Forming a Pro-People Only Initiative for 2012 group

Dan Kone · Apr 12, 2011

Ernst said:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It makes it hard to read when you slice and dice and then argue with yourself and again you seem to be a different person who forgot again to ask a question back.

How do I counter a shotgun blast of ramble?

First if we stick to narrow visions of what is and what is not then we will only comfort ourselves that we are right.

I'm sorry if my posts have too much substance for you to wrap your head around. Not everything fits on a fortune cookie. I have no interest in spouting soundbite rhetoric aimed at gaining the support of the dumbest guy in the room. That's just not how I roll.

Can you restate your post in more of a block reply? Add a question as well. I cannot do the work of organizing your reply back into a conversation without slicing and dicing as well.

I will do that if you accept my challenge of having a poll where the people get to decide who's version of legalization better. Since you claim to be defending the rights of the people, that should be the way to go right?

You suggested we would write polls and discuss but with this last entry you had a fight with the wind.

I have no idea what that means.

I have said I am for a separation between business and private citizen. That doesn't mean you can jump to conclusions on inspections.

You are advocating a system where everyone registers their personal grows with the government. I'm not jumping to conclusions. You said that stuff. Sorry, I just don't think it's the government's business to inspect my personal grow. I'm perfectly happy with the cops not knowing about it. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has that opinion.

So how about it? Did I really write all the things you just complained about?
We have to face facts that we cannot have legalization without supervision in our current political reality.

lulz? Really? You're denying you wrote those things then advocating them in the same breath? Ok then.

If the cops suspect there is an illegal activity and have probably cause, they can get a warrant. But if I'm growing at my house for personal business I don't see how that is the cops business.

Sorry, telling the cops about your grow is a bad idea. I don't care if you're following the law to the letter, that is still very risky. Cops are going to be cops always. That includes being very shady sometimes. I don't want them in my house. No thank you.

Permits mean that if you are growing produce you can show you have a permit so law enforcement can avoid unnecessary actions such as a criminal investigation.
What do we do now? We show our Dr's recommendation and it is up to the officer to decide what is to be done.

Ok, but when I get a doctors recommendation I don't mail the government a copy so they can send the cops over to my house. I'd like to keep it that way.

I understand many officers are polite and damn happy to leave a peaceful pot person alone.

Word of advice... This is probably the wrong audience to be talking about how awesome the cops are and how great it is to have them in your home. Many people on this forum have had their lives totally fucked over by the cops.

Sure, not all cops are bad and it really depends where you live. But I've lived in Richmond, San Francisco, and LA. Trust me, those cops are not your friends. Anyone who's lived in those cities knows what I'm talking about.

I've seen SFPD beat the shit out of an 8 year old for the crime of having a baseball bat. The cops used the excuse that it was a weapon even though the kid was at a park playing baseball. And you think I should invite that cop into my house to inspect my grow? lol. You've got to be out of your mind.

You and I are still arguing apples and oranges.

I don't even know what you're arguing anymore Ernest. You've compeltely departed from reason.

Under your version of legalization you seem to want:

1) Invite the cops into your house to inspect your grow

2) Omit limitations on corporations for growing/selling cannabis so those corporations can write their own laws

3) Put no restrictions on grow size allowing for massive pot warehouses like they wanted to do under prop 19.

Have you lost your damn mind? That's insane! It's bad enough you don't want to put in any incentive for non-smokers to vote for it, but you've lost your way. What you're supporting is a horrible nightmare for the people of California.

The point of a simplified for the people initiative isn't to defeat cannabis industry or open the door to International Corporations it is to grant rights to the citizen.

Simple is ok. Shortsighted is not. Inconsiderate is not. What you're advocating is both shortsighted and inconsiderate. What I proposed was fairly simple. No one had a hard time understanding it. There is no reason we can't have simple without being shortsighted and inconsiderate.

The reason for splitting the issues is because California voted NO Twice already for anything that legalizes cannabis industry and California voted YES once in ONE tries to legalize for the people with prop 215.

You're drawing a false conclusion. You've presented no evidence that people voted against prop 19 because it allowed dispensaries. I heard no one complaining about dispensaries. People didn't like prop 19 because they perceived it to hand over cannabis trade to large monopolies and interfere with medical rights. What you're proposing insures the things in prop 19 people objected to would become true.

