Prop 19

[BustedS13]

I'm interested to hear opinions on Prop 19 from California voters. for it, against it, undecided? it seems there's some sort of resistance to it from both sides, and I'd like to hear your reasoning.


edit: before you post, please take the time to do some fact checking. Prop 19 will not make any changes to prop 215. please do not post misinformation. please do not post anecdotal bullshit. please do not use this thread to talk about your last pickup, or anything at all about recreational use. this is about the law, not your hippie burnout tales.

[ronmcdon]

I'm undecided, some convincing arguments on both ends.
what's your stance on this?

[BustedS13]

I'm all for it. any step forward is fine by me. I believe that most people who are against it have been either misinformed or are making money off marijuana's legal status. then there's the all-or-nothing types who think that it's too restrictive.
if you aren't making money selling marijuana right now, you have absolutely nothing to lose by voting yes. the channels that exist to get it right now will still exist if prop 19 passes, so who cares?
I want to see it pass because, of course, "as California goes, so goes the nation". Prohibition has done nothing but ruin lives.

[stinky_180]

I'm against it. When people here 'legal' and 'marijuana' in one sentence they automatically think its going to be totally legal. As a matter of fact, there will be more restrictions and current patients will have less 'freedom'. Read the entire bill before thinking its totally legal. Or, visit:

Stoners Against the Prop. 19 Tax Cannabis Initiative: WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE PROP. 19: 19 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW (http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html)

[BustedS13]

[I]
Myth #1: The initiative will end the War on Drugs and substantially reduce marijuana arrests, saving millions in prison costs.

any step towards legalization/decriminalization of marijuana is a good one.


Myth #2: The initiative will keep young adults out of jail for using marijuana.
Fact: This initiative would put more young people in jail for pot. If it becomes law, any adult 21 or over who passes a joint to another adult aged 18-20 would face six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. [8] (NORML's Web site reports that the current penalty for a gift of marijuana of 1 oz. or less is a $100 fine.[9])

these ones about what happens when you break the law are ridiculous.

Myth #3: You'll be able to light up freely in the privacy of your home.
Fact: That depends. Under the initiative, even adults consuming marijuana in the privacy of their homes could face arrest if there are minors present

you shouldn't smoke around people who would call the cops on you anyway.

Myth #4: Under the initiative, anyone 21 or over will be allowed to grow marijuana in a 5’x5’ space.
Fact: Not quite. This allotment is per property, not per person.

oh man, you can only have 25 square feet of marijuana per household? that would only churn out a couple pounds every grow cycle! how would you get by?

Myth #5: Adults 21 and over will be able to possess up to one ounce of marijuana without penalty.
Fact: Perhaps the most ironic piece of the puzzle is that the initiative to legalize marijuana actually makes it illegal to possess marijuana if it was purchased anywhere other than the very few licensed dispensaries in the state.[12] [B]So if this initiative passes, better not get caught carrying marijuana you bought off your neighbor, your current dealer, or at a party; you could get arrested.

wow, that's so different from how it is now!

i'll make fun of the rest of these later :)

[bb4_96]

why not legalize. Country is going down the tubes anyway.

[ronmcdon]

Well I don't agree that penalties should be any higher than what they are now, especially if it's drastically more severe.

Now if they just increased the fines to gouge (as a means to make more $$$), I'd be okay with that.
To add incarceration, from a financial point of view would just defeat that purpose.
It's also ridiculously harsh to imprison someone for 6 months because of that.

That aside, America really has to get rid of that backwards 21 age limit thing.
We're not stuck in the goddamn 1950's anymore.

Myth #2: The initiative will keep young adults out of jail for using marijuana.
Fact: This initiative would put more young people in jail for pot. If it becomes law, any adult 21 or over who passes a joint to another adult aged 18-20 would face six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. [8]
(NORML's Web site reports that the current penalty for a gift of marijuana of 1 oz. or less is a $100 fine.[9])

My biggest pro for the prop is to add much needed income for the state.
Does it really do anything to benefit recreational users?
It might add legitimacy, but in practical terms I doubt it.
As mentioned prior it's already easy to obtain pot legally & conveniently here.

Does CA law really set a precedent?
I'm not entirely sure of that.
Not all states adopt CARB, so why would they do the same for the tentative prop 19?
If anything, I think Obama stating that he wouldn't enforce the federal law over state law had a bigger impact.
Think financial pressure will be the biggest motivation for all states to come up with some law to regulate pot.

Biggest con (to me) is really whether states actually make $$$.
Like I said, they really ought not to have such harsh jail penalties.
Pot ought to made avail to ppl as young as 18 (they are adults legally by then) to provide a wider taxable market.
For the recreational user, I can see how in practical terms it becomes far more restrictive.

Barring Prop 19 is by no means a step backwards either.
I think users and those concerned with the state economy such as myself (don't currently smoke nor intend to in the future), would prefer a less restrictive approach.
Like I said, propose a new law that get rid of putting ppl jail, then I'll be more open to that.

I'm leaning against it.

[shift_jin]

well if it does pass the rest of the nation can have a chance in looking into the short term pros/cons. I think that some positives can happen from this and plenty of negative consequences...

[kingkilburn]

If it passes it is a step in the right direction.

If it were my soul decision to make it would be completely legal for any one over 18 with the same penalties for DUI, selling to minors, and the like as tobacco and booze.

Any ill effects from the smoke are the responsibility of the smoker so why does the government have any say in it's legality.


EDIT
The biggest pro for me is that legalizing it will put the money into the hands of legitimate businessmen and out of the hands of violent drug cartels. That makes the industry as a whole safer and cleaner, and possibly makes the end product cheaper.

[ronmcdon]

I'd say the existing dispensaries are already pretty legit.
There's a store a few blocks around the corner from where I work in Dowtown LA.
The dudes there seem pretty easy-going & don't resemble drug lords.
Maybe it's different in other cities in CA (Central CA is very conservative).

The only' black-market' is really there if you intend to peddle to high-schoolers or younger, which is another argument in itself.

I also think that all things equal, heavy penalties should also be imposed on minors obtaining illegal substances
(not just the person passing on/selling the pot).
Responsibility should fall on both ends.
Again, gouge them with fines, but don't throw them in jail.

I think for the recreational user in CA, things are pretty good right now.
I think for the state's budget, a better bill could be written.

[kingkilburn]

Speaking of the state's budget. I don't want this legalized for the sake of tax revenue.

[stinky_180]

^you should read the article that I linked in my previous post.

[brndck]

first off, i don't smoke marijuana. even if i didn't get random drug tests for work, i still don't have a desire to smoke pot.

i think it should be legalized.
it'll provide tax revenue that the state of california desperately needs at this point, will eliminate thousands of court cases clogging up the system to allow the focus to be shifted towards more serious criminal offenses, and will drastically reduce the influx of drug runners streaming over the border, carrying narcotics and sometimes killing american citizens while doing so.

just my opinion.

[ronmcdon]

here's one of the more thoughtful discussions in FAVOR of CA Prop 19

California’s Prop 19: A Word-for-Word Analysis | NORML Blog, Marijuana Law Reform (http://blog.norml.org/2010/07/19/californias-prop-19-a-word-for-word-analysis/)

[TheWolf]

I don't understand the logic of this "tax revenue" stream..

It's like offshore jobs. Some people do grow in the US although illegal etc but most are farm workers in mexico etc. Working for peanuts. Cost to grow, very minimal. Cost to transport expensive. Once "legalized" in california, expect to see these costs go down leading to cheap "street" weed and "expensive" legal weed.

Now take the california new legal grower. Ok once legislation gets into this, the money will be extracted in bucket trucks. The grower will need a license, inspections, tax forms, impact fees, fines, etc. The dispenser will definitely need some kind of license, inspection, and monumental fine for selling underage. Just like how cops send kids into bars with fake id's trying to buy booze. they'll send kids into dispensers with fake perscriptions, fake id's etc. The fines will be huge. According to the article the license for a dispenser will be about 30k a year. That's about what a bar pays for it's booze license.

Once it's legal then they'll need a standardized container with a tax stamp on it. This will be the goto for money just like packs of cigarettes are. So back to our economics lesson. How is a legal grower who pays workers comp, and atleast cali minimum wage, property taxes, state income tax, federal income tax, impact fees, manage all of these forms, with penalties etc. Navigate all the legal issues. This all takes a substantial investment with significant overhead. This guy is going to compete with weed grown in mexico and smuggled in???

The dispenser is going to pay all these taxes and fee's etc etc run a store selling "legal" weed and compete with the local weed dealer on your corner?? One needs 500k in revenue to survive, the other needs 30k. I can't imagine paying workers comp on a store that sells weed. Eventually people will just rob these stores blind over and over and over and over. Take the product and sell it on the street. It's not traceable.

Sorry but the weed grower was outsourced a long time ago. I think you'll see more illegally imported weed brought in and sold as legal. The revenue is just vapor ware. It won't fix the budget issue. It will make people "feel good" about it though.

DUI? how do you test for it? Currently the only method of testing if you're under the influence of weed while driving is via a blood test. THC measured in nanograms in the blood. It's not a cheap test. So other than the sobriety road side test, you're kinda up shits creek. Can these tests be piggy backed on the legality of the DUI submission statement on your license? I'm no lawyer.

Personally I think all this will do is stoke the drug war because now state revenues will be lost by every punk kid peddling weed on the street. It won't be possession with intent to distribute any more but "tax evasion". Uncle sam has some serious tax laws regarding their cut which include things like carte blanche to annex all your shit. I can see some preppy kid loosing his car and house over selling 3 joints to his friends. Keep in mind, tax rules are not innocent until proven guilty, They're opposite. The gov't says if you sold x number of joints to undercover officer, they lost out of X dollars of revenue because they think that you "could have sold $X in product". Now it's your job to prove you didn't sell that much weed financially or pay the penalty. Study when the taxation and regulation of alcohol came into be and see how aggressive the gov't was about their revenue. How many citizens lives were ruined over family traditions. How big manufacturers bank rolled detectives to find local brewers and turn them in.

I'm all for weed legalization but you must register with the county, it must be grown outside, and no more than a 4'x4' space. Then people can learn to farm, get their hands dirty, enjoy something they cared for, and get outside in the sun instead of sitting in front of the TV.

[bb4_96]

^^ That is genuine insight from someone who has actually done their homwork.

[hendeeze]

The alternative to legalization is putting more non-violent offenders in our jails. Not only further burdening our state budget, but also mixing recreational non violent offenders with hardened criminals. Forget tax benefits, what benefit does a non-violent user get when he is thrust in jail with murders /pedophiles/ rapists? Do you want to willingly surround someone who has socially been deemed as someone who made "poor" choices, with others who have made "undeniably wrong" choices and expect a positive outcome?

[ronmcdon]

For those too lazy to look up the specifics of Prop 19
It's not just a simple matter of legalization, please get that straight.
Note also, that whether or no CA prop 19 passes, the question of legality only pertains to CA state law.
As per Federal law, it's technically still illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19

Proposition 19, also known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, is a California ballot proposition which will be on the November 2, 2010 California statewide ballot. It legalizes various marijuana-related activities, allows local governments to regulate these activities, permits local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorizes various criminal and civil penalties.[1] In March 2010 it qualified to be on the November statewide ballot.[2] Yes on 19 is the official advocacy group for the initiative.

As of September 2010[update], even if the proposition is passed, the sale of marijuana will remain illegal under federal law via the Controlled Substances Act.[3][4][5]


Effects of the bill
According to the State of California analysis, the bill will have the following effects.[6]

[edit] Legalization of personal marijuana-related activities
Persons over the age of 21:

May possess up to one 1 ounce (28 g) of marijuana for personal consumption.
May use marijuana in a non-public place such as a residence or a public establishment licensed for on site marijuana consumption.
May grow marijuana at a private residence in a space of up to 25 square feet for personal use.
[edit] Local government regulation of commercial production and sale
Local government may authorize the retail sale of up to 1 ounce of marijuana per transaction, and regulate the hours and location of the business.
Local government may authorize larger amounts of marijuana for personal possession and cultivation, or for commercial cultivation, transportation, and sale.
Allows for the transportation of marijuana from a licensed premises in one city or county to a licensed premises in another city or county, without regard to local laws of intermediate localities to the contrary.
[edit] Imposition and collection of taxes and fees
Allows the collection of taxes specifically to allow local governments to raise revenue or to offset any costs associated with marijuana regulation.
[edit] Authorization of criminal and civil penalties
Maintains existing laws against selling drugs to a minor and driving under the influence.
Maintains an employer's right to address consumption of marijuana that affects an employee's job performance.
Maintain existing laws against interstate or international transportation of marijuana.
Any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to sell marijuana, who knowingly sells or gives away marijuana to someone under the age of 21 results in them being banned from owning, operating, or being employed by a licensed marijuana establishment for one year.
Any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to sell marijuana, who knowingly sells or gives away marijuana to someone older the age of 18 but younger than 21, shall be imprisoned in county jail for up to six months and fined up to $1,000 per offense.
Any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to sell marijuana, who knowingly sells or gives away marijuana to someone age 14 to 17, shall be imprisoned in state prison for a period of three to five years.
Any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to sell marijuana, who knowingly sells or gives away marijuana to someone under the age of 14, shall be imprisoned in state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years
[edit] Fiscal impact
In the time leading to 2010, California's state government's budget deficit has grown to be the largest of all American states. The State Board of Equalization has estimated that imposing a $50 per ounce levy on marijuana sales could generate $1.4 billion a year in new tax revenue, thus generating a large amount of revenue at a time when the state is experiencing financial pressure.[7]

According to the States Legislative Analyst's office the following fiscal impact would result from the bill:[8]

Result in significant savings to state and local governments, potentially up to several tens of millions of dollars annually due to reduction of individuals incarcerated, on probation or on parole.
Cells currently being used to house marijuana offenders could be used for other criminals, many of whom are now being released early because of a lack of jail space.
Major reduction in state and local costs for enforcement of marijuana-related offenses and the handling of related criminal cases in the court system, providing the opportunity for funds to be used to enforce other existing criminal laws.
Potential increase in the costs of substance abuse programs due to speculated increase in usage of marijuana, possibly having the effect of reducing spending on mandatory treatment for some criminal offenders, or result in the redirection of these funds for other offenders.
The measure could potentially reduce both the costs and offsetting revenues of the state's medical marijuana program as some adults over 21 would be less likely to participate in the existing program as obtaining marijuana would be easier for those patients.
The measure would provide the opportunity for significant additional revenues as the result of the taxation of sales and businesses engaged in commerce relating to marijuana.
There would be a reduction in fines collected under current state law but a possible increase in local civil fines authorized by existing local laws.
The cumulative effect on fines is largely unknown.
[edit] History
The measure's originator is Richard Lee, a marijuana legalization activist and medical marijuana provider based in Oakland. Lee named political consultant Chris Lehane as the head of the campaign to pass the measure.[9]

In order to qualify for the ballot, the initiative needed 433,971 valid petition signatures. The initiative proponents submitted 694,248 signatures, and it qualified through the random sample signature check.[10]

In the 1972 California November elections, a similar initiative to legalize cannabis was on the ballot, and coincidentally it was also named Proposition 19.[11][12]

[HalveBlue]

I don't understand the logic of this "tax revenue" stream..

