Cultivating marijuana would no longer be a mandatory felony in California bill

Ernst

Ernst

Well-Known Member
http://california2012.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=533&p=803#p803
SACRAMENTO, Calif.—Cultivating marijuana would no longer be a mandatory felony under a new California bill introduced by a pot-friendly lawmaker.

The bill written by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano would let district attorneys decide whether to charge marijuana growers with felonies or misdemeanors.
Click to expand...
I see it and what is true is a lot of back room deals are happening..

Inching forward is okay but we must still organize for 2012.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Regulating pot is better than illegal / jail, but it's no place to rest on laurels.

Nothing will ever beat ouright leave us the fuck alone 100% unregulated.

I've never quite reconciled being told I'm free out of one side of governments mouth and "stick 'em up" out of the other side. I won't rest until it's just a plant again anything less ain't freedom.
 
Ernst

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Regulating pot is better than illegal / jail, but it's no place to rest on laurels.

Nothing will ever beat ouright leave us the fuck alone 100% unregulated.

I've never quite reconciled being told I'm free out of one side of governments mouth and "stick 'em up" out of the other side. I won't rest until it's just a plant again anything less ain't freedom.
Click to expand...
Hey Rob Roy.

I agree with establishing horticulture rights for the people is the most basic thing we must do.
If we get another initiative in 2012 where it's still a crime to grow out say 100 plants for breeding purposes I will be in the NO camp in 2012.
Looking at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horticulture
Horticulturists can work in industry, government or educational institutions or private collections.
Click to expand...
Our focus must be on making "private collections" and the rights to grow Cannabis or any-plants for the purposes of horticulture the base "right" in any legalization effort and those rights must be for the individual and not just corporations.

We cannot depend on Canna-Industry to maintain the genetic stock for future people, nor should we, when business's motives are pure profit and nothing more.
We should not set legal precedence for making horticulture of Cannabis or other crops illegal because private freedoms compete with business. People should win not a lifeless corporation.


On to the next point.
It is clear to me that industry and government officials are working behind the scenes at this very moment to craft a cannabis reality for California where average people are still criminals when it comes to the cannabis in their gardens.

We must keep our eyes on the small increments towards a new Cannabis reality for California. After all we are humans and that makes us more than just a consumer of products.

So, Tom is working, Lee has formed another group and our websites have basically become dysfunctional because of the war over Horticulture rights and the failure of prop-19. Man did some pro-19 folks get rude and ugly and they still do when someone suggest everyone should bee granted rights to 99 plants.

We have folks that want to be able to grow and sell without charges of a crime yet they turn right around and support repressive rules for the average citizen by creating a two tier system of cannabis liberty. One for the wealthy and another for the poor.

Proper Horticulture is worth fighting for if you want to save this plant from demise. We should be saving seeds and sharing genetics like people do for other crops world wide.

So yes.. It needs to go back to just a plant and we should have an initiative that starts with rights for people first and business second.


So in short, There are powerful people trying to keep cannabis as illegal for the people as possible so that business can make large profits on "prohibition prices for cannabis." This is bad in my opinion and we must fight them and demand Cannabis-Horticulture freedom for the people first and profits second.
 
Matt Rize

Matt Rize

Hashmaster
still stuck on having over 99 plants eh? I don't get you ernst... your breeding project doesn't need that many plants, don't throw out baby with the bath water...
 
Ernst

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Matt Rize said:
still stuck on having over 99 plants eh? I don't get you ernst... your breeding project doesn't need that many plants, don't throw out baby with the bath water...
Click to expand...

Tell me why the people have to have a restriction in the first place in clear language.

I am bookmarking this. I would like you to explain to all of us why we cannot grow all the plants we want.

I'll hope you can skip the obvious it's illegal argument and offer an insight to why it is wrong for people to grow all they want of cannabis or any plant like tomatoes or any other food, medicine or fibre plant for example.

What I see is that we must be convinced to remain slaves to an economic system and that this plant is the odd-duck in that if we legalize.
It's a plant not a manufactured goods but to be profitable the supply must be controlled so we must get the people to support restrictions on themselves so some can profit greatly.

Again this is more a question of theory and vision then a argument on what the current political and legal situation is.

Why can we not grow all we want Matt Rize ?
 
