The Dan Kone Thread of Legalizing For Us All.

[Ernst]

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

So you sell weed for your tribe? How does that work? Is Tribe here family or community?
Do you donate the profits to the community coffer?

 

[Dan Kone]

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.

And you can't tell the difference between what I suggested and prop 19?

I don't understand the thought process (or lack there of) which leads you to believe that Californian non-smokers are going to vote to legalize unlimited scale grow houses in residential neighborhoods and people "trading" cannabis out of their homes. What makes you believe +50% of Californians would vote for that?

 

[Dan Kone]

So you sell weed for your tribe? How does that work? Is Tribe here family or community?
Do you donate the profits to the community coffer?

Family. No, I don't donate profits to the community because there are no profits. My collective operates as a MB non-profit. In that system profits are called surplus. The surplus is paid out in salary/bonuses. The surplus needs to go down to zero by the end of each year otherwise it is considered a profit which would be illegal.

 

[Ernst]

We already trade out of our homes, cars and streets.

Why do you think that passing a "Decriminalization" for cannabis means we will be successful in prohibiting the trade of this plant?
That's the basic folly of prohibition. Legalization is the way to go!

We have need to reintroduce this crop from the bottom up. Grant the rights to this crop to the people and then if business can be sustained all the better but to start at the top and work down with criminal penalties for growing, using and private non-commercial trading is still prohibition and thus Decriminalization.

Bottom up is the way to go. We are re-introducing this crop and it was legal for the people before and needs to be re-legalized for the people.
Just because prohibition made for high value to a simple plant is no grounds to keep a form of prohibition as the method of re-legalization.
Trying to protect profiting at prohibition prices is no argument for cannabis-freedom.

I await your counter.

 

[Dan Kone]

We already trade out of our homes, cars and streets.

Not legally. Why would non-smokers want to make that legal? Why do you think they would prefer that over trading out of a store?

Why do you think that passing a "Decriminalization" for cannabis means we will be successful in prohibiting the trade of this plant?
That's the basic folly of prohibition. Legalization is the way to go!

I don't think anyone is arguing against legalization in general. I just don't think what you're supporting is real legalization nor is it something voters will support.

We have need to reintroduce this crop from the bottom up. Grant the rights to this crop to the people and then if business can be sustained all the better but to start at the top and work down with criminal penalties for growing,

No, we don't have to do that. Stating something doesn't make it a fact.

using and private non-commercial trading is still prohibition and thus Decriminalization.

Exactly. You're supporting a liberal form of prohibition, not legalization.

Bottom up is the way to go. We are re-introducing this crop and it was legal for the people before and needs to be re-legalized for the people.
Just because prohibition made for high value to a simple plant is no grounds to keep a form of prohibition as the method of re-legalization.
Trying to protect profiting at prohibition prices is no argument for cannabis-freedom.

I await your counter.

You say "bottom up is the way to go". But then you offer no reasoning for why Californians would support that over real legalization. Stating something doesn't make it true. If you want people to believe that you need to give a logical explanation for why that is more likely to pass than real legalization.

So tell me, why would the majority of Californians voters vote for a law that does not benefit them and would legalize commercial cannabis cultivation and sales in their residential neighborhood?

Why do you think that California voters would prefer commercial cannabis is grown and sold in residential neighborhoods rather than in a store? Why do you think voters would support a law where they get a big "fuck you, you get nothing" over a law which would raise money for local schools?

You avoid these questions because you can not answer them. You avoid them because even you know I'm right. What you're proposing defies logic. I know that you know that because you have no answers when I point out fundamental flaws in what you support.

Simply wanting something is not enough. You have to consider reality. You have to consider the majority of voters. It's not all about what's best for Ernest.

 

[Ernst]

Actually I am waiting for you.

What part of prop 19s didn't pass but prop 215 did have I not made clear?

Given that prop 215 passed and prop 19 didn't the difference between prop 19 II and Prop 215 is commerce language.
I am pointing out that the people of California do not want to vote for commerce as per the result of the vote on prop 19 II

Perhaps you have a counter on prop 215 passing and prop 19 failing.

Lets start there.

 

[Dan Kone]

Actually I am waiting for you.

What part of prop 19s didn't pass but prop 215 did have I not made clear?

Given that prop 215 passed and prop 19 didn't the difference between prop 19 II and Prop 215 is commerce language.
I am pointing out that the people of California do not want to vote for commerce as per the result of the vote on prop 19 II

Perhaps you have a counter on prop 215 passing and prop 19 failing.