It's like offshore jobs. Some people do grow in the US although illegal etc but most are farm workers in mexico etc. Working for peanuts. Cost to grow, very minimal. Cost to transport expensive. Once "legalized" in california, expect to see these costs go down leading to cheap "street" weed and "expensive" legal weed.

Now take the california new legal grower. Ok once legislation gets into this, the money will be extracted in bucket trucks. The grower will need a license, inspections, tax forms, impact fees, fines, etc. The dispenser will definitely need some kind of license, inspection, and monumental fine for selling underage. Just like how cops send kids into bars with fake id's trying to buy booze. they'll send kids into dispensers with fake perscriptions, fake id's etc. The fines will be huge. According to the article the license for a dispenser will be about 30k a year. That's about what a bar pays for it's booze license.

Once it's legal then they'll need a standardized container with a tax stamp on it. This will be the goto for money just like packs of cigarettes are. So back to our economics lesson. How is a legal grower who pays workers comp, and atleast cali minimum wage, property taxes, state income tax, federal income tax, impact fees, manage all of these forms, with penalties etc. Navigate all the legal issues. This all takes a substantial investment with significant overhead. This guy is going to compete with weed grown in mexico and smuggled in???

The dispenser is going to pay all these taxes and fee's etc etc run a store selling "legal" weed and compete with the local weed dealer on your corner?? One needs 500k in revenue to survive, the other needs 30k. I can't imagine paying workers comp on a store that sells weed. Eventually people will just rob these stores blind over and over and over and over. Take the product and sell it on the street. It's not traceable.

Sorry but the weed grower was outsourced a long time ago. I think you'll see more illegally imported weed brought in and sold as legal. The revenue is just vapor ware. It won't fix the budget issue. It will make people "feel good" about it though.

DUI? how do you test for it? Currently the only method of testing if you're under the influence of weed while driving is via a blood test. THC measured in nanograms in the blood. It's not a cheap test. So other than the sobriety road side test, you're kinda up shits creek. Can these tests be piggy backed on the legality of the DUI submission statement on your license? I'm no lawyer.

Personally I think all this will do is stoke the drug war because now state revenues will be lost by every punk kid peddling weed on the street. It won't be possession with intent to distribute any more but "tax evasion". Uncle sam has some serious tax laws regarding their cut which include things like carte blanche to annex all your shit. I can see some preppy kid loosing his car and house over selling 3 joints to his friends. Keep in mind, tax rules are not innocent until proven guilty, They're opposite. The gov't says if you sold x number of joints to undercover officer, they lost out of X dollars of revenue because they think that you "could have sold $X in product". Now it's your job to prove you didn't sell that much weed financially or pay the penalty. Study when the taxation and regulation of alcohol came into be and see how aggressive the gov't was about their revenue. How many citizens lives were ruined over family traditions. How big manufacturers bank rolled detectives to find local brewers and turn them in.

I'm all for weed legalization but you must register with the county, it must be grown outside, and no more than a 4'x4' space. Then people can learn to farm, get their hands dirty, enjoy something they cared for, and get outside in the sun instead of sitting in front of the TV.

I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with what you said.

Cannabis was decriminalized in the Netherlands decades ago, to the point where it's illegal in name only (Yes, technically speaking weed is illegal in Holland).

Coffee shops in the Netherlands face most, if not all, of the issues you mentioned. Despite this, these establishments are quite profitable.

I don't see how the situation in California would be any different.

[bb4_96]

The alternative to legalization is putting more non-violent offenders in our jails. Not only further burdening our state budget, but also mixing recreational non violent offenders with hardened criminals. Forget tax benefits, what benefit does a non-violent user get when he is thrust in jail with murders /pedophiles/ rapists? Do you want to willingly surround someone who has socially been deemed as someone who made "poor" choices, with others who have made "undeniably wrong" choices and expect a positive outcome?

Would you be tempted to break the law so eagerly after being raped in the ass for a few months? If laws were more stringent less people would gamble with their civil liberties. Compare statistics for home invasions per capita in texas with home invasion in illinois. Do you know what accounts for the difference? In illinois if a crook slips in your kitchen and lands on a sharp object you can be sued. In texas if a homeowner blows out a theives brains on the front porch he's a hero. See a difference in the amount of occurances vs. severity of repercussions?

Point being if drug related convictions posed more serious consequences all along people wouldn't be as tempted to do it. I've seen people get away with a slap on the wrist for simultaneous dui/open container/speeding/wreckless driving/ public endangerment/ possession off sub./ possesion of paraphanilia.

[BustedS13]

Would you be tempted to break the law so eagerly after being raped in the ass for a few months? If laws were more stringent less people would gamble with their civil liberties. Compare statistics for home invasions per capita in texas with home invasion in illinois. Do you know what accounts for the difference? In illinois if a crook slips in your kitchen and lands on a sharp object you can be sued. In texas if a homeowner blows out a theives brains on the front porch he's a hero. See a difference in the amount of occurances vs. severity of repercussions?

Point being if drug related convictions posed more serious consequences all along people wouldn't be as tempted to do it. I've seen people get away with a slap on the wrist for simultaneous dui/open container/speeding/wreckless driving/ public endangerment/ possession off sub./ possesion of paraphanilia.

but the point is that maybe these people don't BELONG in jail, because the law is wrong. do people really deserve to be raped for marijuana possession?

[ronmcdon]

Also if the objective of the bill is to make $$$, you don't want to be sending ppl off to jail/prison.
Fines are ok however, as that is revenue.
You do so much as smoke in the presence of someone who's under 21,
and you will be in trouble.
(it may sound like pot has the same restrictions as alcohol, but it's much more severe)

[bb4_96]

I realize the question of whether smoking pot should be legal or not is the point. I just feel like if they are going to put this into effect it ought to be enforced with more than the lukeworm fervor it is being now.

[kingkilburn]

I realize the question of whether smoking pot should be legal or not is the point. I just feel like if they are going to put this into effect it ought to be enforced with more than the lukeworm fervor it is being now.

That(and your previous post) implies that smoking pot is inherently bad which no one has proven.

[bb4_96]

That(and your previous post) implies that smoking pot is inherently bad which no one has proven.

No. Nowhere did I imply that smoking pot is bad. I first stated more dire consequences will stave off breaking of the law. Then I stated that if they do put this law into affect it out to be harshly enforced.

Any implied bias is on your part.

My point is that law is the law. It's written and ought to be harshly enforced so people would... obey it?

I could care less which way this law goes(I've said before, what does it matter, this country is headed down the shitter anyway) I just want the judicial system to come down on people who can't follow the damn rules. This country spends so much damn time and energy on people who for whatever reason can't just obey the law. If the laws were really that unfair and that fact was agreed upon in a truly widescale basis there would be massive civil uprising and the government or that particular piece of legislature would be overturned.

My personal thoughts on drugs... despise them. Wish they were never developed for recreational purposes. If you legalize pot then why not cocaine? Heroin? shrooms? Why not dispense perscription meds over the counter? Why not allow meth labs? A mind altering substance is just that. Anyone is a hypocrite if they think that pot ought to be legalized and not the rest. Thats my thoughts. Keep the booze because as bad as it is its already well regulated and dealing with it is nothing new. Keep a hard line drawn there though. Legalizing pot(a drug) is a slippery slope. Smoking pot may not be bad but allowing it is opening a door...

[kingkilburn]

Just because it is law does not mean it is just.

Your opinion that they should be harsher shows that you think it is bad. You also say so yourself.




I'd like you to clearly define what exactly a "drug" is and explain to all of us why they are so bad. The only things I can think of as inherently bad are those that can lead to death or permanent injury on the first try, but most of that is do to improper use AND they ALL serve a purpose medically.

Cannabis is not one of those that can cause death or injury so what's your beef? Saying that it is opening a door is true but why do you or any other person/s get to decide what I do with my body?

[inopsey]

I don't understand the logic of this "tax revenue" stream..

It's like offshore jobs. Some people do grow in the US although illegal etc but most are farm workers in mexico etc. Working for peanuts. Cost to grow, very minimal. Cost to transport expensive. Once "legalized" in california, expect to see these costs go down leading to cheap "street" weed and "expensive" legal weed.

Now take the california new legal grower. Ok once legislation gets into this, the money will be extracted in bucket trucks. The grower will need a license, inspections, tax forms, impact fees, fines, etc. The dispenser will definitely need some kind of license, inspection, and monumental fine for selling underage. Just like how cops send kids into bars with fake id's trying to buy booze. they'll send kids into dispensers with fake perscriptions, fake id's etc. The fines will be huge. According to the article the license for a dispenser will be about 30k a year. That's about what a bar pays for it's booze license.

Once it's legal then they'll need a standardized container with a tax stamp on it. This will be the goto for money just like packs of cigarettes are. So back to our economics lesson. How is a legal grower who pays workers comp, and atleast cali minimum wage, property taxes, state income tax, federal income tax, impact fees, manage all of these forms, with penalties etc. Navigate all the legal issues. This all takes a substantial investment with significant overhead. This guy is going to compete with weed grown in mexico and smuggled in???



the mexican cartels will and always have had an inferior product mainly from the drying and smuggling methods used. this will not change. everyone knows indoor grown is superior medicine since it doesent have bugs crawling on it shitting etc. lots of people will always want the best product and that will mean that there will always be a huge demand for premium specialty varieties, just like the wine industry, and people will pay a premium for it.

this will remove the mexican weed from the cali market because given the option noone will buy brown shitty mexican weed when they can have properly grown and dryed cali weed; even if big tobacco is the ones doing the growing. if the industry cant provide the good product a network of professional growers such as seen in n.cali will.

people will always pay a premium for the good indoor weed even if the state is overrun with outdoor. therefore coffee shop type dispensarys will be in demand like in amsterdam.

[TougeLove]

do you guys understand how crowded cali would get if pot was legal!?

i could see this going bad but im all for it.

[upsdude]

prohibition didn't work, and eventually weed will be as accessible as it is in, say, amsterdam. it's just a question of when...maybe this year, maybe in a couple generations. i just don't get the double standard that it's legal to buy alcohol yet not marijuana. both are are bad for your body, both alter your mood/state of mind. the only reason i think it's still illegal is all the old baby boomers are still in political power-once the last of them die off maybe it'll be different.

[kingkilburn]

Take a look at how many over the counter meds say not to drive or operate heavy machinery while on them. There are a lot of mind altering things out there and most of the are harmless.
If that is the major safety caution it is no different than taking to much benadryl.

[bb4_96]

I think all laws ought to be more harshly enforced not just drug ones. I think what people do with their bodies becomes by business when my tax dollars go to pay for the effects. Pot isn't deadly like other drugs but it is a carcinogen so it is not harmless.

It seems like the nation is pulling itself apart at the seems. Those who still push towards progress/advancement and those who fixate on recreation to the point of using mind altering substances. And of course those in between. I don't think I'd mind drug use so much if people could balance it with life. I'm not against drugs themselves I'm against the results on peoples lives from misuse.

[upsdude]

do you guys understand how crowded cali would get if pot was legal!?



we're already overpopulated due to immigration (both legal and illegal)

[mau5trap]

vote no on prop 19 this coming November.

Stoners Against the Prop. 19 Tax Cannabis Initiative: WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE PROP. 19: 19 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW (http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html)

read this too my friend and pass it on.

[BustedS13]

i can only assume everybody saying "vote no" is just trying to preserve counterculture and/or is growing for profit.

edit: hell, the link above is a thread on a weed-farming forum. and then there's this excerpt from the first line: "18 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW "

ha ha ha.

[mau5trap]

the first post on that forum is from this blog.
Stoners Against the Prop. 19 Tax Cannabis Initiative: WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE PROP. 19: 19 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW (http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html)
FYI, marijuana is already "LEGAL" in California. This bill is just adding more restrictions and new laws against marijuana.

[BustedS13]

FYI, marijuana is already "LEGAL" in California. This bill is just adding more restrictions and new laws against marijuana.

medical marijuana, for the most part, is a ridiculous facade, and is nothing like actual legalization.

[ViciousCesar!]

i don't smoke with kids, i don't grow my own, i don't sell recommendations, i don't make profits from a 'non-profit' dispensary and i am not a criminal. so I'm all for prop 19.

[ronmcdon]

why is a 'ridicoulous facade'?
ppl who use it for recreation or medical means get by fine.
ppl who legitamately need it for medical reasons get what they want.

wouldn't call it LEGAL either.
recreational use isn't technically legal as per state laws (as I understand it),
it's just that there are a lot of loopholes & lack of enforcement that make it readily available.
In practical terms, it's already readily available but that's not the same thing as bieng legal.
Hell if prop 19 passes, it's still ILLEGAL as per federal law.

