The Dan Kone Thread of Legalizing For Us All.

[TheDemocrat]

Are you in California? Just chattin'

no, I'm in tennessee.

 

[Ernst]

no, I'm in tennessee.

Oh cool Tennessee.

California has a schizophrenic mind on cannabis.

On the one hand bikini clad roller-blade skating young woman invite you into the beach side board walk Dr's office to get a recommendation for cannabis and in another part of the State no dispensaries are possible and they go after even the delivery people when they can find them.

 

[Dan Kone]

Dan are you promoting an all in one initiative?

One where commerce is part of the initiative?

Just like you. Commerce is part of your initiative. You open a whole new market where everyone can grow unlimited scale pot farms.

It's not that you don't address commerce, you just address it in a different way.

 

[Ernst]

Just like you. Commerce is part of your initiative. You open a whole new market where everyone can grow unlimited scale pot farms.

It's not that you don't address commerce, you just address it in a different way.

Do you think an initiative with direct commerce language has a chance?

So far it's two strike outs.

If you do why do you think an Initiative with direct language has a chance?

I advocate non-direct language which advocates rights for all that are liberal.

But I have been on the charge and now I'm on the rest so I listen more on the rest.. Go on. Share your view.

 

[Dan Kone]

Do you think an initiative with direct commerce language has a chance?

Absolutely. In fact I think it's the only way it passes. You have to remember that more than 50% of voters do not consume cannabis and care very little about legalization. You have to give them some sort of incentive if you want their votes. Commerce is a necessity to do that.

So far it's two strike outs.

Ernest now you're just playing dumb. Prop 19 didn't fail because it had commerce. It almost passed because it had commerce. It failed because it allowed monopolies. It's quite easy to have commerce without monopolies. Also prop 19 allowed for massive unlimited scale pot farms and people didn't like that. That is another easily correctable problem.

Your assumption that voters didn't pass prop 19 because they would rather have cannabis grown and sold in residential neighborhoods is baseless and completely false.

If you do why do you think an Initiative with direct language has a chance?

Why do you assume that prop 19 didn't pass because people would rather have commercial cannabis grown and sold out of people's houses rather than in stores? That's a massive leap in logic. It's nuts.

I advocate non-direct language which advocates rights for all that are liberal.

By not addressing commerce you are letting corporate America address it for you. Is that really what you want?

At this point we are talking in circles. You refuse to address any of the fundamental flaws in your logic. I'm not going to continue to repeat myself or listen to your tired fortune cookie logic. Nothing you say holds up when you try to elaborate past one sentence. You're like the George Bush of legalization. It all makes sense as long as you don't think about anything you're saying. You're a fraud Ernest. And I refuse to pretend that you're anything but that.

 

[Ernst]

Absolutely. In fact I think it's the only way it passes. You have to remember that more than 50% of voters do not consume cannabis and care very little about legalization. You have to give them some sort of incentive if you want their votes. Commerce is a necessity to do that.



Ernest now you're just playing dumb. Prop 19 didn't fail because it had commerce. It almost passed because it had commerce. It failed because it allowed monopolies. It's quite easy to have commerce without monopolies. Also prop 19 allowed for massive unlimited scale pot farms and people didn't like that. That is another easily correctable problem.

Your assumption that voters didn't pass prop 19 because they would rather have cannabis grown and sold in residential neighborhoods is baseless and completely false.



Why do you assume that prop 19 didn't pass because people would rather have commercial cannabis grown and sold out of people's houses rather than in stores? That's a massive leap in logic. It's nuts.



By not addressing commerce you are letting corporate America address it for you. Is that really what you want?

At this point we are talking in circles. You refuse to address any of the fundamental flaws in your logic. I'm not going to continue to repeat myself or listen to your tired fortune cookie logic. Nothing you say holds up when you try to elaborate past one sentence. You're like the George Bush of legalization. It all makes sense as long as you don't think about anything you're saying. You're a fraud Ernest. And I refuse to pretend that you're anything but that.