Lets start there.

You're operating under a false assumption and pretending it's a fact.

The problem people had with prop 19 is it allowed for unlimited scale cannabis factory production. You support unlimited scale growing. You're supporting the most objectionable part of prop 19. What I proposed corrected the problem, what you propose does not.

Basically you're assuming that the problem people had with prop 19 is that there would be stores that sell cannabis. That's not true. People didn't like it because it allowed for potential corporate monopolies and massive cannabis factories. What I proposed eliminated that problem entirely. So when you compare what I'm proposing with the reasons prop 19 failed you're just plain wrong. Do you see anyone here other than yourself raising the same objections they had with prop 19 to what I'm proposing? No. It's just you. No one else has made a fundamental objection to what I'm proposing. You're the only one.

 

[Ernst]

Family. No, I don't donate profits to the community because there are no profits. My collective operates as a MB non-profit. In that system profits are called surplus. The surplus is paid out in salary/bonuses. The surplus needs to go down to zero by the end of each year otherwise it is considered a profit which would be illegal.

I understand and I rejoice that you have liberty. Shall we make sure all have a similar liberty in California?

It's a plant. A part of the Earth. We either support the right to crops in the soil or die. It isn't about Liberty to me it's about being a part of the planet. We divide everything up and feast but we should always make sure the future people can at least grow crops.

Look even if I am not in a standard orbit I still have a hell of a view.
I understand that you have economic interests but we have to default to placing the future of cannabis into the hands of the people; Commerce be damned.

This is the simplest step and if that cannot be done then we are all done for.

That is how I feel.. In math 1+1+1 = 3, In our reality rights to crops belong to Monsanto.
Just cuz we do it this way don't mean it's brilliant for all times.
It doesn't mean it is the best thing for Cannabis for all times of human need of it. Think of the future people and how the genetics will be tended. Seed savers sound like a plan huh?

Just some chat my not-friend not-chat-mate...

 

[Ernst]

I do smoke pot that is true. Do you?

You're operating under a false assumption and pretending it's a fact.

The problem people had with prop 19 is it allowed for unlimited scale cannabis factory production. You support unlimited scale growing. You're supporting the most objectionable part of prop 19. What I proposed corrected the problem, what you propose does not.

Basically you're assuming that the problem people had with prop 19 is that there would be stores that sell cannabis. That's not true. People didn't like it because it allowed for potential corporate monopolies and massive cannabis factories. What I proposed eliminated that problem entirely. So when you compare what I'm proposing with the reasons prop 19 failed you're just plain wrong. Do you see anyone here other than yourself raising the same objections they had with prop 19 to what I'm proposing? No. It's just you. No one else has made a fundamental objection to what I'm proposing. You're the only one.

You are alluding to an alliance but hang on to that.

No mater who has made money on cannabis before it is made legal to all. legalizing should be an open fronter for all who want a business licence, practice "safe and sane" use and it should be respected that any gardener who wants to practice proper Horticulture can; however, California has not voted for such a combination of liberties in two initiatives and has only voted for non-commercial use. I'm willing to wager on that a smaller version of Cannabis liberty is easier to pass than a better constructed special interest version.

In any person's life they have time for many things. If a citizen is growing plants in a garden is he a criminal?
If a Citizen is consuming Cannabis is he a criminal?
If a Citizen is sharing seed and produce in a non-commercial way is he a criminal?
It really comes down to two industries losing monies doesn't it and the easiest sacrifice is the liberties of the Citizen. I mean given a reduction in Law enforcement monies for cannabis and the possible drop in the high prices at dispensaries why not kill the private gardener and split the profits?

It is profitable to both because it is illegal on the Federal level.

Let it drop as low as it will go and one day you can buy stock in it.

Legalize it for the people!
Take a safe step enjoy cannabis liberty!

If there is one choice I choose the people.

Hey 4 hours of metal on http://www.wsum.org/ Still have about two hours or so left.. Enjoy!

 

[Michael Sparks]

Dan you want to live in the boundaries of the "system" and Ernst is thinking in the way that "we are the people" so why should we be told what we can and cannot grow, where is the freedom in that? Is it the control? if we can all see that our power is of a minuscule amount in comparison to the "leader" of the world then why are we debating such thing sitting behind our computers when we should be out spreading this message ? I feel this distracts us from standing up and shouting for what we believe in 'there will be a difference of opinion' that is what makes us who we are ( i ramble)

 

[Ernst]

Not legally. Why would non-smokers want to make that legal? Why do you think they would prefer that over trading out of a store?