[BustedS13]

why is a 'ridicoulous facade'?
ppl who use it for recreation or medical means get by fine.

you shouldn't have to make false claims to a doctor to get a piece of paper that says you can buy pot. you should be able to walk into a store, present your license, and walk out smiling.

ppl who legitamately need it for medical reasons get what they want.

yup.

wouldn't call it LEGAL either.
recreational use isn't technically legal as per state laws (as I understand it),
it's just that there are a lot of loopholes & lack of enforcement that make it readily available.
In practical terms, it's already readily available but that's not the same thing as bieng legal.
Hell if prop 19 passes, it's still ILLEGAL as per federal law.

right, but nothing's going to change without taking steps in the right direction. this is a big one.



see bold. i think you and i are at a stalemate at this point.

[ViciousCesar!]

nothing's going to change without taking steps in the right direction. this is a big one.

This.

it's time we end the 63 years of prohibition. nothing is gonna change over night, but we have the opportunity to step up and get the ball rolling.

[mau5trap]

No It's Not! Just because it is a "BIG" step forward doesn't mean it is a good one...This "BIG" step looks like a step off a cliff....There is no need to rush into a law that will be difficult to change. There are better full legalization laws, including one set to be on the ballot in 2012.

[ViciousCesar!]

No It's Not! Just because it is a "BIG" step forward doesn't mean it is a good one...This "BIG" step looks like a step off a cliff....There is no need to rush into a law that will be difficult to change. There are better full legalization laws, including one set to be on the ballot in 2012.

you talking about the Jack Herer initiative? that one would be much much better. but do you honestly think that we'll be able to pull in all the people who don't smoke without giving them something in return?

[kingkilburn]

Your giving them back all the time and money wasted on corrections and law enforcement.

[ronmcdon]

I like the Jack Herer proposition A LOT more!! :D
essentially the regulation will be akin to wine laws.

everyone arrested for non-violent marijuana charges will be released from prison and have their related criminal background deleted.
(think of all the $$$ saved, and the freeing up of prison/jail space).

It's far less nazi than prop 19, without the all crazy jail time penalties.

Jack Herer - Initiative (http://www.jackherer.com/initiative.html)

Your giving them back all the time and money wasted on corrections and law enforcement.

On principle alone, I agree 100% with you there!
However, prop 19 has a good deal of opposition as is.
CA is still a relatively conservative state when it comes to legalizing.
I too have my doubts about the Jack Herer intiative passing, as much as I love it.

[mau5trap]

Ten Reasons to Vote No « Vote No on Prop 19 (http://stop19.com/ten-reasons-to-vote-no/)

[BustedS13]

Ten Reasons to Vote No « Vote No on Prop 19 (http://stop19.com/ten-reasons-to-vote-no/)

the system got you brah.

[ViciousCesar!]

Ten Reasons to Vote No « Vote No on Prop 19 (http://stop19.com/ten-reasons-to-vote-no/)

okay...

1. Proposition 19 isn’t really legalization. It only allows possession of up to one ounce of cannabis. Under current California law, an ounce or less of pot isn’t an arrestable offense. And soon this amount will be a simple civil infraction. Prop 19 doesn’t make any improvements to decriminalization or prop 215.

we may not always get arrested. but we do still get charged with possession. my buddy just got caught up for some stuff and so they attached 'possession of marijuana'. now he's gonna get added fines, community service, substance abuse classes and another blemish on his record. doesn't sound to me like things are anywhere near where I would like to see them.

2. Prop 19 creates several new cannabis related crimes with extremely severe penalties. Don’t pass a joint to a 17 year old, you will be looking at a max of 7 years in state prison, seriously.

from prop 19:
(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.

$1000 fine and six months in jail is the same as providing alcohol to minors. but who wants to smoke with 17 year olds anyways?

3. Prop 19 is solely designed to allow large scale cannabis production by politically connected corporations. Oakland has already started the process to license a Prop 19 Cartel mega-grow.

they can set up shop all they want. it doesn't mean we'll be forced to buy their product. like everything else in our economy, if you don't feel a commodity is up to par. you always have the option to go to their competitors.

4. Most legal experts agree that Prop 19 is poorly written and will leave police and judges to enforce it at their discretion. For example, consuming cannabis would be illegal in the same "space" as a minor. Police and judges are free to interpret the word "space" to mean the same room, house, or entire apartment complex.

once again. i don't see any appeal in smoking with minors and why people think this is such an issue. is there some sort of sub culture that puts smoking with/around kids on such a pedestal?

5. There is no need to rush into a law that will be difficult to change. There are better full legalization laws, including one set to be on the ballot in 2012.

some polls show we can barely get 50% of californians to agree on legalization with the promise of potential tax revenue in a deficit ridden economy. good luck getting them behind us when they won't have anything to gain.

6. Prop 19 will lead to the walmartization of the cannabis industry. And unfortunately, this will result in lower quality and fixed prices. Limited competition and government control will allow large scale growers to determine prices and dictate quality standards (or lack thereof).

see #3 and do you honestly think that the culture we have created, which loves quality buds and is always in hunt for a more potent strain, will just vanish into thin air because a competitor joins the fray?

7. Local governments will control the taxation, production, and distribution of cannabis. This is a touchy political issue; most local politicians won’t risk a backlash by allowing dispensaries in their city. This means many people will have to travel long distances or break the law to purchase cannabis.

it's gonna depend on each city/town to determine if they will take advantage of the potential revenue. if they don't, dispensaries will remain as the are today and you will still have that option if you don't feel like driving. but once you have your herb, nobody will be able to fuck with you for it, regardless of where you obtained.

8. Prop 19 will likely supersede prop 215, adversely affecting medical cannabis users by dictating grow size, possession amount, patient to patient sales, and location of use.

from Prop 19:
6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.
7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5* and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

*California Health & Safety Code #11362.5 = prop 215

9. Unbiased cannabis activists do NOT support Prop 19. This includes the late Jack Herer and the co-author of prop 215, Dennis Peron (see his video here).

illegal growers, profit dispensaries, some greedy doctors, people who contribute to minors and facist don't support prop 19. Herer and Peron are against it because they are already onto the next level and i wish we could all be there. but the sad truth is that the general public isn't ready for it.

10. The federal government has decided to not prosecute medical cannabis users. This will not be the case if Prop 19 passes. Many people believe that the passage of Prop 19 will bring an aggressive response from the feds, perhaps putting medical users at risk of losing access to medicine.


this is purely speculation and pessimistic propaganda. but if these people think that a proposition that gives cities to power to tax and 'control' cannabis, and puts 'adults' in jail for contributing to minors is gonna be under heavy attacks by the government. what do you think would happen if the proposed 2012 marijuana initiative passed? or is using the 2012 initiative an excuse to go against prop 19, put out there by people who have no real motivation in seeing marijuana completely legalized anyways?

[mau5trap]

okay...



we may not always get arrested. but we do still get charged with possession. my buddy just got caught up for some stuff and so they attached 'possession of marijuana'. now he's gonna get added fines, community service, substance abuse classes and another blemish on his record. doesn't sound to me like things are anywhere near where I would like to see them.


did your friend have a 215 card? was he legally allowed to carry weed with him?

[ViciousCesar!]

did your friend have a 215 card? was he legally allowed to carry weed with him?

he doesn't. hence, why i used him as an example.

[BustedS13]

did your friend have a 215 card? was he legally allowed to carry weed with him?

why should everyone be required to pay for a hundred dollar doctor visit where you have to lie about your condition, for something that is less harmful than tobacco or alcohol?

[mau5trap]

so you don't get caught up.

[bb4_96]

but who wants to smoke with 17 year olds anyways?

Other 17 year olds?

This thread sucks... No matter what they do with regards to legalization if the laws put into effect aren't well enforced it's going to be a cluster fuck. Incidents while intoxicated will be fucking rampant without moderate to heavy enforcement much like DUI(alcohol) is currently. Not just driving incidents but any situtation where a person's reaction time jeopardizes others well being.

^ I have a story for above. An individual I know decided that driving while under the influence of marijuana doesn't impair judgement or reaction time. While driving one evening having smoked within half an hour the individual began tailgating an unmarked car without realizing(judgement). Cop sped up and so did xyz. Cop sped up more, so did xyz. Cop paced xyz for 2 miles at 90mph(judgement). Cop began to slow down to try to pull over xyz and was rear ended by xyz(reaction time). xyz got off with $1k in fines and a year of NA meetings. xyz still has a liscense and still openly and braggingly advocates driving while high.

I say legalize on a federal level because people are going to do whatever the hell they want anyway, but please stiffen penalties and enforcement to promote responsible use. When people atart losing their driving rights for life after an accident while dui the bullshit will stop... One way or another.

[mau5trap]

^^ that sounds like a made up story about xyz.
sounds like he was on some other shit.

[CleanAndLegit]

people who say know to prop 19 are people who wanna keep "making" money off of selling pot
and are trying to convince people to vote know by pointing out the downs
obviousfingly its not gonna be freakin perfect
anyway im voting yess sirrr!
no downsides if your not doing something in the sense of "bad"

[ronmcdon]

people who say know to prop 19 are people who wanna keep "making" money off of selling pot
and are trying to convince people to vote know by pointing out the downs
obviousfingly its not gonna be freakin perfect
anyway im voting yess sirrr!
no downsides if your not doing something in the sense of "bad"

you obviously haven't been reading.
btw - that 'know' pun was a little lame, esp given the irony.

[BustedS13]

so you don't get caught up.

get caught up in what? addiction? it's not an addictive substance. by that logic everyone should go to the doctor for alcohol and tobacco prescriptions.

Other 17 year olds?

yeah, and 17 year olds want to drink and smoke cigs with each other, too, but that's also illegal.

[ViciousCesar!]

Other 17 year olds?

lol. You might want to re-read what I was respondeing to.

[bb4_96]

^lol jk. True though. 17yo will be smoking illegally just like they drink now.

[ViciousCesar!]

yeah, that's very likely. but in it could also potentially save lives if they stopped drinking and started smoking.

[Tarrell]

I am against Proposition 19 for one, and only one, reason: No state in the United States has the right to ignore federally mandated laws in place. While I agree that marijuana laws should be repealed, California has a duty and responsibility, as a state in the U.S., to uphold and enforce Federally-inacted laws presently in place, including the laws that make it a crime to possess, use, sell, trade, and/or cultivate marijuana. To me, what Prop 19 really says is, "If passed, the California State Government, as well as the state's counties and cities, is choosing to ignore federal law." I do believe we should repeal the anti-marijuana laws and allow responsible people to use it if they choose. But it is my firm belief that we must start at the FEDERAL level,by writing to our Congress Representatives, Senators, and the President, to repeal the federal laws in place that make marijuana illegal. Once federal pot laws are repealed, the states should have the right to make it illegal in their respective states, or repeal the laws themselves. If any person, business, or any "lower" government entity is free to disregard "higher" government laws in place, and to just "pick and choose" which laws they will enforce or ignore, then the entire system breaks down, and laws themselves would have no real meaning. For example, say Los Angeles County decides it will no longer enforce the state's drinking and driving laws. California would no doubt "cry foul" and insist LA County uphold the state's inacted laws, and the state government would be correct, insisting that "as a county within California's borders, it has a duty and responsibility to uphold the state's anti-drinking and driving laws." By the same token, California, and it's counties and cities have the same duty to uphold United States federal laws. Again, I agree we should repeal the anti-pot laws, but it must start at the federal level first. For this reason alone, Proposition 19 should be removed from the ballot, until the federal anti-pot laws are repealed first.

[rdoni2]

lol prop 19 is a straight joke. the bill is poorly written.. if it gets legalized each city can say its illegal or legal. its already regulated. and even if it gets legalized the feds are gonna find a way to sue the fuck outta California. plus if its legal everyone and there mom are gonna grow it so its not gonna be worth shit. if u need it get your card you dont want marijuana in your kids hands one day cause if its in everyones back yard it will be easy to get!

why should everyone be required to pay for a hundred dollar doctor visit where you have to lie about your condition, for something that is less harmful than tobacco or alcohol?

wait till you see the tax your gonna wish u just got your card and kept ur mouth shut! government will put shit in marijuana to make it addictive you idiot just like the tobacco...

[ViciousCesar!]

plus if its legal everyone and there mom are gonna grow it so its not gonna be worth shit.

wait till you see the tax your gonna wish u just got your card...government will put shit in marijuana to make it addictive you idiot just like the tobacco...

wait which one is it? is it gonna be expensive or cheap? are we gonna grow it or them? i'm confused...

[kingkilburn]

I am against Proposition 19 for one, and only one, reason: No state in the United States has the right to ignore federally mandated laws in place.

Show me in the Constitution where it says the Feds can even make a law about drugs. The FDA itself is unconstitutional.

[BustedS13]

wait till you see the tax your gonna wish u just got your card and kept ur mouth shut! government will put shit in marijuana to make it addictive you idiot just like the tobacco...

please keep your insanity out of this thread, thanks.

[Walperstyle]

Against because
1) people that were thrown in jail for possession are now 'innocent'? Some of these people are now hardened criminals because they went to Jail. The last thing you want is some of them back on the streets worst off then they went in.
2) really its not healthy for you

For it because
1) anything the government can tax will ultimately help the people. Someone has to pay teachers wages.
2) its less lethal then booze

I'm a fence sitter. Your country has far more serious things to worry about then smoking weed.

[S14DB]

So, Schwarzenegger opposes 19 but signed this:

washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/01/AR2010100106966.html)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/02/MNR61FN4GC.DTL

I am confused.

[soreballz]

^ Makes sense to me.

[ronmcdon]

I think it makes perfect sense too.
You're freeing up up a lot court, & jail resources (which translates into costs as well).
Infractions are a better source of income.

He's not saying pot is okay, he's just saved a lot of much needed $$$ for CA.
Smart compromise, but it also makes some of the proposals of Prop 19 redundant.