I've made that point several times and you ignore it. Ignoring it doesn't make it less true.

The idea is to follow a safe and simple first step so we stop sending law abiding people to prison, stop taking their property, stop firing them from their jobs for simple use, horticulture and private non-commercial trade.

And there it is again. The non-commercial trade. You're more than happy to address trade, it just has to be the exact kind of trade you want. Sorry Ernest, but legalization is more that just the ability for Ernest to sell dime bags out of his house.

It will be better to block reply in my opinion.

I know most people reply to posts different than I do. That's fine for them. I post this way for a reason. I like to address substance and content. This way helps me address each idea in a persons post.

Like it, don't like it, I don't care. I'll post how I please.

But my offer stands. If you want to write a proposal of your version of legalization so we can have poll to see what the people want, I'll conform to your wish and start posting in blocks.

*2 How about this: We have a clause in the Initiative to establish commerce but deal with it separately so this effort doesn't sink to the deep depths of defeat?

Please elaborate. What would this clause entail? Would that stop large monopolistic corporations like Philip Morris from taking over cannabis trade?

*3 Shouldn't be anyone's business indeed but it is. There are people who demand that before the people have rights that commerce be approved.

Where are these people? Who are these people? Are these people the cops? I don't see any outcry from people to have personal grows inspected by cops.

Now on to the last of your reply. This is why it seems you are more than one person at times.

The different tones I take with you are directly proportionate to the content of your posts. When you're being reasonable and addressing content, I'm polite. When you suggest insane things and spout of rhetoric made to fit on fortune cookies, I become increasingly hostile towards you. I was hoping you'd pick up on that.

I assure you, I'm one person. I just treat you differently depending on what you're saying and how you're saying it.

Unlimited Scale was a topic we covered and I wrote I am in favor of Horticulture rights for the people so that means Non-Commercial growing such as breeding, seed saving and other activities commonly associated with plants.

You say that, but you've proposed nothing that would prohibit Richard Lee style pot factories. Unlimited is unlimited. Also, breeding is a commercial activity.

This is a plant not a manufactured goods. So you do this a lot.

And I'd like to keep it that way! But under your law, it will be more like a manufactured good. I support limits for a reason. It's to keep from becoming a manufactured good.

Flip back claiming that I am arguing some position you are against when i am not even concerned with the business side of legalizing

That's not true. You are VERY concerned with the business side. You advocate a very specific form of retail cannabis. So specific it makes me think this whole thing is just about what you want to do for a business.

Was it you who wanted to sell the hay and never mind the horse? Cart and Horse analogy is one of business and people.
The Cart represents commerce such as a load of hay going to market. The horse represents those who do the work of making commerce possible in the act of pulling the load.

Yeah, you're not exactly Robert Frost, I don't think anyone was having a problem wrapping their head around that metaphor.

Your still not distracting me from the fact that this is all a false assumption based off of questionable motives.

So Why must we be the Jesus for Cannabis profits in 2012 when we are happy with simple Horticulture, use and non-commercial private trade of seeds and clones for example.

Have you picked up on the fact that pretending you're not concerned with cannabis sales and profits isn't working on me? I know what you're trying to do here. You care very much about the cannabis market and want it in a very specific way. Pretending this is about something other than that is very transparent.

As long as we do our BEST for the people this time with a simplified Initiative.

You mean what is best for people who want to breed cannabis out of their Turlock homes and make a living off of it without going through the trouble of forming a legal business? Yeah, how noble of you.

If you're so concerned with what is best with the people why are you so afraid of a poll where the people decide what is best for them?

If what you're really advocating what is best for the people then you've got nothing to worry about. This can be settled and we can stop this exercise in futility.

Dan Kone · Apr 12, 2011

Ernst said:
My Question to you is why must we include commerce in our next initiative when it is the cause of so much political friction?

The decision to have commerce or not to have commerce isn't a source of friction.

It's only when we allow for corporate monopolies and massive pot factories that people object.

I have yet to hear of anyone objecting to the idea of locally owned collectives.

