we know and have seen what the benefits were in California, we have to keep in mind we are NOT in control of what occurs in our country much less the world, as we believe these are great plans of action and at the very least we are trying to work within the system, for obvious reasons i hesitate and hush the good feeling that this would be and could be, that it will be what we want and it wont be perverted and added to 'big brother' files that are stored about you and I and all of those that are involved in anything that goes against what the interests of those that control various aspects of all that we look toward for responsible and decisive action. We Want Change! lets make it

---

Oh-kay Let me answer concisely.
We live in a Top Down world. We live in a Capital-System so the basic ideology and a great bias in critical thinking, because we all fear for our survival, is that everything has to originate top down but, cannabis is a plant that lives in our world and a part of evolution deserved of respect.

So it's about doing for Cannabis first and people second if we are really people of the cannabis-green.

Who is saving seeds? Who are our elders of the garden?
We can always look top down and hammer the dents on the vehicle but we should consider the dents may be change we need.

Save the Weed.. Horticulture rights for the people! Cannabis ownership for the people!

Is that good?

 

[Ernst]

That also makes commercial grow houses in residential neighborhoods legal. People won't support that. A limit of 99 plants is federal. You don't really get a choice on that.

The limits are necessary to stop people from running illegal for profit businesses out of residential neighborhoods.

You are one who will face a rapid expansion of supply. Dude.. I have seeds and could provide some fine. I am willing to be a man who saves Cannabis. Maybe we two can save Cannabis together.
If we have freedom of 99 plants I doubt that those without commercial license will find proper market in California. That means there will be surplus and a price drop. It also will encourage all the states to adopt reasonable laws. If we can legalize Gambling with Debt Swaps and exempt risking the lives of all Americans we damn sure can enjoy a smoke.
So, The market has to adjust. It is in the process of it's first exposure to legal commerce and that is 1996 on and I can understand how it is desirable to expand on that theme but it is based on prohibition and thus we take sides of Legalize and Decriminalize.
However try this: Cannabis is a Citizen of the Earth. That we get benefit is good that we keep it evolving is better for Cannabis in my opinion.

ownership of this reintroduced plant has to start at the Bottom up or Corporations do win else we have to keep a form of prohibition and man the jails.

That seems to be thoughtful. Feedback welcome.

 

[incognegro999]

hmm I'm impressed. With Mr Kone that is. Seemed to me that he was just bashing on Ernst (dont know the whole story just from a couple threads i peeked in on). However, That being said his strategy sounded like an excellent well thought out proposal. kudos

 

[Ernst]

I am looking forward to your reply Dan and so is incognegro999.

Cycle with the flow...

 

[Dan Kone]

Cool. Commercial or Medical?

both. Also some personal and some for my tribe as well, gotta take care of your peoples.

 

[Dan Kone]

hmm I'm impressed. With Mr Kone that is. Seemed to me that he was just bashing on Ernst (dont know the whole story just from a couple threads i peeked in on).

Guilty as charged. But due to his characterizations of me and anyone who disagrees with him in previous threads as well as the true intent of what he wants to do and the conflict between that intent and what he is saying, I feel like the bashing is justified.

However, That being said his strategy sounded like an excellent well thought out proposal. kudos

It actually wasn't well thought out at all, but thank you.

The form of legalization I want to see is one that benefits everyone. I believe it is unwise to push something that is more polarizing than it needs to be. I think that it is important to pass a legalization bill that benefits everyone, not just select groups of people. When pushing for legalization we have certain responsibilities to the entire country.

If we pass a law in Cali that benefits everyone, non-smokers included we can show the country and the world that legalization can be something good for everyone. Rather than have cannabis legalization be strictly a minority rights (cannabis users rights), it can be that as well as an economy benefit for everyone.

When we pass laws we have to remember they potentially effect everyone in the community. We have to take into consideration what other people think. I believe we could pass a fairly liberal version of legalization that still accomplishes that. That is what I was shooting for.

I think the enemy of legalization is extremism coming from any direction. I think an extreme legalization bill that basically says "fuck you!" to everyone but growers will set us back. It's also not likely to pass. IMO that's just as bad as an extreme corporate friendly version of legalization.

Basically, we have to have balance to be successful, and we have to focus on making it a good thing for everyone, not just small minorities of people. While what I wrote was rushed and surely leaves out a lot, I think the general idea of what I was writing accomplishes that.

 

[Dan Kone]

I am willing to be a man who saves Cannabis. Maybe we two can save Cannabis together.

lol. Not likely.

I'm not buying what you are selling.

You want to legalize commercial grow houses in residential neighborhoods. You want to keep legitimate businesses related to cannabis illegal. You support something that does not benefit the majority of people in California in any way. What you support is extremely unlikely to pass. Do you think people with kids are going to vote for something that could turn their neighbors house into an unlicensed commercial cannabis business? There is no chance in hell. Even if they did, I still think it's wrong to pass a law that supports a tiny portion of people while leaving out the majority.

Sorry, until you take the time to really think out what you're supporting, I'll be opposing you.

 

[Ernst]

I'm in favor of it all Dan just not in an all in one Initiative.
Just to restate: I believe California isn't ready for an all or nothing Initiative.
Since it is two strikes for the prop 19s and one Home Run for prop 215 the obvious choice in moving forward in 2012 I am stating that we need to divide the efforts up with Freedoms for the people first.

If we cannot legalize for the people we cannot legalize any thing.

Remember cannabis millionaires still make bank even if 2012 fails because they already are making bank.

So Dan, You believe that we should go without unless you get what you want? That is how I read it.

I sure wish you were on the people's side.

 

[TheDemocrat]

need to get over it...it will never be legalized.

 

[Ernst]

need to get over it...it will never be legalized.

That is not true since it is legal for some now to buy,sell,practice horticulture and use.

We need to expand that to all and improve things for medical people.
The trade off is we need to make the initiative simple to understand for all voters that they are voting for freedom for the people like they did with prop 215

 

[TheDemocrat]

That is not true since it is legal for some now to buy,sell,practice horticulture and use.

We need to expand that to all and improve things for medical people.
The trade off is we need to make the initiative simple to understand for all voters that they are voting for freedom for the people like they did with prop 215

where is it legal...?

 

[Ernst]

where is it legal...?

Well yeah I am twisting the words a bit I'm relating the liberty Medical people in California have as legal.

I am saying that the people can grow, use and trade cannabis without punishment if they are in the California medical program.
That if they are not violating the rules they will not be punished under the law.

I am also saying for 2012 that we should focus on improving this by making it legal for all California Citizens to grow, use and privately non-commercially trade cannabis with other California Citizens.