[Walperstyle]

You guys seriously need a system like we have in Canada. Its Illegal, but generally ignored by the police unless they REALLY want to use you to find the major players.

Up here, unless you have like a full pound of weed, nobody is going to bother you.

besides all this... Smoking anything is bad for you. I don't get what the big love for weed is.

[murda-c]

You guys seriously need a system like we have in Canada. Its Illegal, but generally ignored by the police unless they REALLY want to use you to find the major players.

Up here, unless you have like a full pound of weed, nobody is going to bother you.

besides all this... Smoking anything is bad for you. I don't get what the big love for weed is.

It makes you feel good.

[BustedS13]

So, Schwarzenegger opposes 19 but signed this:

washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/01/AR2010100106966.html)
State downgrades pot possession to infraction (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/02/MNR61FN4GC.DTL)

I am confused.

i'm thinking he did it to take some wind out of prop 19's sails.

[Walperstyle]

It makes you feel good.

From what I gathered, it makes boring people happy and hungry. Its nothing special.

[ronmcdon]

It doesn't really do much for me either.
The point is whether or not to have it avail to those who want it.
Sort of like the gay marriage thing.
Not everyone is gay or wants to get married but that doesn't mean it's uninteresting.

[J3123MY]

Pot isn't deadly like other drugs but it is a carcinogen so it is not harmless.

LOL! Pseudoscience. Where did you pull this one out of, your ass? Go find me a case where marijuana caused cancer please.

I am against Proposition 19 for one, and only one, reason: No state in the United States has the right to ignore federally mandated laws in place. While I agree that marijuana laws should be repealed, California has a duty and responsibility, as a state in the U.S., to uphold and enforce Federally-inacted laws presently in place, including the laws that make it a crime to possess, use, sell, trade, and/or cultivate marijuana. To me, what Prop 19 really says is, "If passed, the California State Government, as well as the state's counties and cities, is choosing to ignore federal law." I do believe we should repeal the anti-marijuana laws and allow responsible people to use it if they choose. But it is my firm belief that we must start at the FEDERAL level,by writing to our Congress Representatives, Senators, and the President, to repeal the federal laws in place that make marijuana illegal. Once federal pot laws are repealed, the states should have the right to make it illegal in their respective states, or repeal the laws themselves. If any person, business, or any "lower" government entity is free to disregard "higher" government laws in place, and to just "pick and choose" which laws they will enforce or ignore, then the entire system breaks down, and laws themselves would have no real meaning. For example, say Los Angeles County decides it will no longer enforce the state's drinking and driving laws. California would no doubt "cry foul" and insist LA County uphold the state's inacted laws, and the state government would be correct, insisting that "as a county within California's borders, it has a duty and responsibility to uphold the state's anti-drinking and driving laws." By the same token, California, and it's counties and cities have the same duty to uphold United States federal laws. Again, I agree we should repeal the anti-pot laws, but it must start at the federal level first. For this reason alone, Proposition 19 should be removed from the ballot, until the federal anti-pot laws are repealed first.

So your against a proposition just because the federal government decides to force its "morals" upon its citizen? This is exactly what many of our founding fathers was against, too much federal power. Its gonna be a long time before uncle Sam says, "my bad.....We thought it was bad back in the day. Sorry for all the lives we have ruined over a plant." lol. And plus, the U.S. government is supplying medical marijuana to like a couple of people for the rest of their lives... whats up with that?

It has always kinda been like that for different states. Oregon no sales tax, Arizona cops can search you if you look illegal, and other weird state laws.



I think I am gonna vote against it for November. Marijuana is pretty much legal in california. prop 215 and senate bill 420, baby. Since 1996. Prop 19 seems like it will just add more laws, punishments, regulation for marijuana. IT also seems monopolies will be created in the market, and not to mention Uncle Sams gotta get his fat fingers in on this, since his a broke mother fucker.

Even Dennis Peron and Jack Herer are against Prop 19. And they know whats up.

[kingkilburn]

LOL! Pseudoscience. Where did you pull this one out of, your ass? Go find me a case where marijuana caused cancer please

If it is smoke it CAN give you cancer and it WILL damage your lungs. No physician will tell you otherwise.

Having said that, it is your business if you choose to smoke anything as long as the healthcare you will eventually get isn't paid with tax dollars.

[bb4_96]

If it is smoke it CAN give you cancer and it WILL damage your lungs. No physician will tell you otherwise.

Having said that, it is your business if you choose to smoke anything as long as the healthcare you will eventually get isn't paid with tax dollars.

I appreciate your perspective.

The thought that pot is harmless is a tool people have been using, and that type of ignorance is one of the reasons I'm against pot and the likes. The wealth of ignorance surrounding it's merits/drawbacks most impart to people trying to push it past/away from legislation. Your going to have people for the next 50 years smoking pot crying about what they didn't know "back in those days" about insert shit health condition here. And my fucking kids and grandkids are going to have to foot the bill just as I'm footing the bill for the previous generation's ignorance surrounding tobacco. But that's ok, the government can just print more money to pay for healthcare for people who "didn't know better", right?

[ViciousCesar!]

No on 19. because perpetuating lies, corruption, ignorance and greed is the way to go.

[sucide_s13]

Hahaha i work at a+ hydro we are one of the
hydro stores that are on the front lines we here all the inside details
no way there going to legalize pot so quick
no one is ready for a change this big in history
and if it does become legal not for long shit will back
fire on cali and ima sit back and relax and laugh my a** offfff
and it wouldn't even go into effect for another 5 years on top of
that.Decriminalize my a**** seems like if ur under the age
of 21 up to few months in jail and fines woww hahaha
realy going to help us out u guys dont think how much there
already makeing everbody and there momms that cultivates medical
cannabis pays taxes and more taxes hundreds of commercial growers
already pay millions of dollars were just getting greedy :snoop:


NO ON PROP 19 its a effen joke

[sucide_s13]

i can only assume everybody saying "vote no" is just trying to preserve counterculture and/or is growing for profit.

edit: hell, the link above is a thread on a weed-farming forum. and then there's this excerpt from the first line: "18 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW "

ha ha ha. uuummm not everybody grows for profit im
a medical caregiver i grow for fundraisers people with long term illlness and cant afford some pain medication we donate millions of dollars worth
of cannabis around the unites states every year dont get that twisted
how is that making profit???? or mabe ur just jealous that some
people are gifted and can grow dank cannabis and are makeing a lil
money....... i love hatersss hahahaha jk lol Good thing for me i make money
another legitimate way by selling the equipment to grow cannabis. hahaah:wiggle::wiggle: dont ruin cali NO on prop 19

[BustedS13]

uuummm not everybody grows for profit im
a medical caregiver i grow for fundraisers people with long term illlness and cant afford some pain medication we donate millions of dollars worth
of cannabis around the unites states every year dont get that twisted
how is that making profit???? or mabe ur just jealous that some
people are gifted and can grow dank cannabis and are makeing a lil
money....... i love hatersss hahahaha jk lol Good thing for me i make money
another legitimate way by selling the equipment to grow cannabis. hahaah:wiggle::wiggle: dont ruin cali NO on prop 19

i can barely understand your gibberish.

[sucide_s13]

hahah of course typical. Damn do I Love haterssss

[BustedS13]

hahah of course typical. Damn do I Love haterssss

there might be a reason you find this reaction typical.

[sucide_s13]

yea typical !!!HATERS!!!

[HalveBlue]

yea typical !!!HATERS!!!

No, he's not hating.

He is, rightfully, pointing out that your grammatical skills are sorely lacking.

Hell, by the looks of it, you couldn't even spell your screen name correctly.

[ronmcdon]

From what I gather, I think he said the company he works for donated a lot of pot for some reason or another.
It was a pita to translate though.

Dude was probably not sober.

[bb4_96]

Thing about this thread is as new people browse the forums and see this thread they will keep popping in and saying the same shit without reading anything. Until something new developes the subject is more or less exhausted imo.

[J3123MY]

Lol. People: MARIJUANA IS NOT CARCINOGENIC!!!!!

trust me, I have done my research. I have read many scientific books on marijuana and its health effects at the Science Library at my school. These are actually scientific books, some written anti-marijuana, and some pro-marijuana.

For Christ Sakes........ Please Prove me wrong. With scientific case. Not pseudoscience shit that you guys pull out of your ass.


Tobacco is carcinogenic. Marijuana is not. Show me a case where a person who has only smoked marijuana and has developed cancer from it... lol. Cancer patients smoke marijuana. Why would they smoke more marijuana if it further causes cancer.

Kingkilburn and bb4. Please get some scientific proof to back your shit up and stop making assumptions.

Im not saying smoke is good for your lungs, but there are different types of smoke with different type of chemicals in there. Of all the chemicals in marijuana, none of them are carcinogenic. On the other hand, tobacco will fuck you up. Smoking marijuana does damage the cilia on your lungs, BUT IT WONT CAUSE CANCER!

Think about it. The government doesn't want you to smoke marijuana. Why dont they release ads of blackened lungs and cancer from marijuana? You know why? Cause they themselves no its not true to the point where they cant even make propaganda with it.


So once again please prove me wrong....



I appreciate your perspective.

The thought that pot is harmless is a tool people have been using, and that type of ignorance is one of the reasons I'm against pot and the likes. The wealth of ignorance surrounding it's merits/drawbacks most impart to people trying to push it past/away from legislation. Your going to have people for the next 50 years smoking pot crying about what they didn't know "back in those days" about insert shit health condition here. And my fucking kids and grandkids are going to have to foot the bill just as I'm footing the bill for the previous generation's ignorance surrounding tobacco. But that's ok, the government can just print more money to pay for healthcare for people who "didn't know better", right?


LOL. You appreciate his perspective because both of you are wrong together and pulling shit out of your ass. You know what I am against? Your ignorance. lol.

[kingkilburn]

How about you prove your point instead of shit talking. Where are your scientific studies?

I am not assuming. Burning ANY plant material creates carcinogenic compounds. Pot may create less than tobacco but that does not mean it's carcinogen free.




In reality I am more worried about all the other damage smoke inhalation does to your lungs and heart. Cancer is concern 40 years out but damage from smoke inhalation can happen within months of starting.




The Reference Frame: Marijuana creates holes in lungs (http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/06/marijuana-creates-holes-in-lungs.html)

Marijuana Smokers Face Rapid Lung Destruction -- As Much As 20 Years Ahead Of Tobacco Smokers (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080123104017.htm)

BBC NEWS | Health | 'My lungs are damaged beyond repair' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6551327.stm)

Science Blog -- Emphysema linked to smoking marijuana (http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2000/B/200001082.html)

Signs of emphysema may develop early in pot smokers | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTON07855720080130)

Take this Marijuana Message to Heart (http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20080513/take-this-marijuana-message-to-heart)

Marijuana Linked to Heart Disease and Depression - US News and World Report (http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/heart/articles/2008/05/14/marijuana-linked-to-heart-disease-and-depression.html)




Lastly they give pot to TERMINAL cancer patients. It is very good at easing chronic pain. It also doesn't matter that it can do all of the above in a patient that will be dead in a year from a terminal illness.

[BustedS13]

if you don't want to risk damaging your lungs, you can cook with it.
if you want to significantly REDUCE damage to your lungs, you can vaporize it.
tobacco is legal.
circular thread.

[kingkilburn]

I would like to reiterate that you can risk your health and life doing what ever you want as long as I/no one else has to pay for your medical treatment but don't sit on your purple sticky high horses telling the world that pot is harmless fun when it clearly is not.

[I LUV MY S13]

For it:

1) Helps the state out alot as far as budget, and we really need it.
2) There are criminals doing more time for trafficking than those who commit violent crimes.
3) In a way crime will go down as far as Cartels, gang wars, deals gone wrong etc etc

Against it:

1) It truely is a gateway drug and addictive.
2) I think we'll see a rise in automobile/machine work accidents therefore resulting in more deaths. Innocent and guilty.
3) I think kids will have a higher probability of trying it because it will seem "ok" to them because the law says you can use at a certain age.
4) Possibility of having a decrease in productivity as far as school, work etc. because everyone is gonna be stoned off their ass.

Im just not gonna vote..

[kingkilburn]

If you aren't voting why are you wasting your time talking about it?

I don't really see a rise in motor accidents. It will have the same restrictions as driving drunk or on certain meds.

[I LUV MY S13]

Uhm cuz i want to. Why are you wasting your time caring?

Of course it will have restrictions, but whos to stop people from driving anyways?

[Jason913]

Marijuana isn't addictive...

[I LUV MY S13]

Says who?..

[kingkilburn]

Uhm cuz i want to. Why are you wasting your time caring?
Then vote. Your belly aching is pointless if you have no intention of voting.

Of course it will have restrictions, but whos to stop people from driving anyways?

Who's to stop them from driving now? You can't prevent people breaking the law only punish those who do.

Marijuana isn't addictive...

:bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl:

Oh wait. Were you serious? :duh:

[I LUV MY S13]

My belly feels fine.

Availability. Those who smoke and drive get it from medical dispensaries or dealers. When its legal access to it will be much easier, therefore resulting in more DUIs and possibly more accidents. Use your noggin.

[kingkilburn]

That's like saying every one who has a gun WILL shoot some one or ever person who ever drinks is going to dive right after.

[Jason913]

Says who?..

I'm a criminology major at FSU... I'm a senior and I'm in a class right now about drugs- Drugs in the criminal justice system. Every study ever done on addictive properties of drugs shows that marijuana is not addictive. If you want to make it illegal because it's "addictive"... then you must think caffeine should be illegal too, since it's WAY more addictive than cannabis.

[I LUV MY S13]

If everyone had a gun dont you think there would be an increase in gun violence?

[unlegendary]

So correct me if I am wrong... BECAUSE LOL I have never been taxed in my life

Hypothetically a marijuana grower/seller that plants 5x5 space indoors, yields 5oz a plant and has 5 plants (making it dumb simple). Since every strain is now dirt cheap, he sells his best stuff for $15/gram and pulls in $126000 annually. He gets taxed $15,000 for having the crop, he gets taxed for breaking six figures 25-28%, he gets taxed for being self employed, and I haven't even adjusted for living expenses! We're talking maybe what 30-40k?