Matt Rize

Matt Rize

Hashmaster
Ernst said:
Tell me why the people have to have a restriction in the first place in clear language.

I am bookmarking this. I would like you to explain to all of us why we cannot grow all the plants we want.

I'll hope you can skip the obvious it's illegal argument and offer an insight to why it is wrong for people to grow all they want of cannabis or any plant like tomatoes or any other food, medicine or fibre plant for example.

What I see is that we must be convinced to remain slaves to an economic system and that this plant is the odd-duck in that if we legalize.
It's a plant not a manufactured goods but to be profitable the supply must be controlled so we must get the people to support restrictions on themselves so some can profit greatly.

Again this is more a question of theory and vision then a argument on what the current political and legal situation is.

Why can we not grow all we want Matt Rize ?
Click to expand...
Because the damn federal gov't set 99 as the limit. Trying to trump this with state level law is a false hope, and not realistic. Therefore, if we want to enact change (and not just wax philosophy and in reality change nothing) we must take steps that will lead to our success. What you want isn't worth supporting because there is no hope. Making state law that creates a grey area for us to operate, without crossing the 99 plant limit, is sufficient to 99% of cannabis users and growers. I refuse to sacrifice the entire thing so a couple wannabe breeders can throw up hundreds of plants. Uh... we don't need more breeders. That seat is already taken. The genetics we have to work with are diverse, and unless you are traveling the world for new varieties, I will respectfully suggest that we don't need your work.

And fyi: there are tons of breeders in CA already with hundreds and thousands of plants. Grow some stones if you want to be one of them. Focus on providing medicine for sick people, and recreational consumption/growing. So long as you work to create legislation that will be overturned by the fed, I cannot waste my time and/or money on your cause.
 
Matt Rize

Matt Rize

Hashmaster
After meeting with Rich Lee this week, it has become painfully clear that 2012 is already lost. In 2016 we will have another chance, and it will not look anything like the "ernst plan". It will be like 19, but probably worse for the home grower. Unless you got Soros in your pocket, I will respectfully suggest you abandon ship for a more realistic path.

All of your waxing poetic over the "plant should be free" is barely worth responding to. BUT I will. Plants that get you intoxicated should be regulated. Why does anyone need that many plants? Well the answer is breeding or commercial production. I will suggest that if you want to grow on that scale, you should be registered and meet certain security protocols. We are talking about highly valuable goods here, not tomatoes. Comparing cannabis to tomatoes is laughable, and I will suggest you take a more realistic approach. You can talk about theories and visions all day, that won't help move legalization forward. I actually think your attitude sets us back. But I appreciate the difference of opinions and perspectives.

Seriously, tomatoes? :bump:
 
undertheice

undertheice

Well-Known Member
Ernst said:
Tell me why the people have to have a restriction in the first place in clear language.
Click to expand...
because it is an intoxicant. is that clear enough for you? i can make my own beer and wine whenever i choose. i cannot start up and a cottage brewery, supplying the neighboring vicinity with thousands of gallons of my own special brew, unless i jump through a few societal (to be read governmental) hoops. the same is and probably should be true of legalized weed. in a perfect world, people wouldn't wander around stoned out of their gourds simply because they could, but this is no perfect world and our society has determined that some limits should be set on our behavior. you and i may not agree with it, but this is the price we pay for existing within a society. allowing any tom, dick or harry an unlimited grow space also allows for the unlimited access to an intoxicant and that's something our society simply isn't willing to endure. you can try and claim that it's "just a plant" all you want, but i don't see a whole lot of folks getting high on tomatoes or eggplant.

try as you might, you simply can't escape the fact that the only reason to have more than a few plants is for sales and the sale of any intoxicant is going to be regulated. you can slap a fancy name like "horticultural rights" on it, but it's still just "sellin' weed" and it's mostly to a bunch of folks that just want to get high. after decades of reefer madness propaganda, the best way to expand on the limits set by any legalization legislation is to show that it can be a responsible industry and a harmless pastime. we first need to let society see that the world as we know it isn't going to end as soon as legalization occurs. it's called getting your foot in the door and it allows you to wedge your way into the mainstream. medical sure didn't do it. all that did was set up a new batch of the usual regulations that always accompany the introduction of any medicine, regulations that have been largely flaunted, ignored and skirted through fraud. the image of marijuana as a danger wasn't shown to be an illusion. it was merely presented as a danger that had some use, just as the myriad other medicines that our society sees as necessary dangers.

