And as a byproduct you have the cannabis industry over to corporate America, remove any way to give any financial incentives for non-smokers to vote for legalization, remove any possibility that the ballot measure gets enough funding required to even get on the ballot let alone passed, and leave cannabis sales a ripened target for law enforcement to keep persecuting the cannabis community.
And as a result of prop 215 not addressing those things hundreds if not thousands of people are in jail. People get raided for attempting to trade cannabis still because prop 215 was too vague.
I agree. That's why commercial growing/sales needs to be addressed.
There were specific reasons prop 19 failed. You're assuming it was because prop 19 addressed business. But I've yet to hear anyone other than you complain about this. Yet you insist that was the problem. If that was the problem how come the only one who has a problem with it seems to be you?
The problem with prop 19 was that it handed cannabis sales/commercial cultivation over to big corporations. The result of not addressing commerce would result in those same corporations writing the commerce laws.
If we are going to pass legalization the first thing that should be done is fix the problems with prop 19, not repeat the same mistakes.
And you think we are better off having corporate America writing those trade laws? I'd rather have the people get a vote.
Wow. So not only are you willing to let corporate America write corporate cannabis law, then you want all private citizens who choose to grow cannabis for personal use to register with the government so law enforcement can inspect their houses?
I am very much against that idea. It shouldn't be the government's business at all if someone wants to grow for personal use. The last thing any grower wants is to invite the police over to check out their grow. All it takes is one accidental mistake and they go to prison.
So to some this up you favor:
1) unlimited scale growing legalizing the same massive pot factories that were legal under prop 19.
2) Every private citizen who wishes to grow must register with the government so they can have the police come over to do inspections.
3) Let corporate America write cannabis sales/commercial growing regulations.
Wow. That's waaaaay worse than prop 19. No thank you.
So then effectively there would be no way to legally buy or sell cannabis. You do realize the majority of cannabis is bought and sold right?
Why don't the majority of cannabis users deserve rights too? Why only a small minority that grow there own?
Who's going to vote for this law?
Why would someone who buys/sells their cannabis vote for this?
Why would someone who grows their own vote for a law that invites police into their homes?
Why would a non-smoker vote for this?
What you are proposing would never make it on the ballot. If by some miracle it did, it would get no more than 2% of the vote.
"Peoples" initiative? You mean the one that makes it illegal for them to buy/sell cannabis and then forces them to invite police into their homes if they wish to grow their own?
Who are these "people" you're claiming to represent? Are they police officers? Those are the only people I see voting for what you are proposing.
Correct. I advocate that collectives should only be able to own one dispensary and no one can own a controlling share in more than one collective. That way we create a lot of small businesses rather than a small handful of large monopolies.
I also think there should be a separation between farming collectives as retail sales collectives. Dispensaries should purchase their cannabis from farmers rather than have dispensaries grow their own.
Limitations on growing should be to limit total grow space square footage to prevent massive scale factories. Plant limits are largely irrelevant.
I strongly support safety regulations on commercial cannabis. I think there should be testing on all commercially sold cannabis.
Allow no one to own more than one dispensary or one commercial grow operation. That would insure that all commercial cannabis is grown by mom and pop shops rather than by big walmart type stores.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
You suggested we would write polls and discuss but with this last entry you had a fight with the wind.
I have said I am for a separation between business and private citizen. That doesn't mean you can jump to conclusions on inspections.
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.
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. I understand many officers are polite and damn happy to leave a peaceful pot person alone.
You and I are still arguing apples and oranges.
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.
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.
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.
I am sharing my ideas so we can work through. If you go for the win each time then you defeat the discussion not me.
I will now try and counter the mess you left me and I will ask a question at the end.
It will be better to block reply in my opinion.
Start
-----------------------------------------------
Quote Originally Posted by Ernst View Post
Some sort of system of regulation needs to be done for the general welfare and security of these communities and if we keep the issue of legalizing narrowed to a private non-commercial citizen scope we effectively lower the dynamic of passing an Initiative.