I don't think anyone is arguing against legalization in general. I just don't think what you're supporting is real legalization nor is it something voters will support.



No, we don't have to do that. Stating something doesn't make it a fact.



Exactly. You're supporting a liberal form of prohibition, not legalization.



You say "bottom up is the way to go". But then you offer no reasoning for why Californians would support that over real legalization. Stating something doesn't make it true. If you want people to believe that you need to give a logical explanation for why that is more likely to pass than real legalization.

So tell me, why would the majority of Californians voters vote for a law that does not benefit them and would legalize commercial cannabis cultivation and sales in their residential neighborhood?

Why do you think that California voters would prefer commercial cannabis is grown and sold in residential neighborhoods rather than in a store? Why do you think voters would support a law where they get a big "fuck you, you get nothing" over a law which would raise money for local schools?

You avoid these questions because you can not answer them. You avoid them because even you know I'm right. What you're proposing defies logic. I know that you know that because you have no answers when I point out fundamental flaws in what you support.

Simply wanting something is not enough. You have to consider reality. You have to consider the majority of voters. It's not all about what's best for Ernest.

Let me try again.. It's two strikes for prop 19s and one home run for prop 215.
2 elements are all that are needed for a pattern.
California will vote yes for private citizens and it will vote no on commerce.
Now you may say that you would like to include commerce as the "real Legalization" but it is time to check the status of the yes vote pattern.. we need a second chance for non-commerce.
If they vote non-commerce down then a pro commerce real legalization is a bust as well.
Add a central regulatory agency for collecting permit fees and the state saves money on arrests and makes money on permits.

 

[Ernst]

Dan you want to live in the boundaries of the "system" and Ernst is thinking in the way that "we are the people" so why should we be told what we can and cannot grow, where is the freedom in that? Is it the control? if we can all see that our power is of a minuscule amount in comparison to the "leader" of the world then why are we debating such thing sitting behind our computers when we should be out spreading this message ? I feel this distracts us from standing up and shouting for what we believe in 'there will be a difference of opinion' that is what makes us who we are ( i ramble)

Oh didn't you gather signatures last cycle? I did. I am ready to do it again.

I am pointing to the fact that over complicated is a no vote. We won't have a blind majority unless they can trust what they read.
Why not be all for one so we can get to one for all?


Perhaps we are getting to the point of solidarity. Cool but the Green Business wants ain't the smoking kind.
So before we all decide on an all or nothing gamble in 2012 with some modified reconstructed form of the all in one let us break it down and look at the individual aspects.
Which opens the door for all things? It should be rights for people.
if you are on the side of business goes too or nothing goes then your green isn't cannabis.

 

[Ernst]

What I approve of, you two, is some language that grants crops, this crop, to the people. That liberty is defined by the square foot or by the pound is irrelevant.

Seriously. We can't stop illegal sales now so why would 8 pounds be any different from 25 pounds? If someone wants to sell they will regardless.
Now if it's legal for the people our congress will have reference of the will of the people to establish commerce as they want. They already deal with sales.
The cool thing needs to be that no mater what part of the state you live in you have rights to grow, use and trade in non-commercial ways if we all submit to legalizing for the people as a safe step in 2012.

So what can I say? An all in one initiative has failed twice and a legalize for the people has passed once in one try.. Safe bet is repeat the winning strategy.

Because those making bank can afford to wait if an all or nothing fails in 2012 but our people still go to prison.
The market has to adjust so get it over in one painful cycle and be done.

Now if I am missing the point all together I will regret the drone but if this is an effort to compromise then it would be an all in one again. That is how I see it.

 

[Dan Kone]

Dan you want to live in the boundaries of the "system" and Ernst is thinking in the way that "we are the people"

I'm trying to improve the boundaries of the system. Ernest's way of thinking seems to me to be "we the people who want to turn residential houses into commercials farms say screw everyone else".

Ernest's version of "we the people" seems to apply only to people who want to do large scale growing in their houses. That's a very small group. Sure they should get their rights, but what about everyone else? Why are they less important?

so why should we be told what we can and cannot grow, where is the freedom in that?

I'm not against people growing whatever they want for personal use.

There are plenty of good reasons it shouldn't be legal to turn residential housing into commercial grow houses and run a non-licensed businesses out of their homes.