Thanks for replying.

I like the way you redefine an ass kicking at the polls as an almost victory.

Commerce is already addressed in California. It's a crime on the State level and especially the Federal Level.

Do you remember the drop in the polls after the Federal Government said it would still bust sales?

I hope you do.

I still say it is better to take a smaller safer step and deal with commerce separately.

I never said people prefer people growing in their communities I said it is the lowest common element for us all to vote on.
Give the voter the least amount of reasons to vote no.
My broken record is we all need to sacrifice to get legalization for the people.
As for where they will buy it? I assume many communities that can sell it now will still sell it.

So in an effort to continue the conversation.

Why will you not join in in getting cannabis legalized for the people as a simple safe step.

Notice I skipped the insult filler part of the reply.

 

[Dan Kone]

I never said people prefer people growing in their communities I said it is the lowest common element for us all to vote on.
Give the voter the least amount of reasons to vote no.

And you think the majority of voters would rather cannabis be commercially grown and sold out of residential neighborhoods than safely in stores raising much needed income and created jobs?

That's insane.

Notice I skipped the insult filler part of the reply

You don't get bonus points for being a polite fraud. You would get bonus points for having well thought out substance in your posts. That's the only way you could change my opinion of you.

 

[Ernst]

And you think the majority of voters would rather cannabis be commercially grown and sold out of residential neighborhoods than safely in stores raising much needed income and created jobs?

That's insane.



You don't get bonus points for being a polite fraud. You would get bonus points for having well thought out substance in your posts. That's the only way you could change my opinion of you.

I live in Turlock and I can tell you these people want to keep a lid on what they have established.
Remember the drug dealing is just as deep here as any place in California it's just out of sight and out of mind.

So when any of these people read that an initiative can force them to allow weed shops in their Church dominated culture they decide no right then and there.


So if any of these voters is even slightly willing then a simpler for the people rights are an easier pill to swallow.
It's just that simple.. Many are not ready to decide on the bigger picture.
even some of our own do not want the bigger picture.

So then would you vote yes if our Initiative only promoted freedom for the people?

Oh by the way will your Dairy people hire a pot smoker?

 

[Dan Kone]

I live in Turlock and I can tell you these people want to keep a lid on what they have established.
Remember the drug dealing is just as deep here as any place in California it's just out of sight and out of mind.

You choose to live in one of the most f-d up places in California. You're fault. There are plenty of places without that problem.

So when any of these people read that an initiative can force them to allow weed shops in their Church dominated culture they decide no right then and there.

Those people are no voters under any circumstances. Do you really think their is a chance in hell they'll vote for legalizing unlicensed commercial grow houses in their neighborhoods?

It's just that simple.. Many are not ready to decide on the bigger picture.
even some of our own do not want the bigger picture.

No, it isn't. It's much more complicated that that. Not all of our problems can be solved by spouting catch phrases like "horticulture rights". Some things are just more complex than that.

So then would you vote yes if our Initiative only promoted freedom for the people?

Calling the legalization of commercial growing/selling in residential neighborhoods "freedom for the people" doesn't change what you're really advocating. "Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken" - Tyler Durden.

Oh by the way will your Dairy people hire a pot smoker?

F- no. They are bible thumping lunatics.

 

[Ernst]

Well by having the stamina to stand out front of the local wall-mart and gather signatures for 5 months I think I have a right to be liberal in Turlock.

So you know what I am up against here and I believe Turlock is not unique to California.

What you may not know is that there are hard core drug dealing in this area. Not only the Mexican gangs but the White Gangs..

There is no way a pot-shop is going to make any of these drug dealers happy and then the Christian and Catholic communities are no votes as well.
However, if we all vote on a simple legalize for the people we can avoid the hassle of dealing with the drug gangs and anti-drug gangs and the whole for profit thing.