Does it make money? I wouldn't know because $15/g is debatable and the tax laws would also be a big variable, who knows? will the government have its own local crops to supply local dispensaries? lot of variables still

On a better note, even if it only brings you 30-40k... that's good side money. haven't even accounted for the initial costs of premiums and new regulations yet and whatnot.

does the government benefit? yes but to what extent? is this temporary money?

[I LUV MY S13]

I'm a criminology major at FSU... I'm a senior and I'm in a class right now about drugs- Drugs in the criminal justice system. Every study ever done on addictive properties of drugs shows that marijuana is not addictive. If you want to make it illegal because it's "addictive"... then you must think caffeine should be illegal too, since it's WAY more addictive than cannabis.

I have a cousin who i think is definitely addicted. Whenever he goes a few hours without smoking he begins to get a bit shakey and experiencing anxiety. Heres a lil article you can read..


Research increasingly shows that intensive marijuana use often meets the technical requirements for addiction (or dependence). Analysts use this as evidence of the need to maintain the drug’s illegal status. But the fact of addictiveness is irrelevant to legality – addictive drugs (e.g., cigarettes, alcohol) are legal and nonaddictive drugs (e.g., LSD, Ecstasy) are not. Indeed, the fastest growing category of illicit use is of legal, but controlled, pharmaceuticals – both addictive and not. Addiction is a sideline in outlawing drugs, a label applied conveniently by authorities and cooperating scientists in support of prior policy biases.

One of the interesting redefinitions of a drug as addictive has occurred with marijuana. That is, marijuana was grouped (legally and in the public mind) with heroin and other powerful illicit drugs in the first half of the twentieth century. This image of marijuana continued through the 1950s and 1960s. In the mid-1960s and the 1970s, however, marijuana became a popular social drug among college and other youth populations. In the process, it became hard for people to take seriously the idea that marijuana was dangerous, and especially that it might be addictive. After all, people thought, they used it without damaging their lives (although, certainly, many people used it heavily, some perhaps even virtually constantly – cf. the term “pothead”).
So, does this widespread cultural experience of largely innocuous marijuana use mean that the drug is not addictive? In Love and Addiction, I described Malcolm X’s addiction to marijuana – in his autobiography he reported he was constantly and irresistibly intoxicated on marijuana – as typical of the 1940s. I then detailed the changing cultural mood which decided by the 1970s that such experiences were not possible:
Another instructive example is marijuana. As long as this drug was novel and threatening and was associated with deviant minorities, it was defined as "addictive" and classed as a narcotic. That definition was accepted not only by the authorities, but by those who used the drug, as in the Harlem of the 1940s evoked in Malcolm X's autobiography. In recent years, however, middle-class whites have discovered that marijuana is a relatively safe experience. Although we still get sporadic, alarmist reports on one or another harmful aspect of marijuana, respected organs of society are now calling for the decriminalization of the drug. We are near the end of a process of cultural acceptance of marijuana. Students and young professionals, many of whom lead very staid lives, have become comfortable with it, while still feeling sure that people who take heroin become addicted. They do not realize they are engaging in the cultural stereotyping which currently is removing marijuana from the locked "dope" cabinet and placing it on an open shelf alongside alcohol, tranquilizers, nicotine, and caffeine.

[Jason913]

You really want to start pulling things from the internet? lol

You won't find any scholarly studies to back that up... because there are none. However there are a whole bunch of people with computers... but without doctorates and without a credible study that can say oh em gee marijuana is addictive because I read that people magazine says so.

[I LUV MY S13]

You really want to start pulling things from the internet? lol

You won't find any scholarly studies to back that up... because there are none. However there are a whole bunch of people with computers... but without doctorates and without a credible study that can say oh em gee marijuana is addictive because I read that people magazine says so.


haha bro....

That was written by Stanton Peele who got his PH.D at the University of Michigan in Social Psychology and has years of experience in this. :spank:

[Jason913]

His study results? Oh wait...

[upsdude]

i will never understand how it's ok to buy alcohol and get drunk, yet lighting up a joint to get high is illegal. impaired is impaired is impaired. whoever wants to say drinking isn't as dangerous or "morally" wrong as smoking weed needs to look at some accidents caused by drunk drivers.

[20 til 3]

herb is very addictive... BUT it doesn't leave you with physical withdrawal unlike pharmy's, mdma, and so on....

also, marijuana smoke inhilation only accounds for 3% loss of lung compasity loss but i'm sure resin KILLS your lungs(have you ever blown hits through a towel ? discusting), thats why i would suggest using a vaporisor or a multi-filtered pipe

but when it comes down to it... we breathe in things 10x worse every day that we dont notice... who the hell says it causes cancer?... havn't you read a medical journal in your life about cannabis?... its proven to kill cancer cells


i've watched people ruin there lives over what doctors have given them to cope with pain weather it be mental or physical... but if there would have been a better option they wouldnt be stuck where they are now. I watch my grandpa sit in pain because he has alergies to most pain medication and for some reason the government says that something that works is bad for you because they cannot profit off of it enough



and not to mention... hemp fuel would be the shit

[J3123MY]

Kingkilburn......we were talking about cancer. Wheres the cancer at? Fail to find any results with your supply of links of blogs. lol.

[kingkilburn]

If everyone had a gun dont you think there would be an increase in gun violence?

Actually it is quite the opposite.

LOL indeed. Credible blogs linking directly to credible studies as well as news reports linked to credible studies.

Marijuana Damages DNA And May Cause Cancer, New Test Reveals (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090615095940.htm)

[BustedS13]

purple sticky high horses

oh, don't get me wrong, inhaling smoke is bad for your health, you'd have to be pretty blinded by bias to say otherwise.

[murda-c]

hey everybody.

buy a vaporizer.

combustion is for people with iron lungs.

[95KA-Turbo]

I think a few people in this thread have habit forming and addictive mixed up.

Here are two hypothetical situations:

I really like cake, if I get to eat a lot of it for a long period of time - say three slices a day for a week - when I run out of cake I can become irritable and have an 'empty' feeling inside and have cravings for cake that subside after not having cake for a while (the course of a few days to a week).

That is an example of cake being habit forming.



I need cake for my body to function properly. Without it my body cannot physically behave normally. As time passes without having regular doses of cake my body goes through withdrawal and reacts violently with seizures and erratic changes in blood pressure and heart rate. Some of my side effects could be life threatening and hospitalization may occur. Eventually, even that will pass and I will have relieved my body from its physical addiction to cake.


That would be an example of a typical addiction to cake.

[mau5trap]

For it:

1) Helps the state out alot as far as budget, and we really need it.
mite help, mite not. supposedly weeds gonna be cheaper and ppl could just grow it in the comfort of there home. how's that gonna help the budget?
2) There are criminals doing more time for trafficking than those who commit violent crimes.
3) In a way crime will go down as far as Cartels, gang wars, deals gone wrong etc etc
Cartels are probably already losing business by medical marijuana. if this passed, IMO it'll boost more business for gangs. how are PPL under 21 gonna get weed? I know alot of bangers hit up Highschool kids for business.

Against it:

1) It truely is a gateway drug and addictive.
nah, you're trippen. I know alot of ppl who smoked weed and never messed with any other drugs. and I don't think it's that addictive, maybe for few ppl.
2) I think we'll see a rise in automobile/machine work accidents therefore resulting in more deaths. Innocent and guilty.
I think people drive more cautious when they're high.
3) I think kids will have a higher probability of trying it because it will seem "ok" to them because the law says you can use at a certain age.
true true, its seems like prop 19 is putting soo much attention on weed, everyone's gonna start doing it. it's gonna be the next hip thing to do.
4) Possibility of having a decrease in productivity as far as school, work etc. because everyone is gonna be stoned off their ass.
Not everyone is gonna be stoned off their ass, just those few who can't hang.

Im just not gonna vote..

just vote no on prop 19..
they'll be better ballots for legalizing marijuana in 2012.
why fuck with something that's not broken?

prop 215 FTW


Please vote YES ON PROP 23.
http://zilvia.net/f/south-western-states/348061-prop-23-a.html

[TheWolf]

Early onset cannabis use and psychosocial adjustment in young adults - FERGUSSON - 2006 - Addiction - Wiley Online Library (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.1997.tb03198.x/abstract)

This is a great article from the Journal of Addiction. It attempts to break out the "were gonna smoke it anyway" crowd from the real data. Studies psycological effects, gateway effects, and crime instances. If you have a college library they should be able to access it for free and pull up this issue. The link is just the abstract.

Needless. In a strange move, US Attorny General Eric Holder wrote that the Federal Government would continue to enforce the law and that this would be a stumbling block to cali - washington relations.

I will note the reason the drinking age is 21 and not 18 in all states is because the federal government. They recommended 21 but couldn't enforce it as a matter of states rights. So they just cut off all DOT roadwork funding for all states that didn't agree with this recommendation. It would not surprise me if Prop 19 passes then some aspect of this give and take will be applied. I don't think the federal legislature is ready to legalize yet.

[Jason913]

I think a few people in this thread have habit forming and addictive mixed up.

Here are two hypothetical situations:

I really like cake, if I get to eat a lot of it for a long period of time - say three slices a day for a week - when I run out of cake I can become irritable and have an 'empty' feeling inside and have cravings for cake that subside after not having cake for a while (the course of a few days to a week).

That is an example of cake being habit forming.



I need cake for my body to function properly. Without it my body cannot physically behave normally. As time passes without having regular doses of cake my body goes through withdrawal and reacts violently with seizures and erratic changes in blood pressure and heart rate. Some of my side effects could be life threatening and hospitalization may occur. Eventually, even that will pass and I will have relieved my body from its physical addiction to cake.


That would be an example of a typical addiction to cake.

I'm not mistaking it... lol I know the difference. It was taught the second class meeting of the semester. Some people think that being mentally addicted to something (due to addictive personality traits) means that the body is addicted.

[BustedS13]

just vote no on prop 19..
they'll be better ballots for legalizing marijuana in 2012.
why fuck with something that's not broken?




are you fucking serious?

http://norml.org/share/marijuana_arrests_chart.gif

[mau5trap]

that's on them. were they allowed to carry or have weed on them legally?

[ronmcdon]

that graph looks at Marijuana arrests in the US overall, not CA specifically.
In that regard mau5trap's point that you shouldn't 'fix something that's not broken', isn't entirely unvalid.
It's just a matter of whether you like prop 19 or not.

Even then, arrests alone don't mean much.
You also have to look at actual convictions,
and convictions in CA for it to be valid for this discussion imo.

it's not impossible to obtain a prescription in CA, but it's not exactly a 'free for all' either.
even if prop 19 does pass, that in no way guarantees the increase/decrease in mj related arrests/convictions in CA.

the graph is really too general to draw any specific correlations.

[bb4_96]

I feel like all the timeand effort going into the fight for/use of this substance could be doing something great.

[Walperstyle]

I like how random graphs are considered truthful sources of information.

Truth is, nobody really knows the stats on arrests. There is a difference between arrests, and being charged too.

[Jason913]

are you fucking serious?

http://norml.org/share/marijuana_arrests_chart.gif

This is the slide that explains the huge increase.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/Jason913/Slide14.jpg

[upsdude]

once the baby boomers in congress die off maybe the leftover stigma from the early 50's and 60's about "reefer" will also wane. it's for the most part socially accepted...there's movies about it, songs, etc.

[BustedS13]

I like how random graphs are considered truthful sources of information.

Truth is, nobody really knows the stats on arrests. There is a difference between arrests, and being charged too.

the problem is that people are being arrested for possession.


This is the slide that explains the huge increase.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v615/Jason913/Slide14.jpg

exactly. cops hand them out like candy because they're nice and easy, just like speeding tickets. i love when i drive down the highway and see jurisdiction after jurisdiction camped out, waiting for the easy ticket, instead of actually patrolling. don't we have highway patrol for a reason?
but the laziness of police officers is another topic.

that's on them. were they allowed to carry or have weed on them legally?

you're unbelievable. i'm pointing out the problem for which prop 19 is the solution, and you're running the thread around in circles, jerking off to prop 215, and saying that everything's fine. i'm going to add you to my ignore list now.
I feel like all the timeand effort going into the fight for/use of this substance could be doing something great.

yeah, and we could all replace jerking off with volunteering at an aids clinic. i know things look black and white from the back seat of mom's minivan, but they're not.
that graph looks at Marijuana arrests in the US overall, not CA specifically.

prop 19 would be the start of a domino effect for the rest of the nation. that's why national marijuana arrests are relevant, at least to me. i don't live in the garden of eden that is california. lots of people don't, and they're being arrested every day for something ridiculous.

i wish you guys could see beyond your state's border. you're part of a much larger country, and voting yes on 19 really could kickstart some much needed change for all of us.


if you really think marijuana is dangerous, more dangerous than what's already legal and available to us, vote no. but if you're voting no because you're 18-20 and can't wait a couple years, or you want to smoke with minors, or you want to keep cashing in on marijuana's legal status, fuck you.
if you all wait around for the perfect bill to come along, we're all going to be dead long before legalization.

[Walperstyle]

In all reality, smoking anything is not healthy. You guys should just quit.

I'm not some ninny either, I've smoked it a few times. Its pointless. Makes you slow and hungry.

[ViciousCesar!]

...It truely is a gateway drug....



no it's not. marijuana is only a gateway drug because we group it with other substances that it has nothing in common with, it is really nothing like coke, crack, heroin, meth or any of the rest. if we were to stop labeling it as a stepping stone to the others people would stop trying the others. it's something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

as a matter of fact, the Netherlands has credited the drastic drops in use of hard drugs to it's decriminalization of marijuana.

[S14DB]

This is for discussing Prop 19. Not your Marijuana use experiences.