Is it the control? if we can all see that our power is of a minuscule amount in comparison to the "leader" of the world then why are we debating such thing sitting behind our computers when we should be out spreading this message ? I feel this distracts us from standing up and shouting for what we believe in 'there will be a difference of opinion' that is what makes us who we are ( i ramble)

That's nice rhetoric and all, but it says nothing about the actual substance of what Ernest is supporting. He's supporting the legalization of the commercial black market. I'm supporting something reasonable and has a legitimate chance of passing. What he's supporting has no chance. I think encouraging a law that has no chance in passing does more harm than good.

If you're under the impression that I'm against the freedom to personally grow and possess let me clear that up for you. I'm not. The personal freedom to grow and posses was written into what I proposed.

 

[Dan Kone]

Let me try again.. It's two strikes for prop 19s and one home run for prop 215.
2 elements are all that are needed for a pattern.
California will vote yes for private citizens and it will vote no on commerce.
Now you may say that you would like to include commerce as the "real Legalization" but it is time to check the status of the yes vote pattern.. we need a second chance for non-commerce.
If they vote non-commerce down then a pro commerce real legalization is a bust as well.
Add a central regulatory agency for collecting permit fees and the state saves money on arrests and makes money on permits.

Ernest, you're a broken record. You're also still ignoring facts. Repeating misinformation isn't debating nor is it informing. There is a word for that - propaganda.

I'm not supporting anything like prop 19. Prop 19 failed largely because it allowed for massive scale pot factories and people were opposed to that. What I proposed eliminates that problem. What you're supporting makes massive scale pot factories legal.

You can keep repeating that I'm supporting something just like prop 19 all you want, but it isn't true. Repeating it doesn't make it more true.

 

[Dan Kone]

What I approve of, you two, is some language that grants crops, this crop, to the people.

So am I. Just in a well thought out way.

That liberty is defined by the square foot or by the pound is irrelevant.

That sounds nice, but as I've said, stating something doesn't make it a fact.

Why do you need to grow 200 pounds at your house for "personal use"? If you want to grow 200 pounds, fine by me. Just get a commercial license like every other business has to.

Seriously. We can't stop illegal sales now so why would 8 pounds be any different from 25 pounds?

8 pounds could be from an outdoor crop that has to last a person all year. That's a shit load of bud for personal use.

No one has 25 pounds for personal use. That's bullshit. Anyone who has 25 pounds is selling it somewhere. I'm fine with that. Just create a legal business like everyone else who is selling anything for a living. It's not hard to do. What makes you so special that you deserve to play by a different set of rules than everyone else in America?

If someone wants to sell they will regardless.

And people who want to buy and sell should be able to legally without fear of law enforcement. Why you think those people are unworthy of legal protection is beyond me.

Now if it's legal for the people our congress will have reference of the will of the people to establish commerce as they want. They already deal with sales.

When you say stuff like that it makes me think you're Richard Lee operating under a phony name. If you let congress set the rules they will make it so the only people who are allowed to grow/sell cannabis for a living are huge corporate farmers. That fucks over so many people, especially up in Humbolt and Mendo. Whole communities will die if you get your way Ernest.

Either you haven't thought through the effects of what you're proposing or this is a really sneaky way of handing over cannabis to big business.

I do wonder why you are so passionately against people who earn a living growing and selling cannabis. Makes me think you've got some agenda you're not willing to come out and say.

So Ernest, do you really want Phillip Morris and Richard Lee types to take over the cannabis trade? Are you unaware that this is what you're supporting? Or do you know that is the ultimate effect and that's why you're pushing a very specific agenda?

 

[Ernst]

Dan are you promoting an all in one initiative?

One where commerce is part of the initiative?

 

[TheDemocrat]

the medical marijuana movement in the US is in trouble, look at how many MM states that have had bills introduced to end MM in their state. we're doomed to a clandestine lifestyle...get used to it.

 

[Ernst]

the medical marijuana movement in the US is in trouble, look at how many MM states that have had bills introduced to end MM in their state. we're doomed to a clandestine lifestyle...get used to it.

Are you in California? Just chattin'

 

[growone]

the medical marijuana movement in the US is in trouble, look at how many MM states that have had bills introduced to end MM in their state. we're doomed to a clandestine lifestyle...get used to it.

not sure how things will move in California, but i strongly agree with MMJ stagnating(at current rates anyways)
each new state seems to outdo the previous one in making a more restrictive system