You are addressing commerce too. You are addressing a specific kind of commerce that many people will object to because it puts unregistered businesses in their neighborhoods and legalizes black market deals.

Why do you feel that the people have to sacrifice for the kind of commercial reality you want?

Who is sacrificing? Where are all these objections? Not a single person has objected to what I proposed besides you.

If commercial cannabis sales are so objectionable, then how come you are the only one objecting to what I proposed?

I've got a good idea. Why don't we both write proposals and put them up for a poll? Then we can find out for sure!

S

o Why must we be the Jesus for Cannabis profits in 2012 when we are happy with simple Horticulture, use and non-commercial private trade of seeds and clones for example.

Why is it so important that profits be legalized, but only in a very specific way that only you seem to be advocating?

Ernst · Apr 12, 2011

We are going is a circle Dan.

I'll get to a reply soon.

Dan Kone · Apr 12, 2011

Ernst said:
We are going is a circle Dan.

I'll get to a reply soon.

Right. Because you keep spouting the same rhetoric and false assumptions. I see no one objecting to the concept of having dispensaries except you, yet you claim that is the reason prop 19 failed and we can only have legalization if we legalize black market dealing and allow corporate America to write cannabis trade law. There is no factual basis for those claims and yet you act as if they are proven facts that everyone supports. It's bizarre.

If you're right and everyone supports what you're saying as you claim, then you should have no problem writing up a proposal like I have and doing a poll to see what people actually support. But of course you know that you're only looking out for your own self interests and could care less about what other people support. The proof is your refusal to do a poll.

Ernst · Apr 12, 2011

No fool because I had other things to do.

Geeze.. I have an idea for a poll.. I'll email the idea.

Ernst · Apr 12, 2011

Quote Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It makes it hard to read when you slice and dice and then argue with yourself and again you seem to be a different person who forgot again to ask a question back.

How do I counter a shotgun blast of ramble?

First if we stick to narrow visions of what is and what is not then we will only comfort ourselves that we are right.
I'm sorry if my posts have too much substance for you to wrap your head around. Not everything fits on a fortune cookie. I have no interest in spouting soundbite rhetoric aimed at gaining the support of the dumbest guy in the room. That's just not how I roll.

Can you restate your post in more of a block reply? Add a question as well. I cannot do the work of organizing your reply back into a conversation without slicing and dicing as well.
I will do that if you accept my challenge of having a poll where the people get to decide who's version of legalization better. Since you claim to be defending the rights of the people, that should be the way to go right?

You suggested we would write polls and discuss but with this last entry you had a fight with the wind.
I have no idea what that means.

I have said I am for a separation between business and private citizen. That doesn't mean you can jump to conclusions on inspections.
You are advocating a system where everyone registers their personal grows with the government. I'm not jumping to conclusions. You said that stuff. Sorry, I just don't think it's the government's business to inspect my personal grow. I'm perfectly happy with the cops not knowing about it. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has that opinion.

So how about it? Did I really write all the things you just complained about?
We have to face facts that we cannot have legalization without supervision in our current political reality.
lulz? Really? You're denying you wrote those things then advocating them in the same breath? Ok then.

If the cops suspect there is an illegal activity and have probably cause, they can get a warrant. But if I'm growing at my house for personal business I don't see how that is the cops business.

Sorry, telling the cops about your grow is a bad idea. I don't care if you're following the law to the letter, that is still very risky. Cops are going to be cops always. That includes being very shady sometimes. I don't want them in my house. No thank you.

Permits mean that if you are growing produce you can show you have a permit so law enforcement can avoid unnecessary actions such as a criminal investigation.
What do we do now? We show our Dr's recommendation and it is up to the officer to decide what is to be done.
Ok, but when I get a doctors recommendation I don't mail the government a copy so they can send the cops over to my house. I'd like to keep it that way.

I understand many officers are polite and damn happy to leave a peaceful pot person alone.
Word of advice... This is probably the wrong audience to be talking about how awesome the cops are and how great it is to have them in your home. Many people on this forum have had their lives totally fucked over by the cops.

Sure, not all cops are bad and it really depends where you live. But I've lived in Richmond, San Francisco, and LA. Trust me, those cops are not your friends. Anyone who's lived in those cities knows what I'm talking about.