[supervenom]

A long-standing fear campaign has been in use to direct the opinion of the American public against marijuana. Initially, a film called "Reefer Madness" was produced to incite panic with-in the population. The film made the suggestion that marijuana was a drug used strictly by hispanics, jews, blacks, and musicians and threatened to permeate the very fabric of the American way of life. This film can be found on youtube. Just like the initial ban on opium was directed at control of an early Chinese population, anti-marijuana laws have been used to control certain segments of society. Marijuana is a drug that can not cause over-dose. It, in fact, has many beneficial elements and has been used through out the world and through out the ages for medicinal and recreational use. The taxation and control of marijuana will dawn a new age of enlightenment, openness, sincerity and compassion.

I say YES! on California Prop. 19.

[bb4_96]

I'm still on the fence about prop 19. I really can't foresee the outcome if it's intended effect is achieved. I think the last thing my generation needs is a new substance to use/abuse. I see two likely scenarios, Its going to become something of a cigarette type of effect where everyone uses it for a long time then its slowly becomes socially unacceptable and ovetaxed until it eventually dies out. Or it causes short term chaos that gets the legislation overturned and even heavier regulation than before.

About all the people that were convicted of ______ related offenses.... They broke the law. If you break the law your gambling with your criminal record. If I think it isn't a big deal to gun down people who piss me off in traffic should I do it? If it's a fucking law, grow up and obey it. Don't fucking run around doing what you want because you think your justified or the law is dated, your skirting anarchy and should be reprimanded. If you don't like the law go change it. But don't break it like a jackass because you think its wrong.

Maybe instead of getting high, and potentially busted, you should advance the campaign for legalization. Just a suggestion.

It looks pretty black and white from where I'm sitting... back seat of mom's van or not.

[ESmorz]

The taxation and control of marijuana will dawn a new age of enlightenment, openness, sincerity and compassion.

Hippie.

Nothing like taxing rebellion. Humans are Hot Topic.

420 4 lyfe

[Walperstyle]

RCMP just busted a grow about 10 houses away from mine. Glad to see it go. Don't want that in my neighborhood.

[ViciousCesar!]

A long-standing fear campaign has been in use to direct the opinion of the American public against marijuana. Initially, a film called "Reefer Madness" was produced to incite panic with-in the population. The film made the suggestion that marijuana was a drug used strictly by hispanics, jews, blacks, and musicians and threatened to permeate the very fabric of the American way of life. This film can be found on youtube. Just like the initial ban on opium was directed at control of an early Chinese population, anti-marijuana laws have been used to control certain segments of society. Marijuana is a drug that can not cause over-dose. It, in fact, has many beneficial elements and has been used through out the world and through out the ages for medicinal and recreational use. The taxation and control of marijuana will dawn a new age of enlightenment, openness, sincerity and compassion.

I say YES! on California Prop. 19.

fun fact about Reefer Madness:
this anti marijuana propaganda was the brain child of William Randolph Hearst (who felt that hemp was too much of a threat to the profit from his paper mills), the Dupont company (who wanted to get hemp out of the America so they could fill the gap with their newly found synthetic polymer, Nylon), and Harry Anslinger (known racist who claimed that that marijuana 'made Black people violent and insane, and encouraged race-mixing'. this man used non scientific bases to form all his anti marijuana claims, which much of the public still hold as truths even after being scientifically and socially disproved time and time again).

in fact, Anslinger was appointed to his post as head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics by Andrew Mellon, who just happened to be the prime financial backer of the Dupont Corporation.

[ronmcdon]

prop 19 would be the start of a domino effect for the rest of the nation. that's why national marijuana arrests are relevant, at least to me. i don't live in the garden of eden that is california. lots of people don't, and they're being arrested every day for something ridiculous.

i wish you guys could see beyond your state's border. you're part of a much larger country, and voting yes on 19 really could kickstart some much needed change for all of us.



I can't say I'm convinced by that.

For instance, look at CA Prop 215, passed in 1996 (14 yrs ago).
That was the medical mj law.
Most, if not all, states haven't followed in our precedent.
If a state can't even accept mj for medical reasons, it's highly unlikely they'll accept it for recreation.

On a more positive note, look at CARB.
Thankfully not all states have to deal with our bullshit.

Now I agree, it would set a good precedent that CA makes a more progressive move towards legitimizing mj.
I just don't see prop 19 as the absolute best way of doing so.

For the most part, I'm really not a huge fan of CA politics.
Despite our politicians being Democrats, they're really more inclined to tell ppl what NOT to do, and tax everything.
It's not as progressive as many would make it out to.

BTW - I thought you hated CA?
I have mixed feelings about the state, but it sure as hell is no 'garden of eden' imo.

[drift freaq]

once the baby boomers in congress die off maybe the leftover stigma from the early 50's and 60's about "reefer" will also wane. it's for the most part socially accepted...there's movies about it, songs, etc.

Ah just had to speak up about this. Most of the baby boomers smoked dope and were hippies or flirted with the whole hippie thing. The baby boom started at the end of WWII I.E. late 1940's and ended in like 1962. That pretty much puts them coming of age in the early, mid and late 60's as well as the 70's. I.E. Hippies, rock music and pot smoking and drug taking.
Pretty much anyone who came of age as a teenager in that time period did smoke dope.




The stigma is left over from the boomers parents. Who grew up in the depression. Pot was viewed as way out of the box by these people regardless of reefer Madness and whatnot.
These people were church goers and law abiding citizens with strong work ethics. Pot smoking did not fit into that picture at all.

In fact most baby boomers are not against the decriminalization of pot, they are for it.

What most pot smokers sometimes fail to realize, is this country is large and has a large streak of conservative thinking running through it.
Not everyone views pot as a good thing. Nor can you expect them too. Its just not the way they were taught to live.

Given all that it could still get decriminalized for the sake of taxes and whatnot.
Not everyone wanted Alcohol to be legal either.

Though trying to blame a particular generation of people for being the reason its not legal? Well that is very short sighted and a generalized line of thinking.

Its more complicated than that.

I am all for the legalization of it. So it can be taxed and taking it out of the hands of the underground outside of the law element.

Less of my tax money being spent trying to eradicate the shit. LOL

[ronmcdon]

Yeah true, that seems a bit off to blame a generation in particular.
If anything, the 60's had a huge advancement in the civil rights movement.
We aren't as progressive as we'd like in all respects, but you can't dismiss the progress we've made in the past few decades.
I get the impression that some of the younger generation, and/or those who haven't lived in more conservative places of the world tend to take this for granted.

Honestly, I think it has more to do with the US as a whole being a moderately conservative nation
(or at least compared to Western Europe).
This is especially the case when it comes areas where the far right dominating in the mid-west/south, etc.
I feel that even if states like CA, or the Northwest and Northeast move on, those states will be still doing their own thing.
It's almost as if other states are entirely different countries.

[kingkilburn]

It's almost as if other states are entirely different countries.

Technically they are.

[ronmcdon]

states in the United States, geez
technically, the term 'state' alone might be ambiguous,
but here I think it's obvious given the context.

[Tarrell]

So your against a proposition just because the federal government decides to force its "morals" upon its citizen? This is exactly what many of our founding fathers was against, too much federal power. Its gonna be a long time before uncle Sam says, "my bad.....We thought it was bad back in the day. Sorry for all the lives we have ruined over a plant." lol. And plus, the U.S. government is supplying medical marijuana to like a couple of people for the rest of their lives... whats up with that?

The only real reason the federal government is imposing this "moral" upon our citizens is because we, as U.S. citizens and registered voters, LET IT HAPPEN. It doesn't have to be "a long time before Uncle Sam says 'my bad..'" if we, as citizens, stand up and demand change. Think it can't happen? That's what I'm sure a lot of people said before they repealed the 18th Admendment. Or brought equality among blacks and minorities and ended discrimination. These things happened because people stood up and fought for what they believed in. Problem today is, not enough people get involved, they would rather sit back and "let someone else do it". But until that change takes place, I believe it's important we don't just ignore laws in place. Proposition 19, if passed, creates a "conflict" in our legal system. If a California police officer catches someone smoking marijuana, does he/she let the person go (becaue California says "it's legal") or do they make an arrest (because federal laws, which still make it illegal and officers are sworn to uphold, say "it's a crime")? If California can ignore this federal law, where does it stop? How soon is it before California starts ignoring other federal laws? How soon before California starts ignoring the U.S. Constitution and arrest people for say, voicing their opinions (1st admendment gaurantee), or start doing illegal searches? I've also heard opinions saying anti-pot laws are unconstitutional. If that's so, then petition the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to have the anti-pot laws struck down. If this happens, then ALL states and "lower" governments must now repeal their anti-pot laws and make it legal, throughout the U.S. (of course that can have serious repercussions; it could mean underage people may have a right to consume it as well. After all, the Constitution also applies to them). I know a lot of you out there reading this say "Yea, right! The federal government is way too corrupt." But corruption must be exposed, challenged, and brought down. I know that seems impossible, but it's not. I'm sure that's what the corrupt officials in the city of Bell thought too. Like I've said before, I do believe the anti-pot laws need to be repealed; I'm proud that California citizens are standing up and demanding the repeal of these out-dated laws; I just feel they are going about it the wrong way. The repealing of these laws needs to start at the federal level first, otherwise this "conflict" of laws can create far more corruption and bog down our court systems even worse. Dispenseries can still be raided, people growing "legal" amounts of pot can still be arrested and charged at the federal level. In short, it could create more problems than it solves.

[kingkilburn]

No city policeman, county sheriff, or state trooper has the authority to arrest you for a federal law.

The conflict you speak of is the heart of American government and political theory. State's rights baby. The best thing CA could do for itself is pass it and make a HUGE deal out of it when the feds do try to enforce their laws.

[bb4_96]

I think its half a conservative and half mixed bag reasons why the nation is against it. Alot of very liberal people are against it. Financially pot isn't a very wise hobby, plenty of jobs still random drug test, alot of people have tried it and don't like the sensation, i know several people who work to much to take time out for it, there is a large group of elitists who like to place themselves above substance use and associated stigmatism, and there is people who can't stand the loss of productivity associated(I've never witnessed anyone do anything truly productive why high). people who dislike the negative effects it has on their athletic performance. I think I've heard just as many valid reasons for people to dislike as to support.

I don't think coservatives are the biggest issue. I think the biggest hurdle of this bill will be convincing recession time working class people that legalizing a relatively expensive liesure time drug is a worthy agenda. When some people are losing there jobs/homes/cars/lives they really don't want to hear about what others can afford to do in their leisure time.

[ronmcdon]

When I said the US is a relatively conservative nation, I wasn't singling out Republicans per say.
If I had to guess, it's ppl with families who are afraid their kids have easier access to the drug.
I think that's why CA prop 19 instills such stringent penalties for distributing pot to those under 21, esp minors.
Many, if not most Democrats don't advocate it.
I recall several CA politicians are against, including the likely next governor Jerry Brown.

I'm not so sure you can say pot really is more or less an expensive hobby.
Probably debatable compared to say alcohol and smoking.
(personally I never smoked, but spent more $ than I cared to admit on drinking)
Based on my acquaintances in the past who have used the drug for recreation purposes, my casual impression is that there's little correlation between social class and mj use.
For medical use, I'd imagine it's cheaper than prescription pain-killers and the like.
If anything, it's probably accessible to a wider group of peoples.

[ViciousCesar!]

...people who dislike the negative effects it has on their athletic performance...

i think these guys would disagree...
http://www.manilena.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/michael_phelps.jpg
http://marihuana.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/arnold_joint.jpg

there is people who can't stand the loss of productivity associated(I've never witnessed anyone do anything truly productive why high)

so would these guys...
The 10 Most Successful Potheads on the Planet… Cool Enough to Admit It : COED Magazine (http://coedmagazine.com/2009/02/06/the-10-most-successful-potheads-on-the-planet-cool-enough-to-admit-it/)

[ViciousCesar!]

by the way it's funny to see people trying so hard to justify keeping marijuana illegal, yet i don't see them trying to get get rid of alcohol, which has way more detrimental effects on society and individual welfare.

[jdhariwal]

It should NOT be legalized! People love it because its illegal. It gives them a sort of excitement, "oh shit, this is illegal and i dont give a fuck!". if you legalize it, people will eventually stop smoking it, and I can guarantee that within a year, their will be some new drug thats hella hyped that everyone is doing. If cigarettes were illegal, I'm pretty sure thats what everybody would be doing. Plus, how are the hard working people on the street supossed to make money!? They work day and night to supply us with the best ganga on the street! AMERICANS WILL LOSE JOBS! NO ON PROP 19!

[ViciousCesar!]

It should NOT be legalized! People love it because its illegal. It gives them a sort of excitement, "oh shit, this is illegal and i dont give a fuck!". if you legalize it, people will eventually stop smoking it, and I can guarantee that within a year, their will be some new drug thats hella hyped that everyone is doing. If cigarettes were illegal, I'm pretty sure thats what everybody would be doing. Plus, how are the hard working people on the street supossed to make money!? They work day and night to supply us with the best ganga on the street! AMERICANS WILL LOSE JOBS! NO ON PROP 19!

Age: 17

nuff' said

[kingkilburn]

jdhariwal

LOL +111111111111111111

[bb4_96]

It's irrational to try to keep pot illegal. There is just a right way and a wrong way to legalize it. With the economy the way it is I don't think there is enough money to enforce legalization. When pot is legalized there will be a time period of hype where many people go crazy with the new freedoms granted. But if you don't have any law enforement out there there will be tragic consequences. Its not so much would you smoke and ____ insert risk activity, its would some random jackass have sense enough not to.

Don't compare alcohol to pot. What is the proof equivalent of brand x of pot grown in someones facility? How much of it can you smoke before you're legally intoxicated? Whats your retort when you get slapped with a huge ass fine and lose your ____ priveledges?