And as a byproduct you have the cannabis industry over to corporate America, remove any way to give any financial incentives for non-smokers to vote for legalization, remove any possibility that the ballot measure gets enough funding required to even get on the ballot let alone passed, and leave cannabis sales a ripened target for law enforcement to keep persecuting the cannabis community.
*1
As I have stated in many forms many times California voted for Prop 215 which at it's heart allows people use , cultivation and horticulture liberties. What prop 215 didn't do was protect workers or establish business rules and we do need to address these things in time.
And as a result of prop 215 not addressing those things hundreds if not thousands of people are in jail. People get raided for attempting to trade cannabis still because prop 215 was too vague.
---
The first order in building any house is to establish a foundation on which all other structures depend.
I agree. That's why commercial growing/sales needs to be addressed.
It's tempting to go with a "prefabricated house" that rolls onto some proverbial lot in a welcoming community but that didn't work for proposition 19 One and Two..
There were specific reasons prop 19 failed. You're assuming it was because prop 19 addressed business. But I've yet to hear anyone other than you complain about this. Yet you insist that was the problem. If that was the problem how come the only one who has a problem with it seems to be you?
*2
The problem with prop 19 was that it handed cannabis sales/commercial cultivation over to big corporations. The result of not addressing commerce would result in those same corporations writing the commerce laws.
If we are going to pass legalization the first thing that should be done is fix the problems with prop 19, not repeat the same mistakes.
---
In order to lay the foundation for business we will have to gain the approval of the communities State wide. To gain the acceptance State wide jurisdiction by jurisdiction those communities must first accept that people have rights to grow, use and non-commercially trade cannabis.
And you think we are better off having corporate America writing those trade laws? I'd rather have the people get a vote.
To create a uniform foundation we must first pass a law that grants these rights that also births a regulatory system so that those who are not willing to conform can be dealt with.
The permit system would generate revenue for the State that taxes can't simply because we want to avoid getting arrested and our lives ruined. If we stop and think about it we already have a permit system with Medical Cannabis; the Doctor's visit.
Extending the permit system to a State agency will allow our law enforcement to identify people who are not in compliance from those who are.
I figure a permit will be easier than collecting Taxes for the State. Probably we would just go to the DMV and get one..
I would suggest two tiers of private non-commercial permits. One would cover the average home gardener so they can practice horticulture on a small scale and then one would be for those who are into more aggressive horticulture pursuits such as seed saving and or breeding.
Wow. So not only are you willing to let corporate America write corporate cannabis law, then you want all private citizens who choose to grow cannabis for personal use to register with the government so law enforcement can inspect their houses?
*3
I am very much against that idea. It shouldn't be the government's business at all if someone wants to grow for personal use. The last thing any grower wants is to invite the police over to check out their grow. All it takes is one accidental mistake and they go to prison.
---
*4
So to some this up you favor:
1) unlimited scale growing legalizing the same massive pot factories that were legal under prop 19.
*4A
2) Every private citizen who wishes to grow must register with the government so they can have the police come over to do inspections.
*4B
3) Let corporate America write cannabis sales/commercial growing regulations.
Wow. That's waaaaay worse than prop 19. No thank you.
I would like to see language that doesn't define counts or space but focus more on the reality that if you are caught selling you lose your liberty of a permit and that could lead you to prison for repeated offenses.
So then effectively there would be no way to legally buy or sell cannabis. You do realize the majority of cannabis is bought and sold right?
Why don't the majority of cannabis users deserve rights too? Why only a small minority that grow there own?
Who's going to vote for this law?
Why would someone who buys/sells their cannabis vote for this?
Why would someone who grows their own vote for a law that invites police into their homes?
Why would a non-smoker vote for this?
What you are proposing would never make it on the ballot. If by some miracle it did, it would get no more than 2% of the vote.