I've seen SFPD beat the shit out of an 8 year old for the crime of having a baseball bat. The cops used the excuse that it was a weapon even though the kid was at a park playing baseball. And you think I should invite that cop into my house to inspect my grow? lol. You've got to be out of your mind.

You and I are still arguing apples and oranges.
I don't even know what you're arguing anymore Ernest. You've compeltely departed from reason.

Under your version of legalization you seem to want:

1) Invite the cops into your house to inspect your grow

2) Omit limitations on corporations for growing/selling cannabis so those corporations can write their own laws

3) Put no restrictions on grow size allowing for massive pot warehouses like they wanted to do under prop 19.

Have you lost your damn mind? That's insane! It's bad enough you don't want to put in any incentive for non-smokers to vote for it, but you've lost your way. What you're supporting is a horrible nightmare for the people of California.

The point of a simplified for the people initiative isn't to defeat cannabis industry or open the door to International Corporations it is to grant rights to the citizen.
Simple is ok. Shortsighted is not. Inconsiderate is not. What you're advocating is both shortsighted and inconsiderate. What I proposed was fairly simple. No one had a hard time understanding it. There is no reason we can't have simple without being shortsighted and inconsiderate.

The reason for splitting the issues is because California voted NO Twice already for anything that legalizes cannabis industry and California voted YES once in ONE tries to legalize for the people with prop 215.
You're drawing a false conclusion. You've presented no evidence that people voted against prop 19 because it allowed dispensaries. I heard no one complaining about dispensaries. People didn't like prop 19 because they perceived it to hand over cannabis trade to large monopolies and interfere with medical rights. What you're proposing insures the things in prop 19 people objected to would become true.

I've made that point several times and you ignore it. Ignoring it doesn't make it less true.

The idea is to follow a safe and simple first step so we stop sending law abiding people to prison, stop taking their property, stop firing them from their jobs for simple use, horticulture and private non-commercial trade.
And there it is again. The non-commercial trade. You're more than happy to address trade, it just has to be the exact kind of trade you want. Sorry Ernest, but legalization is more that just the ability for Ernest to sell dime bags out of his house.

It will be better to block reply in my opinion.
I know most people reply to posts different than I do. That's fine for them. I post this way for a reason. I like to address substance and content. This way helps me address each idea in a persons post.

Like it, don't like it, I don't care. I'll post how I please.

But my offer stands. If you want to write a proposal of your version of legalization so we can have poll to see what the people want, I'll conform to your wish and start posting in blocks.

*2 How about this: We have a clause in the Initiative to establish commerce but deal with it separately so this effort doesn't sink to the deep depths of defeat?
Please elaborate. What would this clause entail? Would that stop large monopolistic corporations like Philip Morris from taking over cannabis trade?

*3 Shouldn't be anyone's business indeed but it is. There are people who demand that before the people have rights that commerce be approved.
Where are these people? Who are these people? Are these people the cops? I don't see any outcry from people to have personal grows inspected by cops.

Now on to the last of your reply. This is why it seems you are more than one person at times.
The different tones I take with you are directly proportionate to the content of your posts. When you're being reasonable and addressing content, I'm polite. When you suggest insane things and spout of rhetoric made to fit on fortune cookies, I become increasingly hostile towards you. I was hoping you'd pick up on that.

I assure you, I'm one person. I just treat you differently depending on what you're saying and how you're saying it.

Unlimited Scale was a topic we covered and I wrote I am in favor of Horticulture rights for the people so that means Non-Commercial growing such as breeding, seed saving and other activities commonly associated with plants.
You say that, but you've proposed nothing that would prohibit Richard Lee style pot factories. Unlimited is unlimited. Also, breeding is a commercial activity.

This is a plant not a manufactured goods. So you do this a lot.
And I'd like to keep it that way! But under your law, it will be more like a manufactured good. I support limits for a reason. It's to keep from becoming a manufactured good.

Flip back claiming that I am arguing some position you are against when i am not even concerned with the business side of legalizing
That's not true. You are VERY concerned with the business side. You advocate a very specific form of retail cannabis. So specific it makes me think this whole thing is just about what you want to do for a business.