I bet there's no adverse effects to 1300deg air repeatedly being drawn through your esophagus into your lungs. It will be no time before commercial manufacturers take over joint industry and nobody is going to grow there own or roll ther own any more than people still roll cigarettes(maybe 1%). People are just too fuckin lazy. That means all the bullshit qualms people have with tobacco additives in cigarettes are more than likely to make there way into joints. Hello cancerous joints and more slowly dying smokers for my kids tax dollars to support.

[BustedS13]

see bold:
I can't say I'm convinced by that.

For instance, look at CA Prop 215, passed in 1996 (14 yrs ago).
That was the medical mj law.
Most, if not all, states haven't followed in our precedent.
If a state can't even accept mj for medical reasons, it's highly unlikely they'll accept it for recreation.

Public perception is just starting to turn. critical mass brah. and 14 states plus DC have medical marijuana, with more voting this year.

"Cannabis remains illegal throughout the United States and is not approved for prescription as medicine, although 14 states - Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, New Jersey, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington - approve and regulate its medical use."
Medical cannabis in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis_in_the_United_States)

On a more positive note, look at CARB.
Thankfully not all states have to deal with our bullshit.
thank god.

BTW - I thought you hated CA?
great place to visit.
I have mixed feelings about the state, but it sure as hell is no 'garden of eden' imo.
it was a joke, i could have done better. i like norcal, but i definitely wouldn't want to live there.

A long-standing fear campaign has been in use to direct the opinion of the American public against marijuana. Initially, a film called "Reefer Madness" was produced to incite panic with-in the population. The film made the suggestion that marijuana was a drug used strictly by hispanics, jews, blacks, and musicians and threatened to permeate the very fabric of the American way of life.

i can't think of a single non-white person in Reefer Madness. as i recall it's just a room full of white middle class teenagers, then one gets shot accidentally by the white dealer. also somebody gets run over by a stoned white teenager. it's a silly movie with a great name.


About all the people that were convicted of ______ related offenses.... They broke the law. If you break the law your gambling with your criminal record. If I think it isn't a big deal to gun down people who piss me off in traffic should I do it? If it's a fucking law, grow up and obey it. Don't fucking run around doing what you want because you think your justified or the law is dated, your skirting anarchy and should be reprimanded. If you don't like the law go change it. But don't break it like a jackass because you think its wrong.

http://imgur.com/z7UXr.jpg

http://imgur.com/noBJk.jpg


What most pot smokers sometimes fail to realize, is this country is large and has a large streak of conservative thinking running through it.
Not everyone views pot as a good thing. Nor can you expect them too. Its just not the way they were taught to live.

Given all that it could still get decriminalized for the sake of taxes and whatnot.
Not everyone wanted Alcohol to be legal either.

Though trying to blame a particular generation of people for being the reason its not legal? Well that is very short sighted and a generalized line of thinking.

Its more complicated than that.

I am all for the legalization of it. So it can be taxed and taking it out of the hands of the underground outside of the law element.

Less of my tax money being spent trying to eradicate the shit. LOL

well said.
it must be a cold day in hell

[ViciousCesar!]

It's irrational to try to keep pot illegal. There is just a right way and a wrong way to legalize it. With the economy the way it is I don't think there is enough money to enforce legalization. When pot is legalized there will be a time period of hype where many people go crazy with the new freedoms granted. But if you don't have any law enforement out there there will be tragic consequences. Its not so much would you smoke and ____ insert risk activity, its would some random jackass have sense enough not to.

Don't compare alcohol to pot. What is the proof equivalent of brand x of pot grown in someones facility? How much of it can you smoke before you're legally intoxicated? Whats your retort when you get slapped with a huge ass fine and lose your ____ priveledges?

I bet there's no adverse effects to 1300deg air repeatedly being drawn through your esophagus into your lungs. It will be no time before commercial manufacturers take over joint industry and nobody is going to grow there own or roll ther own any more than people still roll cigarettes(maybe 1%). People are just too fuckin lazy. That means all the bullshit qualms people have with tobacco additives in cigarettes are more than likely to make there way into joints. Hello cancerous joints and more slowly dying smokers for my kids tax dollars to support.

i hate to break it to you but people who wanna smoke, are already smoking. it's not gonna be some huge invisible border being torn down. sure there'll be a few new people who will want to try it out. but that's why we need to stop thinking of marijuana as such a 'useless drug' and educate people on it's actual benefits and proper usage... you also say we don't have enough money to support legalization. but do we really have enough money to keep it illegal?

don't worry i don't compare alcohol to pot, i've already done my research and made my choice. =)

if you don't wanna risk losing your ____ priveledges, then don't smoke marijuana before performing ____ priveledges. it's as simple as that.

and again with the hypothetical 'what if big business takes over cannabis', sure everybody who enjoys tasty potent clean buds is just gonna say fuck it and start smoking marlboro brand right? lol. don't be silly. the only people who will consider buying that stuff will be the people who are smoking low quality cartel grown dirt weed. but then that would be money taken away from criminal organizations and that would be bad, right? but since we fear what the tobacco industry will do to cannabis, we should keep going after the smoker instead of going after the guy that we think will try to poison it's consumers.

[kingkilburn]

I bet there's no adverse effects to 1300deg air repeatedly being drawn through your esophagus into your lungs. It will be no time before commercial manufacturers take over joint industry and nobody is going to grow there own or roll ther own any more than people still roll cigarettes(maybe 1%). People are just too fuckin lazy. That means all the bullshit qualms people have with tobacco additives in cigarettes are more than likely to make there way into joints. Hello cancerous joints and more slowly dying smokers for my kids tax dollars to support.


I think you need to do some serious research on cannabis culture and how you actually smoke it.

No one is inhaling air hot enough to melt aluminum.

[Tarrell]

No city policeman, county sheriff, or state trooper has the authority to arrest you for a federal law.

Sorry, but that's not quite correct. While it's true some federal laws are enforced only by a federal agency (only the IRS enforces federal tax laws, only the FCC enforces radio and TV station broadcasts, etc.), state and local police officers do enforce federal laws all the time. Bank robbery is a federal crime but if a bank in any state is robbed the local police respond and have the authority to arrest the bank robbers. Can you imagine what would happen if FBI agents showed up and were told that the criminals were there with the police but they had no authority to enforce federal laws by arresting them so they let them go? Kidnapping is a federal crime but state and local police respond to that crime as well. I know you may think, "But these are only because we have laws on California's books too." But not all states have these laws on their books and they are still enforced at the local level. This has been the basis for Arizona's cracking down on illegal immigrants, they are enforcing federal laws in place.

[BustedS13]

Sorry, but that's not quite correct. While it's true some federal laws are enforced only by a federal agency (only the IRS enforces federal tax laws, only the FCC enforces radio and TV station broadcasts, etc.), state and local police officers do enforce federal laws all the time. Bank robbery is a federal crime but if a bank in any state is robbed the local police respond and have the authority to arrest the bank robbers. Can you imagine what would happen if FBI agents showed up and were told that the criminals were there with the police but they had no authority to enforce federal laws by arresting them so they let them go? Kidnapping is a federal crime but state and local police respond to that crime as well. I know you may think, "But these are only because we have laws on California's books too." But not all states have these laws on their books and they are still enforced at the local level. This has been the basis for Arizona's cracking down on illegal immigrants, they are enforcing federal laws in place.

so why doesn't LAPD raid the thousand dispensaries in los angeles?

[bb4_96]

i hate to break it to you but people who wanna smoke, are already smoking.

Haha really? I've already said my piece about people following their own rules.


it's not gonna be some huge invisible border being torn down. sure there'll be a few new people who will want to try it out. but that's why we need to stop thinking of marijuana as such a 'useless drug' and educate people on it's actual benefits and proper usage...

So nothing is going to happen? Legalization and then business as usual? Few hiccups? If you think wider availability isn't going to lead to wider misuse education or not then you are a little daft to the nature of human beings.

you also say we don't have enough money to support legalization. but do we really have enough money to keep it illegal

Do we have enough money to keep murder illegal? Speeding? You gonna repeal everthing you can't enforce? Wanna open up the borders too? We fail miserably at regulating that as well.

if you don't wanna risk losing your ____ priveledges, then don't smoke marijuana before performing ____ priveledges. it's as simple as that

Like I said above. I'm not worried about hypothetical "you" I'm worried about any other random jackass that decides it is a great idea, or ok to do.

and again with the hypothetical 'what if big business takes over cannabis', sure everybody who enjoys tasty potent clean buds is just gonna say fuck it and start smoking marlboro brand right?

So you're saying there is some huge fundamental difference between all people who use tobacco substance vs. people who use pot? I just don't see alot of people with tobacco plants in their grow room/backyard. Why would there be when there are cheap quality alternatives readily available. The opportunity cost of forgone productivity is too great to spend time growing something you can buy cheaply enough. There will always be connoisseurs as you propose and they may be a majority now but they will dwindle. It's the same as any marketable product.

the only people who will consider buying that stuff will be the people who are smoking low quality cartel grown dirt weed. but then that would be money taken away from criminal organizations and that would be bad, right.

I'm for legalization. It was the first line in my post. Obviously some cartels will lose some money, that fact has been beaten to death. That fact is the smokers saving grace. I'm tired of hearing it. Drug cartels fit an economic model and what they lose in pot they'll make up in every other service they provide. There will always be a demand for organized crime.

but since we fear what the tobacco industry will do to cannabis, we should keep going after the smoker instead of going after the guy that we think will try to poison it's consumers.

Word this differently. I don't get it. I think you should only go after the smoker if he's breaking the law. If not leave him well enough alone imho.

Can anybody post up a counter figure for the temperature of burning pot, i hunter forever and only got 1300deg?

[240sx123$]

so why doesn't LAPD raid the thousand dispensaries in los angeles?

Because we voted in Obama, who said he'd stop raids on medical patients. Under the Bush regime, they did exactly that- raided dispensaries and the homes of medical marijuana patients. Edit, disregard. Thought we were talkin bout the feds.

Prop 19 is going to pass, and the feds are gonna shut it down. I can almost guarantee it.

[240sx123$]

Can anybody post up a counter figure for the temperature of burning pot, i hunter forever and only got 1300deg?

1300 degrees?! Lol where did you get that?!

THC vaporizes between 365-420 degrees, and the actual bud will ignite around 420+.

[BustedS13]

Can anybody post up a counter figure for the temperature of burning pot, i hunter forever and only got 1300deg?

come on man.

Bong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bong)

[kingkilburn]

Sorry, but that's not quite correct. While it's true some federal laws are enforced only by a federal agency (only the IRS enforces federal tax laws, only the FCC enforces radio and TV station broadcasts, etc.), state and local police officers do enforce federal laws all the time. Bank robbery is a federal crime but if a bank in any state is robbed the local police respond and have the authority to arrest the bank robbers. Can you imagine what would happen if FBI agents showed up and were told that the criminals were there with the police but they had no authority to enforce federal laws by arresting them so they let them go? Kidnapping is a federal crime but state and local police respond to that crime as well. I know you may think, "But these are only because we have laws on California's books too." But not all states have these laws on their books and they are still enforced at the local level. This has been the basis for Arizona's cracking down on illegal immigrants, they are enforcing federal laws in place.

The local police detaining you and waiting for the feds to arrive is miles away from the locals arresting you for federal infractions.

[ViciousCesar!]

Haha really? I've already said my piece about people following their own rules.

So nothing is going to happen? Legalization and then business as usual? Few hiccups? If you think wider availability isn't going to lead to wider misuse education or not then you are a little daft to the nature of human beings.


Like I said above. I'm not worried about hypothetical "you" I'm worried about any other random jackass that decides it is a great idea, or ok to do.

there will ALWAYS be random jackasses in all facet of life no matter what, bro. but that doesn't mean we should criminalize the other 99.9% for the irresponsible decisions of that .1%. for example, we have a bunch of dumb kids driving our streets around in 240s crashing into shit and endangering lives, does that mean we should all lose our rights to drive a 240?

And i do strongly feel that educating people on marijuana will help keep a lot of the first time/uninformed users from getting in position that they might not be ready for.


Do we have enough money to keep murder illegal? Speeding? You gonna repeal everthing you can't enforce? Wanna open up the borders too? We fail miserably at regulating that as well.

maybe i'm misunderstanding something, but i fail to see where you are coming from here. i just don't see how you can compare taking a life/endangering lives to smoking a plant that puts you in a pacified state that should never have been illegal in the first place.



So you're saying there is some huge fundamental difference between all people who use tobacco substance vs. people who use pot? I just don't see alot of people with tobacco plants in their grow room/backyard. Why would there be when there are cheap quality alternatives readily available. The opportunity cost of forgone productivity is too great to spend time growing something you can buy cheaply enough. There will always be connoisseurs as you propose and they may be a majority now but they will dwindle. It's the same as any marketable product.


you know there's already a cheaper alternative. you can get 9-12 grams of stress (dirt weed) for the same price you would pay to get 1 gram of quality bud. the only people smoking the dirt weed are 17 high school kids. but you don't have to take my word for it. ask marijuana smokers yourself if they are gonna give up quality for few extra bucks.



I'm for legalization. It was the first line in my post. Obviously some cartels will lose some money, that fact has been beaten to death. That fact is the smokers saving grace. I'm tired of hearing it. Drug cartels fit an economic model and what they lose in pot they'll make up in every other service they provide. There will always be a demand for organized crime.

of course they have other means of income and they aren't just gonna go away. but at least their funding won't be coming from money that could be going back into our own economy.


Word this differently. I don't get it.

people keep bringing up that they fear that the tobacco companies will implant themselves into the cannabis industry and start adding poisonous/addictive additives to marijuana. and, instead of anybody saying 'hey, fuck marlboro/camel. they're gonna kill their customers' and going after them, they'd rather just keep wasting tax dollars enforcing laws/policies that were based on lies to begin with.


I think you should only go after the smoker if he's breaking the law. If not leave him well enough alone imho.

agreed here.

[J3123MY]

Kingkilburn. your blog seems unsure of itself...