from the very beginning, this absurd prohibition has been a matter of governmental control. the state has been seen as the parental figure that keeps us from harming ourselves and our lovely little herb has been presented as the substance that robs us of our sensibility. our right to grow and consume this substance isn't some nebulous "horticultural right", it is simply our right to self-ownership. the cause isn't to "free the weed", but to free ourselves and that is seldom done all at once. we first convince the powers that be to allow some leeway, then a bit more, then more. those "canna-millionaires" you so despise will be made, but why should we care. they don't take anything from us and they can be used as the wedge we need to pry open government's death grip on our freedoms. it all begins with simply allowing the common man access without fear, something that you "all or nothing" folks are keeping just out of our grasp. compromise isn't evil, it is reality.
 
Ernst

Ernst

Well-Known Member
I am going to reread and consider the three posts just before this reply; however, let me ask clearly what happens if in 2012 we in California pass an Initiative that Common citizens have the right to grow all the cannabis they want and we forgo any composite Initiative?

Meaning that the only thing we do in 2012 is give rights to the people?

We can do that yes? We can give rights to the people with an Initiative.

I'll skip commenting on the above three posts until we are past this question in this thread I take it I can count on Matt and whoever you are "UndertheIce." to take a moment to consider the simplest of baby steps of all.. Legalizing for the people.

Are we not allowed to do that with an Initiative?
Are we not able to open the door, lay the foundation or any other appropriate metaphor on getting started?

Thanks for contributing yet again to posting for the cause! We are all for the Cause trust me.
 
undertheice

undertheice

Well-Known Member
Ernst said:
.....let me ask clearly what happens if in 2012 we in California pass an Initiative that Common citizens have the right to grow all the cannabis they want and we forgo any composite Initiative?

I'll skip commenting on the above three posts until we are past this question in this thread I take it I can count on Matt and whoever you are "UndertheIce." to take a moment to consider the simplest of baby steps of all.. Legalizing for the people.
Click to expand...
maybe i'm mistaken, but i could have sworn that eliminating governmental interference and allowing access for the people was exactly what we were talking about. perhaps you have a different idea of what "the people" entails than i do. perhaps you'd prefer to divide the private sector into a series of sub-groupings, but i only see a distinction between the violent force of government and the market driven force of the private sector. anything else is class warfare garbage. however you want to look at it, the unlimited accumulation of any intoxicant will not go unregulated. it isn't just the violent force of government that keeps this from happening, it is the decision of our society that some safeguards be installed in any legalization process.

you ask what would happen if anyone could legally grow as much as they want, so i'll tell you. overnight there would be thousands of massive grow-ops springing up around the state. everyone with a fist full of seeds, the necessary space and was so inclined would grow as much as they could. come harvest time, the already thriving black market would increase tremendously in size and the prisons would end up full of wanna-be marijuana millionaires. without considering the sales aspect of legalization you have not given us true legalization. there is no reason to believe that our society is willing to simply give up and allow unregulated sales of our happy little weed, so all you have done is given a boost to the black market and compounded the problem we already have with the public's perceptions. since the black market is the truest form of a free market, i'd have no particular problem with this. however, i don't represent society at large and i certainly don't represent the violent force of government that would be brought to bear as soon as the shit hit the fan. it would take a massive reversal at the federal level for your little pipe-dream to work and no one sees that happening any time soon.

you would have us ask too much of society in general and the monstrous bureaucracy of governmental power in particular. you ask that a huge portion of several generations simply ignore their indoctrination and misperceptions. you ask not only that the state give up a bit more of its control over the people, but that it forgo the billions of tax dollars that would keep its machinations properly greased. you ask for everything and offer them nothing in return. your answer is no answer but populist dogma and an annoying inability to compromise. have fun with that.
 
I

incognegro999

Well-Known Member
Matt Rize said:
Because the damn federal gov't set 99 as the limit. Trying to trump this with state level law is a false hope, and not realistic.[/QUOTE

You must not believe in the Bill of Rights, to be exact the tenth amendment. how about instead of making this a one issue solution, you make it about crazy powers the Federal government have that were expressly left out by the framers of our government.
Click to expand...
 