Was it you who wanted to sell the hay and never mind the horse? Cart and Horse analogy is one of business and people.
The Cart represents commerce such as a load of hay going to market. The horse represents those who do the work of making commerce possible in the act of pulling the load.
Yeah, you're not exactly Robert Frost, I don't think anyone was having a problem wrapping their head around that metaphor.

Your still not distracting me from the fact that this is all a false assumption based off of questionable motives.

So Why must we be the Jesus for Cannabis profits in 2012 when we are happy with simple Horticulture, use and non-commercial private trade of seeds and clones for example.
Have you picked up on the fact that pretending you're not concerned with cannabis sales and profits isn't working on me? I know what you're trying to do here. You care very much about the cannabis market and want it in a very specific way. Pretending this is about something other than that is very transparent.

As long as we do our BEST for the people this time with a simplified Initiative.
You mean what is best for people who want to breed cannabis out of their Turlock homes and make a living off of it without going through the trouble of forming a legal business? Yeah, how noble of you.

If you're so concerned with what is best with the people why are you so afraid of a poll where the people decide what is best for them?

If wh

at you're really advocating what is best for the people then you've got nothing to worry about. This can be settled and we can stop this exercise in futility.

Quote Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
My Question to you is why must we include commerce in our next initiative when it is the cause of so much political friction?
The decision to have commerce or not to have commerce isn't a source of friction.

It's only when we allow for corporate monopolies and massive pot factories that people object.

I have yet to hear of anyone objecting to the idea of locally owned collectives.

You are addressing commerce too. You are addressing a specific kind of commerce that many people will object to because it puts unregistered businesses in their neighborhoods and legalizes black market deals.

Why do you feel that the people have to sacrifice for the kind of commercial reality you want?
Who is sacrificing? Where are all these objections? Not a single person has objected to what I proposed besides you.

If commercial cannabis sales are so objectionable, then how come you are the only one objecting to what I proposed?

I've got a good idea. Why don't we both write proposals and put them up for a poll? Then we can find out for sure!

S
o Why must we be the Jesus for Cannabis profits in 2012 when we are happy with simple Horticulture, use and non-commercial private trade of seeds and clones for example.
Why is it so important that profits be legalized, but only in a very specific way that only you seem to be advocating?

------------------------------------

I asked for a better way to chat. A block reply system.

This above is unmanageable.

You may have made some good points but if you try and crawl into every crack to fight a war then the above is what happens.

-------------------------------

Lets start again.

State your reply in a block form so our conversation doesn't turn in to a mess like above.

I'll wait on the poll... I have no idea if you are trippin or writing something of import.

Dan Kone · Apr 12, 2011

Generally people at least put quotation marks around someone else's quote. Make's it easier to understand who says what. just saying....

Ernst · Apr 12, 2011

Go on.. You were saying?

Dan Kone · Apr 12, 2011

Ernst said:
I asked for a better way to chat. A block reply system.

That's nice. You going to tell me what I'm allowed to post too or is your perceived authority limited to how I post?

Yo

u may have made some good points but if you try and crawl into every crack to fight a war then the above is what happens.

The devil is always in the details. You're details do some very bad things. I need to address the details of what you are posting to expose it for what it really is. Yes, I respond to all the content of a post, not just pick and choose which parts of it support my argument the best. It's called intellectual integrity.

State your reply in a block form so our conversation doesn't turn in to a mess like above.

Why do you think you deserve to regulate how I post? I don't tell you have to post. It's a mess because you turned it into a mess.

I have no idea if you are trippin or writing something of import.

If you're waiting for me to conform my posting style to what works best for you, you'll be waiting a long time. I'm not sure why you think you can tell me what to do, but I do know that telling me what to do doesn't usually work out very well for people.

Ernst · Apr 12, 2011

I was politely telling you I was having a hard time.

Take a step back from the keyboard, splash some cold water on the face.

Dan Kone · Apr 12, 2011

Ernst said:
I was politely telling you I was having a hard time.

And I'm having a hard time understanding why you won't consent to doing a poll where we put both our proposals up and let people vote on them to find out which they prefer. What's the hold up? That solves this once and for all. You claim to be representing freedom for the people. Well if that is really true then that would be a good thing for you. You should be the one insisting on doing this right?

