The Dan Kone Thread of Legalizing For Us All.

[Ernst]

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 ?

Actually it's like a church on every block.
I didn't believe it until I started walking the town for exercise.

Mike, if we stop short say 10x10 or 15x15 that won't stop people.
There is no limit someone won't bypass.
Why not err on the side of freedom.

What is the reality of re-legalizing for the people first?
Does that establish solid rights?

Fuckit the price of weed will be whatever the price of weed will be. Legalize it!

I know we need some form of regulation but lets make it civil not criminal for infractions. You know pay the fine or lose your permit kind of thing.
Now all you who can't handle following the law.. Take your chances with the feds.. Like always.

So California can get monies for permits. Create Jobs and the people can be free. Win, win and win.

[video=youtube;8HcXcYlF3_0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HcXcYlF3_0[/video]

 

[Michael Sparks]

I do agree with ernst on the point that no matter the limitation we set those that want more will do to get what they want, we can dictate what we choose to be 'the best of all involved' but not every ONE person would agree, we can see human nature from the past world leader they're downfall was wanting more and falling for their greed. All i say is that equality w/o greed would create a atmosphere that would be agreeable for all those that NEED this to be available for all, there will be shifts in morality as we grow toward this goal. (i ramble)

 

[Ernst]

I guess we do have to think of it like an infection. It will be resisted by those who think it is a disease until they realize they won't die.
Until we win that PR battle there is no way Commerce is gonna fly.

Also not only will what we do for California will be what we have in California but, what we do, the USA has to add to a federal legalization at some point in the future.
Who among us in all the States can be as liberal as California? We need to swing left for the good of the Whole country.

There has to be controls but lets start with civil fines for permit violations.

Last smoke....

 

[Michael Sparks]

I think that people just need to understand what is good/bad (rather then just an enigmatically) to marijunan as a whole. We must look at it as effecting the entire world because in a reaistic aspect it will effect everyone from that point of change forward, is this the conclusion of your argument ? I am getting warmed up now

 

[Ernst]

Be the change..

Have to allow people time to adjust. Having pot in yards is hard enough for many but having pot in yards and in pot shops in their once pot free communities is a solid no vote.

I know we need to talk about a State level agency for regulating. I am in favor of civil fines for simple permit violations. I know more serious things have to be done to more serious offenders but I'd like to keep as much of the "regulating" a fine rather than a more serious charge.

Well that is an incomplete post but I am tired.
I watched four different reports on this budget issue. They are wanting to change Medicare , Food Stamps and something else to block grants so that when the money is gone it's. So if your state runs out of food stamps the State is stuck to feed it's people. It's ugly/ No wonder Planned Parenthood was used as a pawn they needed to hide what they were doing and Planned Parenthood was not getting chopped this whole time. Smoke screen.

later.. sleep time.

 

[DelSlow]

The only thing I don't get is how dispensaries can be non profit? They certainly don't give away weed for free. Why not just call it a business?

 

[Dan Kone]

The only thing I don't get is how dispensaries can be non profit? They certainly don't give away weed for free. Why not just call it a business?

Non-profits are a type of business. Non-profit corp does not mean the company isn't taking in money. All it means is the company doesn't keep any money in the company. The money they take in is called a surplus instead of profits and at the end of the year that surplus must = zero. A non-profit company could make millions of dollars, but as long as all that money is paid out at the end of the year it's still considered a non-profit. A lot of dispensary owners forms another for-profit corporation, calls it a management/holding corp, and has the non-profit pay the money it makes to the for-profit corporation.

So while the company that owns the dispensary is a non-profit, it can still make as much money as it wants as long as it moves the money to another corporation or the owners and employees of the non-profit. It's all just an accounting game.

 

[Dan Kone]

I do agree with ernst on the point that no matter the limitation we set those that want more will do to get what they want, we can dictate what we choose to be 'the best of all involved' but not every ONE person would agree, we can see human nature from the past world leader they're downfall was wanting more and falling for their greed. All i say is that equality w/o greed would create a atmosphere that would be agreeable for all those that NEED this to be available for all, there will be shifts in morality as we grow toward this goal. (i ramble)

I agree with all of that. That's the reason limits are necessary. Without limits the greed will lead to people constructing those mass production cannabis factories like the ones they wanted to build out in Oakland. Those were widely unpopular with the people of California both pro and anti cannabis legalization. They played a big role in prop 19 failing.

