what i'm suggesting is that you actually answer your opposition instead of merely repeating this same tired mantra. we get it, you despise the profit motivation of those who have succeeded at the game. you object to the corporate take-over of the marketplace that would be created by legalization. you believe that we should ease into legalization by reinforcing the existing black market and expanding on the alaskan model. you seem to think that the rest of the electorate is of a like mind, but that just isn't the case. the people thrive on commerce, it is the life blood of society and the means by which we all gain access to what we cannot create ourselves. it isn't commerce that scares the people, it is the decades of propaganda and the fear of haphazard regulation that worries many of them and keeps them from allowing us all to regain this right to choose. it is the loss of an avenue of unrestricted trade for others that keeps them from allowing access to everyone.
you've asked how we can turn the nays into yeas and you've been answered. it isn't by turning our happy little herb into the exclusive domain of the growing elite, but by making the benefits to the society as a whole as obvious as possible and assuring them that the potential for abuse is minimized as much as possible. we reverse those nays by handing them a golden goose and convincing them, through stringent regulation, that their children won't be overcome by the resulting marketing frenzy. we convince them by eradicating the need for a black market at all and placing the sales and distribution aspects of this new marketplace into the hands of a well regulated business community. of course it isn't easy, reversing the tide seldom is, and it certainly isn't going to happen without proving to the ignorant masses that we aren't all just a bunch of drug crazed hippies, that we can turn this illegal trade into a legitimate and productive part of society.
You are manufacturing you terms of argument.
For a smart poster this is rather stupid. "you despise the profit motivation of those who have succeeded at the game. This is an assumption.
Here is another whacked out manufactured argument "our happy little herb into the exclusive domain of the growing elite"
Pass all the business law you want but do it separately.
California is against out right legalizing Commerce but they are not against the people.
Why shoot the People horse when the Commerce horse dies? Lets pull the freedom wagon with the People horse since we know California voted for Prop 215 and not the two prop's 19
It's not an agenda it just points out the causal relationship that has evolved under cannabis prohibition.
If the Causal Relationship is defined as Pimp ( commerce ) and Prostitute ( freedom ) then I and you are the Johns. Do we really need the Pimp to have a good time or is it hat the Pimp needs us to have a good time?
So let us legalize good times and see what we can do for the pimp separately.
Why ruin a good time for everyone because the Pimp is unhappy? After all the Pimp only cares about the Money not the freedom to have a good time.
Now on to the second comment.. I am only making the effort to counter two of your points since I am a busy man.
There is no Growing Elite. If all the people have equal rights then it's called freedom.
Growing Elite is when only a few (Medical growers) have freedom.
So for a smart man you know how to craft the most ignorant challenges.
And you are still in the Cannabis closet because you are afraid.