Ernst · Apr 12, 2011

When you are ready I am ready to chat tonight.

Ernst · Apr 12, 2011

Dan Kone said:
And I'm having a hard time understanding why you won't consent to doing a poll where we put both our proposals up and let people vote on them to find out which they prefer. What's the hold up? That solves this once and for all. You claim to be representing freedom for the people. Well if that is really true then that would be a good thing for you. You should be the one insisting on doing this right?

Lets see the poll? Did we write one yet?

Shall we design the poll? Email? I'll be smoking in a while.

Dan Kone · Apr 12, 2011

Ernst said:
Lets see the poll? Did we write one yet?

Shall we design the poll? Email? I'll be smoking in a while.

It's simple. Just type up what you're proposing, you've already seen what I am proposing. We can just have people vote on what they prefer.

londonfog · Apr 12, 2011

grabbing popcorn and waiting

Ernst · Apr 12, 2011

Dan Kone said:
It's simple. Just type up what you're proposing, you've already seen what I am proposing. We can just have people vote on what they prefer.

Number of words?

What is the point and what is the counter point. A poll needs to give the voter an issue to focus on so they can cast their vote(s)

If you are wise enough to type a complete Initiative then you will be disappointed with my brevity.

So first we need to discus the point and counter point so Email is the way to work yes?

Didn't I send you an email?

Well you can send me one.

Ernst · Apr 12, 2011

londonfog said:
grabbing popcorn and waiting

You are sharing are you not?

Is this like a big deal? Seriously this is a question. How has this forum and my posts effected your time on RIU? You know why I ask? I never ask.

I don't know what the point and counter point is but two members in one poll that is something different.
We should all take time to consider the proper structure for such a thing.

I really only have one agenda. Cannabis freedom for all.

Dan Kone · Apr 12, 2011

Ernst said:
Number of words?

As few or as many as you need to express your point. This is not a test, number of words doesn't matter to me.

If you are wise enough to type a complete Initiative then you will be disappointed with my brevity.

You've seen the proposal I've written. I may fix a few things but that generally conveys my intent. You do the same. Number of words is irrelevant. What is relevant is the ideas. If you don't need as many words to express your idea that is fine. That isn't necessarily a good or bad thing. Some times less is more, sometimes it's less.

So first we need to discus the point and counter point so Email is the way to work yes?

What is there to discuss? We've discussed this endlessly. Just make a proposal, then we will work out a poll giving people a choice.

Ernst · Apr 12, 2011

Dan Kone said:
It's simple. Just type up what you're proposing, you've already seen what I am proposing. We can just have people vote on what they prefer.

I get it a popularity poll.

I thought you wanted to poll the people on what they prefer.
Cannabis Legalization is a bigger issue than being right or winning do you understand? You and I are but players on a stage. Let us have a point and counter point the people want.

I am a willing player if the result is Cannabis Freedom for all.

Ernst · Apr 12, 2011

Dan Kone said:
As few or as many as you need to express your point. This is not a test, number of words doesn't matter to me.

You've seen the proposal I've written. I may fix a few things but that generally conveys my intent. You do the same. Number of words is irrelevant. What is relevant is the ideas. If you don't need as many words to express your idea that is fine. That isn't necessarily a good or bad thing. Some times less is more, sometimes it's less.

What is there to discuss? We've discussed this endlessly. Just make a proposal, then we will work out a poll giving people a choice.

Yes but the Drama level for a shared project is off the scale.
We should be chatting in email first.
Wouldn't we want to present a poll in the calm if the unexpected to get a fair result of what the people think on an issue?
Mind you I think in such terms because I write complex software in simple ways so I am an eccentric fellow at heart.

On that note I may be gruff but I would never harm you deliberately. No malice is intended.
So shall we build our "unit" of polling in private and work together?

I'm willing to accept a moderator override but if this was my board I would strive for a higher level of organization not a lower base of activity. Just my $0.02 since this is a privilege I am sure is not a check box option.

Moderator input welcomed.

Forming a Pro-People Only Initiative for 2012 group

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member