So that is why we need limits. Nothing wrong with high limits on personal cultivation. Sure, people will push those limits. That's human nature, I can accept that. But one thing I am sure of, no legalization is going to pass without placing a limit that prevents those mass production cannabis factories. The people of California won't accept legalization if those are involved. No one wants those.

 

[DelSlow]

Non-profits are a type of business. Non-profit corp does not mean the company isn't taking in money. All it means is the company doesn't keep any money in the company. The money they take in is called a surplus instead of profits and at the end of the year that surplus must = zero. A non-profit company could make millions of dollars, but as long as all that money is paid out at the end of the year it's still considered a non-profit. A lot of dispensary owners forms another for-profit corporation, calls it a management/holding corp, and has the non-profit pay the money it makes to the for-profit corporation.

So while the company that owns the dispensary is a non-profit, it can still make as much money as it wants as long as it moves the money to another corporation or the owners and employees of the non-profit. It's all just an accounting game.

Thank you for explaining

Learning is fun!

 

[Ernst]

So where are we guys?

I believe we have a serious chance to pass a for the people Initiative.

* The rights to practice Cannabis horticulture.
* The rights to reasonable use of cannabis without being fired or other.
* The rights to trade with other in non-commercial ways

Regulatory will be a State level permit system where all fees and other are handled by one regulatory agency for the whole state. The Department of Cannabis affairs?

We all need to submit to a yearly fee for a permit. I don't see any other way.
We fund our own policing by a fair and just department of cannabis. We might even elect civilians to the cannabis policy board?

So if all went according to this, if you want to grow cannabis you fill out a permit, define the size of the garden you have, define where it is and pay your permit fee and your ass is covered.

if you have special needs such as a breeding program or seeds saving where you have many more plants than one would reasonable need for a given year's produce having a permit defining what your purpose is also protects you.

Once we have a permits system. Once we fund a central agency and once our law enforcement people can identify the good people from the bad people we will have cannabis freedom.

For those who cannot or will not participate then good luck avoiding prison.

Is there another way?

Setting numerical limits and expect people to self police is a bit unrealistic wouldn't ya say?


So lets form a group and work on it.

We have the grand challenge of integrating our communities all over the State.


So who is in? There is much more work to do on defining things but the main things are rights to cannabis for the people and protections for those lawful citizens who grow cannabis.
It will take a few years for the Neighbours to get used to the idea that people can grow cannabis. let's not give them more to hate than that this next election cycle.

I'm in. Anyone else?
Here is the link if you are in https://www.rollitup.org/politics/418755-forming-pro-people-only-initiative.html


Ernst

 

[Dan Kone]

So where are we guys?

I believe we have a serious chance to pass a for the people Initiative.

* The rights to practice Cannabis horticulture.
* The rights to reasonable use of cannabis without being fired or other

Not under dispute at all.

* The rights to trade with other in non-commercial ways

Why do you assume that everyone has collectively agreed that? So far I've seen no objections to what I have proposed except from you.

We can find out for sure if you like. You write out an outline of what you are proposing like I have. Then lets do a poll with both options and see what people like best. Then there will be no question. Problem solved.

And no, putting up a poll that says "do you support cannabis freedom or would you rather have another version of prop 19? pick A or B" is not reasonable proof that people prefer what you are proposing over what I am proposing.

You write a simple outline like I have. We will put those two outlines up for a poll and then we can end this dispute once and for all. Enough of the nonsense. Enough of your misleading phrasing. Write a summery of what you are proposing like I have and we will see what the people really want.

 

[Michael Sparks]

Ernst there is no defining good/bad you mean those abusing and those in regulation ?

 

[Ernst]

You are smart but you are running.

You can't propose that we not be together on things are ya?

That your side will win without my side?

Suit yourself. I was looking for a legalization friend when I found you.
Obviously you are up tight and really worried about your vanity.

I have a thread. I linked this thread to it. I opened this thread for you.
If you get lonely.. Here is the link. https://www.rollitup.org/politics/418755-forming-pro-people-only-initiative.html

If I can be of any service feel free to click.

 

[Ernst]

Ernst there is no defining good/bad you mean those abusing and those in regulation ?

Oh I didn't see this and so I am out of sequence on things.

Well Dan is right we need to know the parameters and understand the dynamics but we need to decide where we stand first.

Good would be those not black marketing and dealing other drugs that the feds want stopped. I assume if we legalize for the people the Federal government will have reason to leave those honoring our laws alone. at least Obama administration has set that policy.
Perhaps it's good to swing left while we have a president that has that policy?