As for the business aspect well as long as it is separate from the people Initiative fine.
"Peoples" initiative? You mean the one that makes it illegal for them to buy/sell cannabis and then forces them to invite police into their homes if they wish to grow their own?
Who are these "people" you're claiming to represent? Are they police officers? Those are the only people I see voting for what you are proposing.
On the business front I assume you wish to adopt regulation that cap the output of produce by any one business entity.
Correct. I advocate that collectives should only be able to own one dispensary and no one can own a controlling share in more than one collective. That way we create a lot of small businesses rather than a small handful of large monopolies.
I also think there should be a separation between farming collectives as retail sales collectives. Dispensaries should purchase their cannabis from farmers rather than have dispensaries grow their own.
-----
Does this mean business would be limited to plant counts? Or is that volume of finished produce?
Limitations on growing should be to limit total grow space square footage to prevent massive scale factories. Plant limits are largely irrelevant.
Would you be in favor of a distributed production system where a business contracts with a State regulatory and is supervised as to quality and safety of their produce or are you for a Mind you own business approach to cannabis produce by business..
I strongly support safety regulations on commercial cannabis. I think there should be testing on all commercially sold cannabis.
How will you make the mega corporation go away? By making the private citizen a corporation or what?
Allow no one to own more than one dispensary or one commercial grow operation. That would insure that all commercial cannabis is grown by mom and pop shops rather than by big walmart type stores.
-----------------------------------------------
End
*1 People have not had a clear law that allows them to Trade. You seem angry at my suggestion we make one.
*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?
*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. They believe that it is their business to make everyone support an all or nothing approach for 2012 for example. On a more calm note. Cannabis is illegal and good non-cannabis people are entitled to oppose cannabis in their communities. If we give them two things to hate in our next legalization effort then we are twice as likely to get No votes and sink to the murky depths in the ocean of failure.
Let us build a ship that will sail and weather the storm. Give us a chance to be free in our communities with the least of protections the law can provide.
I am not against commerce. I am in favor of simplifying the choice so we get somewhere this next time.
Now on to the last of your reply. This is why it seems you are more than one person at times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*4 You are manufacturing a position I am supposed to be endorsing but in truth you are fighting ghosts.
*4A 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. This is a plant not a manufactured goods. So you do this a lot. Flip back claiming that I am arguing some position you are against when i am not even concerned with the business side of legalizing. It's a cart and horse thing. 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.
The way my Grandpa ( 1891 - 1988 ) explained this cart and horse analogy is this: The Horse ( labor ) can get by just fine with out the cart ( business ) Especially when we try to make the Horse push the cart.
*4B Deals with you fighting a ghost. I am alright with commerce it is just that California doesn't vote yes on such things at this time.
Better to win some part of Victory than to accept total defeat once again.
We can work on two Initiatives or Three different ones that allow the voter simple choice in approving or disapproving Rights for the People, Rights ( and rules ) of Commerce, and Agra culture.
As long as we do our BEST for the people this time with a simplified Initiative.
In Closing we are going to have police in our lives if we legalize cannabis. It's common sense that we will have to endure a cultural shift and with that political tiffs will happen.
It will be easier to work with one aspect at a time and Give California a chance to evolve.
If we try and push another all in One Initiative again the NO voters already know they won once why would they even read the damn thing before they vote no again?
-----
End
My Question to you is why must we include commerce in our next initiative when it is the cause of so much political friction? Why do you feel that the people have to sacrifice for the kind of commercial reality you want? Remember we already have Medical with it's permit system and we already have Medical commerce where prop 215 doesn't say yes nor does it say no to commerce. I am informed on much of that debate by the way.
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.
: There is a difference between selling a man a clone and giving a man a clone and people ought to have the right to exchange genetics.
I await your reply and thanks for keeping the conversation going.
------------------------
I welcome other comments from people and there is a thread on Public debate in this forum too so if you like you can present new suggestions there as well
Ernst