Once anyone can grow, use and trade then the walls fall down and it all changes.
When a call to the police can do nothing to evict a family then we have cannabis freedom.
all the pot shops in California cannot make up for on day in prison for humble private cannabis people.

You do point fingers at me so I will ask again since you are the Duck.. Uh you Ducked.

So then would you vote yes if our Initiative only promoted freedom for the people?

 

[Dan Kone]

Well by having the stamina to stand out front of the local wall-mart and gather signatures for 5 months I think I have a right to be liberal in Turlock.

Sure, but that is your choice.

So you know what I am up against here and I believe Turlock is not unique to California.

More churches per capita than anywhere in the united states? Yeah, that's unique to california.

What you may not know is that there are hard core drug dealing in this area. Not only the Mexican gangs but the White Gangs..

I'm aware of the meth problem in Turlock, mantica, etc....

There is no way a pot-shop is going to make any of these drug dealers happy and then the Christian and Catholic communities are no votes as well.
However, if we all vote on a simple legalize for the people we can avoid the hassle of dealing with the drug gangs and anti-drug gangs and the whole for profit thing.

What you're proposing ignores the problem, it does not deal with the problem. It makes the problem worse.

Once anyone can grow, use and trade then the walls fall down and it all changes.
When a call to the police can do nothing to evict a family then we have cannabis freedom. all the pot shops in California cannot make up for on day in prison for humble private cannabis people.

I agree and I support that. I just don't think we need to fuck over the rest of California to fix the problems of Turlock.

You do point fingers at me so I will ask again since you are the Duck.. Uh you Ducked

I'm not ducking anything. I addressed almost all of what you said throughout this thread and the others on a point by point basis. You ignore all the major points I bring up. You can't just say stuff and have it become fact. What you say is not the truth. You might be able to fool some people that way, but I'm not one of them.

 

[Ernst]

You still avoided an answer.

So then would you vote yes if our Initiative only promoted freedom for the people?

Turlock has the most Churches per capita in the World not just the USA. I didn't believe that until I walked most of this town last winter for exercise.

 

[Dan Kone]

You still avoided an answer.

So I'm expected to answer every single one of your questions while you ignore nearly every single one of my questions. I don't think so.

 

[incognegro999]

You still avoided an answer.



Turlock has the most Churches per capita in the World not just the USA. I didn't believe that until I walked most of this town last winter for exercise.

Im not calling you a liar, but I just find that hard to believe having spent significant time deep in the "Bible Belt".

 

[Ernst]

So I'm expected to answer every single one of your questions while you ignore nearly every single one of my questions. I don't think so.

I know you are what am I? How funny..

So you would vote for the people or not?

 

[Ernst]

Im not calling you a liar, but I just find that hard to believe having spent significant time deep in the "Bible Belt".

Well I understand it to be a Guinness book of records.. Lemme check

Oh my it was in the 1930's on Ripley's believe it or not.

n the 1930s Turlock was cited by Ripley's Believe It or Not as having the most churches per capita in the U.S.; this had partly to do with the variety of ethnic churches, which were established for the

It's part of the local folk lore that includes the seat at the local dinner where George Bush I sat.

I'll adjust my posts about the most churches.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turlock,_California

So Turlock has a history that stems from the most churches per capita.

srry

 

[Ernst]

So incognegro999 are you a California Voter?

 

[Dan Kone]

I know you are what am I? How funny..

So you would vote for the people or not?

Sure, but that's not what you're supporting. You're supporting the rights of a very small select group of people while ignoring the rights of everyone else. Yes, I would vote for the people, but I would not vote for what you are supporting because it ignores the majority of the people.

Now your turn.

Why do you think the majority of voters want to legalize black market dealing? Why do you think people want to legalize turning residential neighborhoods into commercial grow houses? Why do you think people support unlimited growing with no cap considering how unpopular those large scale grow houses in Oakland were? Why do you think people who buy their cannabis are less deserving of protection from the law than people who grow their own? Why do you think we are better off letting corporate America write our cannabis sales/commercial cultivation laws rather than letting the people have a say in the matter?