So we are moving the line from illegal to legal but that doesn't include cocaine, meth and even pharmaceuticals so we have to accept that or fail.

We have to be a group. A United group and we had better stick to a simple plan if that is possible.

Look we are either cattle or not. For the people means not cattle but it doesn't mean coke and meth or black market will still rule but does mean "We the people" can be cannabis legal.

Still we have to decide what toilet to flush and what shit to keep, to use a graphic metaphor, so is an all in one a viable option or a pipe dream.

I'll be at the link.. I welcome cooperation so visit my space and let us define the polls and such and debate further.

 

[Dan Kone]

You are smart but you are running.

No. I'm directly challenging you. That is the exact opposite of running. Again, you can't just say whatever you want and have it become true.

You can't propose that we not be together on things are ya?

I'm proposing we ask the people what they want. You remember the people right? They are the ones you claim to represent and claim I do not.

Well lets find out for sure.

That your side will win without my side?

As far as I know, you're side is just you. That's not a considerable block of votes in California.

But we could find out for sure. All you have to do is write what you propose, then we can do a poll with both what you propose and what I propose and let the people decide what they prefer.

That's a perfectly reasonable solution here.

Suit yourself. I was looking for a legalization friend when I found you.
Obviously you are up tight and really worried about your vanity.

So asking people what they want makes me uptight and vain? I thought your selfless goal was to give the people what they wanted Ernest. Is that not the case? Could it be you have your own agenda and don't really care about what the people want?

If not, then you should be interested to know what the people support right? What are you afraid of?

I have a thread. I linked this thread to it. I opened this thread for you.
If you get lonely.. Here is the link. https://www.rollitup.org/politics/418755-forming-pro-people-only-initiative.html

If I can be of any service feel free to click.

lol.

So when I propose a fair and reasonable solution, letting the people decide for themselves what is best, all of a sudden you're running away?

I believe this exposes a bit of your true colors Ernest. Like I said in the very beginning, you could care less about the rights of cannabis users. You just want a law that lets Ernest sell dime bags out of his house legally.

If that was not true you wouldn't run away when I proposed to let the people decide for themselves.

You've been exposed Ernest.

 

[Michael Sparks]

Good would be those not black marketing and dealing other drugs that the feds want stopped. I assume if we legalize for the people the Federal government will have reason to leave those honoring our laws alone. at least Obama administration has set that policy.

The Big thing is they (FEDs) do NOT want it stopped they just want to make it seem so, have we thought about all the revenue that is allocated due to prisons and the "war on drugs" that have been going on for 40+ years, that is the thing, if you are going to make a purposal, you need to make it so it fucks the lil guy or it will never be passed, Lets look rationally at the past, and truly look not just glance and say yup that is what i though, we can see how we keep getting fucked and swallow that pride.

So we are moving the line from illegal to legal but that doesn't include cocaine, meth and even pharmaceuticals so we have to accept that or fail.

Misconception is that pharmaceuticals aren't going to be more prevalent then herb, cocaine and even meth, there are all these new drugs out that are very similar to all the illegal counterparts that it just makes better sense to put American's on meds, you have a social problem here is some xanax, can't sleep take an ambient... why can we not see what is going on? to even suggest something this notion that we are going to agree on, shows our ignorance to accept that even if WE agree it will still have to go through the process if an when it does (most likely) will be thrown right back out.

We have to be a group. A United group and we had better stick to a simple plan if that is possible.

I Think a unity should be formed, something has to be accomplished that we can all agree on, there are many issues and making any change occur will have to be of our own will, to forget the capabilities we all posses as a group making up for each of our weaknesses and enhancing our strengths

 

[The Ruiner]

I think he's too busy changing the avatars on his different account to respond...

Did anyone else notice that he changed his avatar back after he changed it on his other account? Seriously, no one fucking noticed that?

 

[Ernst]

Did anyone else notice that he changed his avatar back after he changed it on his other account? Seriously, no one fucking noticed that?

Is this true? Is there scam and deception going on?

 

[Dan Kone]

Did anyone else notice that he changed his avatar back after he changed it on his other account? Seriously, no one fucking noticed that?

I don't have another account and this is the only avatar I've ever had.

 

[Ernst]

I don't have a second account.

Michael was the one who had Textual deviation. I could have sworn Michael was Dan in one post.. The tone and grammar were similar.

Is Dan Kone your real name?