Ernst

Ernst

Well-Known Member
@UnderTheIce

I disagree with that if my comment is reasonable to your intent. I'd suggest that this cannabis plant is harmless and that only when society decides not to take intoxicants will our intoxicant problem go away.


What I gather from reading your reply is "We are all better off with less liberty than more."

In fact then the whole nation gets better the more liberty we take away perhaps?


Moreover, the point is to get people sharing, communicating and to have the people take control of the cannabis issue in 2012 with an Initiative we can all live with.

And I should say that given a choice for a corporation to make money off cannabis I'd rather see the people do it.
 
Matt Rize

Matt Rize

Hashmaster
Ernst said:
What I gather from reading your reply is "We are all better off with less liberty than more."
Click to expand...
That is the silliest interpretation of his post ever... I'd also suggest you take your head out of the sand regarding the regulation of intoxicants. You won't get to your destination if you won't travel the path. You seem to want to "beam me (us) up" to another society scotty.

Ernst said:
And I should say that given a choice for a corporation to make money off cannabis I'd rather see the people do it.
Click to expand...
What? Where did this come from? There is only one path to legalization, and handing the industry over to corporation is part of it. I hate to tell ya, but it's the truth.
 
Ernst

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Matt I was expecting you would continue with your opinion rather than turn back to avoiding by discrediting the opposition.

There is no time to waste in finding flaws in a person when we need to organize for 2012.

So first we have have the right to cannabis before we can compromise. That is the cart and horse in the correct order.

So again I ask, since we are drifting back to how stupid someone is rather than talking, Why is it the people cannot have full legalization of Cannabis?
 
Matt Rize

Matt Rize

Hashmaster
Ernst said:
Matt I was expecting you would continue with your opinion rather than turn back to avoiding by discrediting the opposition.

There is no time to waste in finding flaws in a person when we need to organize for 2012.

So first we have have the right to cannabis before we can compromise. That is the cart and horse in the correct order.

So again I ask, since we are drifting back to how stupid someone is rather than talking, Why is it the people cannot have full legalization of Cannabis?
Click to expand...
you again have mistaken jokes for insults. but that's okay. you do know this site if for people who are high? ;) I never attacked you, so please let's get back to the subject.

If legalization of any sort was your goal you would be blindly backing anything Lee ect put up as they have the money and real chance of passing something. Not what I suggest, but let's be real about this. It takes money.

You say no compromise until we have some right. That seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water to me. I sure as shit won't be profiting off of legalization, but I still would rather have some form of it this decade than this century.
 
Ernst

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Matt Rize said:
you again have mistaken jokes for insults. but that's okay. you do know this site if for people who are high? ;) I never attacked you, so please let's get back to the subject.

If legalization of any sort was your goal you would be blindly backing anything Lee ect put up as they have the money and real chance of passing something. Not what I suggest, but let's be real about this. It takes money.

You say no compromise until we have some right. That seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water to me. I sure as shit won't be profiting off of legalization, but I still would rather have some form of it this decade than this century.
Click to expand...

Let me try it again Matt, You tell me I am against this because I don't do that. So you discredit me and say you are not doing it.
Speaking for me are ya.. But forget that.. Pissing on each other is a waste of time.

What is obvious is that we have a chance to legalize in 2012 for the people if we keep it simple this time.
If we try and toss an all or nothing Initiative in 2012 or 2016 like what prop 19 was or what the new-Jack is looking like then we will confuse people and once again we will have a No vote.

I'm suggesting we take a smaller simpler smaller step first and not depend on whatever is worth spending another Million on by those already making millions when others still go to prison.

So When I say no business let me be clear I am not saying we write that there will be no business, there already is, what I am saying is that rights for the people have taken a back seat to profits and to pass Legalization we have to appeal to the People.

Look I know the deflationary pressures are on but the Cannabis market is artificial to start with. We have to deflate.. Might as well Get Legalization while we deflate.. Waiting for 2016 won't stop the deflationary trend Matt.

I guess most don't know that all crops in California are inflating in value especially corn while cannabis is deflating.

The more of us with production the lower the over all value will be but is this about profits or Freedom?

2012 offers a chance to look to maybe the structure of prop 215 and draft simple language granting cannabis rights to the People of California.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top