I know you won't answer my questions even after I answered yours. I just wanted to show everyone what kind of hypocrite you are.

 

[Ernst]

Sure, but that's not what you're supporting. You're supporting the rights of a very small select group of people while ignoring the rights of everyone else. Yes, I would vote for the people, but I would not vote for what you are supporting because it ignores the majority of the people.

Now your turn.

Why do you think the majority of voters want to legalize black market dealing? Why do you think people want to legalize turning residential neighborhoods into commercial grow houses? Why do you think people support unlimited growing with no cap considering how unpopular those large scale grow houses in Oakland were? Why do you think people who buy their cannabis are less deserving of protection from the law than people who grow their own? Why do you think we are better off letting corporate America write our cannabis sales/commercial cultivation laws rather than letting the people have a say in the matter?

I know you won't answer my questions even after I answered yours. I just wanted to show everyone what kind of hypocrite you are.

I started laughing with the first paragraph.

Legalizing for the people is all the people not a small percentage of the people.
I am guessing the problem for you is we all will be equal.

LOL
Let me read more..

I'm gonna try again so please pay attention.

The history of the votes in California support a non-commerce legalization because two Initiatives that allowed commerce have been rejected and the one Initiative that supported a non-commerce medical system was accepted.

That is Non-commerce is the preferred method.

So the idea is to get something for our efforts in 2012 and to play it safe so that we pass legalization for the people as the foundation of cannabis liberty.

Black market exists with out legalization for all the people.
Public sales exists with out legalization for all the people.
Grow houses exist without legalization.

Our law to legalize use, horticulture and private non-commercial trade for our citizens offers a path we good and faithful citizens can choose to live free or to break the law and engage in illegal trade but this already happens.

By laying the foundation of freedom we can then look to cannabis industry and craft sensible laws that allow commerce and business.


Dan in horse racing the safest bet is 2 dollars on the favorite to show. That means put your money on the best possible chance to gain some even though it may be less than what you might win if you gamble to win or place.

I put it to everyone that it is better we focus on the basic foundation and then work on other goals after.

An all in one Initiative, like prop 19, that tried to birth an entire cannabis reality at once for one is difficult for the average voter to read and understand.
Keep it simple. Provide freedom for people ( 100% of the people ) and we work from there.

Any legalization effort will have "everyone and their dog" (tm) thinking they can make bank as we all have seen before and after the vote on prop 19 but as we are seeing now the market does stabilize.
So let us take time to allow the people and law enforcement to adjust then we work on business aspects.

It all needs to get done but it's proved by voting results California will not vote for an all in one initiative where commerce is part of the initiative.

So you will vote for the people only. Good job..
Although I was against prop 19 and I was vocally and textually active debating it right on up to the vote. When it came to marking the bubble I held my nose and voted yes.

I would like to not have to hold my nose in 2012.

So if we focus efforts on legalizing for people it should make founding commerce much easier.

As far as keeping big business out of the commerce rights? Good luck.. The Lee group and that LLC is already diversified and able to use huge warehouses to grow weed. They ship thousand of clones a week and pounds a day so are you able to go one on one with that?
The way to level things is to grant the people rights first and then work on business after.

If you can counter am willing to read them but we have to agree this cannot be a fight against the people or one person.

How can granting rights to all Californians be the wrong first step in re-legalizing cannabis?
Fuck the money for a while. Let our law enforcement enjoy the freedom to do other things rather then putting our private citizen non-commercial activity people in prison.

Maybe we can actually clear the path for commerce by this simple first safe for the people legalizing step.

Once we get in sync we can talk about the State agency that will be funded by a permit process. That needs to be an agency that is pro-people as well.

 

[Michael Sparks]

Churches just mean that per captia in Turlock you have more people that believe the word of a fictional character rather then what you have the capability of thinking.. Lets just stick to the principals for legalization as a whole not just in Ca because is everyone going to goto cali for herb ?