"In conclusion, these results provide evidence for the DNA damaging potential of cannabis [marijuana] smoke, implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development,"


Tarrel, what you say is true too. But sometimes you really have to do things little by little. Going straight to legalization of the United States without steps, such as mmj and 19, seems quite difficult / borderline impossible.


I think its half a conservative and half mixed bag reasons why the nation is against it. Alot of very liberal people are against it. Financially pot isn't a very wise hobby, plenty of jobs still random drug test, alot of people have tried it and don't like the sensation, i know several people who work to much to take time out for it, there is a large group of elitists who like to place themselves above substance use and associated stigmatism, and there is people who can't stand the loss of productivity associated(I've never witnessed anyone do anything truly productive why high). people who dislike the negative effects it has on their athletic performance. I think I've heard just as many valid reasons for people to dislike as to support.

I don't think coservatives are the biggest issue. I think the biggest hurdle of this bill will be convincing recession time working class people that legalizing a relatively expensive liesure time drug is a worthy agenda. When some people are losing there jobs/homes/cars/lives they really don't want to hear about what others can afford to do in their leisure time.

wtf? lol....please stop.

It should NOT be legalized! People love it because its illegal. It gives them a sort of excitement, "oh shit, this is illegal and i dont give a fuck!". if you legalize it, people will eventually stop smoking it, and I can guarantee that within a year, their will be some new drug thats hella hyped that everyone is doing. If cigarettes were illegal, I'm pretty sure thats what everybody would be doing. Plus, how are the hard working people on the street supossed to make money!? They work day and night to supply us with the best ganga on the street! AMERICANS WILL LOSE JOBS! NO ON PROP 19!

lol. troll?


I don't know about this proposition. Voting time is coming up and I am leaning toward no due to the fact that I am a medical marijuana patient and the proposition does not really separate recreational from medical, which will cause pretty much medical to fall under recreational and take away many of the rights that prop 215 gave me.

It doesn't make sense that a proposition that is trying to make something legal and keep people out of jail adds so many new laws and rules to put people in prison/jail.

I am really curious to see whether this passes or not. I wonder how things will change in California if it does. I hope its for the better.

[ViciousCesar!]

It doesn't make sense that a proposition that is trying to make something legal and keep people out of jail adds so many new laws and rules to put people in prison/jail.

like what?

take away many of the rights that prop 215 gave me.

this one too, please.

[S14DB]

like what?



this one too, please.

He's in the 18-21 crowd.

[ViciousCesar!]

He's in the 18-21 crowd.

if he has his medicinal marijuana card, prop 19 won't take away his rights to purchase, consume or grow marijuana.

[J3123MY]

If you read the proposition, It makes buying from a grower illegal. It makes smoking a "space" with a minor illegal punishable with prison time. and a lot of other laws and regulations that mmj will have to follow due to the failure to differentiate between mmj and recreational use.

It doesn't take away my rights, but it adds new laws to it that I do believe I have to follow.

I cannot grow as much. I am allowed 6 plants and if I become a caretaker, I Can grow 6 plants for each person I am a caretaker for. Now I Only get a 5x5.

Its really small stuff. Basically, why would I vote for something that adds limits and laws to something I pretty much already have?

[stinky_180]

It should NOT be legalized! People love it because its illegal. It gives them a sort of excitement, "oh shit, this is illegal and i dont give a fuck!". if you legalize it, people will eventually stop smoking it, and I can guarantee that within a year, their will be some new drug thats hella hyped that everyone is doing. If cigarettes were illegal, I'm pretty sure thats what everybody would be doing. Plus, how are the hard working people on the street supossed to make money!? They work day and night to supply us with the best ganga on the street! AMERICANS WILL LOSE JOBS! NO ON PROP 19!

your pretty dumb foo...

so i guess no one would be drinking beer/alcohol if this was true.. you sir are an idiot.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-0Np0wDCIiQ/R8OwD2smI4I/AAAAAAAAAJ8/qHCf01abrnA/s400/Prohibition%2Bdoesn%27t%2Bwork.jpg

[BustedS13]

If you read the proposition, It makes buying from a grower illegal. It makes smoking a "space" with a minor illegal punishable with prison time. and a lot of other laws and regulations that mmj will have to follow due to the failure to differentiate between mmj and recreational use.

It doesn't take away my rights, but it adds new laws to it that I do believe I have to follow.

I cannot grow as much. I am allowed 6 plants and if I become a caretaker, I Can grow 6 plants for each person I am a caretaker for. Now I Only get a 5x5.

Its really small stuff. Basically, why would I vote for something that adds limits and laws to something I pretty much already have?

Prop 19 does not supersede prop 215. It even references prop 215, so it CAN'T. please stop spreading misinformation.

[J3123MY]

Prop 19 is called Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.

no mention of recreation or medicinal marijuana in the title.

I looked over it again, and this proposition barely mentions or references anything on medical marijuana, and when it does, it is not quite clear. The only place I see it mention it is in section 2 part B #6.

Busted, please prove me wrong and post up the part in the proposition that is clear that 215 is not superseded by 19. If you prove this to me, I will lean toward voting yes.

It seems like the prop 19 didn't clarify how 215 is effected enough, since there are many different information being passed around.

[J3123MY]

fuck my laptop died and I have to put all this shit back in.

Ok, so I had a bit of confusion. Section 11362.5 is prop 215. However, it is basically only mentioned three times in the proposition.

6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.
7. Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
8. Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.

So you are right, busted, It appears that prop 19 does not affect how much a medical patient can grow.

However, this is the only mention of prop 215. It appears that medical patients will have to abide by the rest of prop 19 rules, since they don't mention anything on Section 11362.5 and prop 215 and the difference between medical marijuana and recreational marijuana in the rest of the proposition.

And since you didn't bold this, busted, I assume you knew this.

So in a way, prop 19 does supersede 215.

There is a grayish area on whether or not it will be legal for a medical marijuana patient to purchase marijuana from a medical marijuana caretaker.

Alright I'm done reading this shit. I got a a microbiology and virology midterm and a tae kwon do tournament next week.

funny link: http://www.noonproposition19.com/

[ViciousCesar!]

i quoted all that stuff on page 2, btw...

[J3123MY]

lol. your green font is hard to read, had to post it up again, you know, for the color blind.

[BustedS13]

lol. your green font is hard to read, had to post it up again, you know, for the color blind.

yeah, thanks for clearing that up for us, professor.

[J3123MY]

No problem, student. You will learn a lot from my lectures. lol.

Busted, are you even in cali?

[ViciousCesar!]

yeah, it wasn't the best choice in color. but it felt right given the theme. lol

[ViciousCesar!]

funny link: No On Proposition 19 (http://www.noonproposition19.com/)
lol... but we don't want this scaring anyone off so i'll post a rebuttal.

Doesn't marijuana cause a lot of automobile accidents?

Not really. The marijuana using public has the same or
lower rate of automobile accidents as the general public.
Studies of marijuana smoking while driving showed that it
does affect reaction time, but not nearly as much as
alcohol. Also, those who drive `stoned' have been shown to
be less foolish on the road (they demonstrate `increased
risk aversion'.) Recent studies have emphasized that
alcohol is the major problem on our highways, and that
illicit drugs do not even come close to being as dangerous.

As funny as it may seem, you may be safer driving `stoned',
as long as you aren't `totally blasted' and seeing things --
but few users are irresponsible enough to drive in this
state of mind, anyway. Still, many people have reported
making mistakes while driving because they were stoned.

There are those who think that marijuana is a major problem
on the streets, because of a newspaper article or news story
which they have seen which said a large number of people who
were killed in driving accidents tested postive for
marijuana use. For various reasons, these studies are not
reliable:

o Some studies use drug tests which can only tell
whether a person has used marijuana in the last
month.

o Some studies were done near colleges or other areas
where drinking, marijuana use, and accidents are all
very high, and they did not correct for age or
alcohol use.

o In many of the studies there were more stoned drivers
killed -- but it was not their fault, and when the
police ``culpability scores'' were factored in
marijuana was not to blame for the accidents.

NHTSA statistical study pub. 1992, data pending

NHTSA Amsterdam study pub. 1994, data pending

Australian statistical survey pub 1993, data pending

taken from:
Hemp / Cannabis / Marijuana FAQ (http://stason.org/TULARC/health/hemp-marijuana/index.html)

[lainardisboss]

i love weed, although i dont smoke it anymore.

anyways. i would say no to this 19 only reason why is, if it was legal..... some doctor is gonna go do my heart transplant and its his 1st time workin high off the new legal shit and he fucks up im dead. wtf. thats my imagination but other than that i love the herbals

[BustedS13]

i love weed, although i dont smoke it anymore.

anyways. i would say no to this 19 only reason why is, if it was legal..... some doctor is gonna go do my heart transplant and its his 1st time workin high off the new legal shit and he fucks up im dead. wtf. thats my imagination but other than that i love the herbals

thank you for your contribution.

[Tarrell]

The local police detaining you and waiting for the feds to arrive is miles away from the locals arresting you for federal infractions.

Think so? Just check out this link:

L.A. Sheriff Will Enforce Federal Pot Laws if Prop 19 Passes | Ron Paul 2012 | Campaign for Liberty at the Daily Paul (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/147046)

The first article is of a comment by Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca stating that even if Prop 19 passes, his department will still, and I quote, "UPHOLD FEDERAL LAWS. PROP 19 WILL FAIL, EVEN IF IT PASSES..." Now that does not mean I agree with Sheriff Baca, or if I even believe him, he may just be throwing an "anti prop. 19" scare tactic. And just to see the hypocracy, other post-comments on that same web page call Sheriff Baca a "dictator" for "disregarding California laws if Prop. 19 passes...", even though if Prop. 19 passes that's exactly what the state of California is doing in regard to the federal anti-pot laws.

[Tarrell]

so why doesn't LAPD raid the thousand dispensaries in los angeles?

I honestly have to say that you make a very interesting point. The only conclusion I can come up with on that one is, because Prop. 215 is about medical marijuana priscription use only, and that it's "politically incorrect" to raid dispenseries intended for presumed medical use. To the LAPD, it's probably seen as the same as "holding back insulin to a diabetic." But "recreational use" of marijuana just doesn't hold the same "sympathetic clout" to the LAPD. If you have any other theories on that one I'd love to hear your opinion.

[bb4_96]

there will ALWAYS be random jackasses in all facet of life no matter what, bro. but that doesn't mean we should criminalize the other 99.9% for the irresponsible decisions of that .1%.

My main thing is there needs to be enforcement prepared for any new legislation. You can't stop the few without some penalties.

And i do strongly feel that educating people on marijuana will help keep a lot of the first time/uninformed users from getting in position that they might not be ready for.

Agreed

maybe i'm misunderstanding something, but i fail to see where you are coming from here. i just don't see how you can compare taking a life/endangering lives to smoking a plant that puts you in a pacified state that should never have been illegal in the first place.

Not life endangering aspect itself but the principal that laws need to be upheld regardless of funding. In response to can wee afford to keep it illegal.

you know there's already a cheaper alternative. you can get 9-12 grams of stress (dirt weed) for the same price you would pay to get 1 gram of quality bud. the only people smoking the dirt weed are 17 high school kids. but you don't have to take my word for it. ask marijuana smokers yourself if they are gonna give up quality for few extra bucks.

Why would they give up quality? Big business isn't stoopid. They are more than likely going manufacture the best of the best quality as well as ditch weed in any form you care to purchase it. There will be more variety than baskin robbins. And they are going to do it cheaper than your dealer. Nobody's going to give up quality but big business is going to dominate the product in no time.

people keep bringing up that they fear that the tobacco companies will implant themselves into the cannabis industry and start adding poisonous/addictive additives to marijuana. and, instead of anybody saying 'hey, fuck marlboro/camel. they're gonna kill their customers' and going after them, they'd rather just keep wasting tax dollars enforcing laws/policies that were based on lies to begin with.

Tobacco companies will take a piece of that industry because they have the bank to buy into it. And once there in all the rat poison and other awful chemicals that make their way onto the tobacco leaves will also make their way onto to pot plants. There is a boat load of people fighting tobacco companies and they haven't shut down because they supply a product in heavy demand. By legalizing pot you are only going to give the tobacco companies new life because they can make the cancer free studies that have already been conducted. By legalizing pot they are only going to grow larger. You can't stop tobacco companies until you kill the demand. Solve human genetic predisposition to use substances and they'll have to close up shop.

[ViciousCesar!]

My main thing is there needs to be enforcement prepared for any new legislation. You can't stop the few without some penalties.

of course go after the bad apples (blitzed drivers) all you want. but it's cheaper and more effective to after the few. than it is to go after all of them.


Not life endangering aspect itself but the principal that laws need to be upheld regardless of funding. In response to can wee afford to keep it illegal.

anti-marijuana laws were founded on fiction. even if we lived in a flourishing economy, i would still say we need to get rid of them.


Why would they give up quality? Big business isn't stoopid. They are more than likely going manufacture the best of the best quality as well as ditch weed in any form you care to purchase it. There will be more variety than baskin robbins. And they are going to do it cheaper than your dealer. Nobody's going to give up quality but big business is going to dominate the product in no time.

Tobacco companies will take a piece of that industry because they have the bank to buy into it. And once there in all the rat poison and other awful chemicals that make their way onto the tobacco leaves will also make their way onto to pot plants. There is a boat load of people fighting tobacco companies and they haven't shut down because they supply a product in heavy demand. By legalizing pot you are only going to give the tobacco companies new life because they can make the cancer free studies that have already been conducted. By legalizing pot they are only going to grow larger. You can't stop tobacco companies until you kill the demand. Solve human genetic predisposition to use substances and they'll have to close up shop.

the tobacco companies aren't coming into the marijuana business. because if they were, it'd all ready be legal. in fact, the obama administration's just sent us (Californians) a letter saying that we better not approve prop 19 OR ELSE, lol. i don't think they'd be saying that to us if their buddies at big tobacco were looking forward to legalization.

[bb4_96]

the tobacco companies aren't coming into the marijuana business. because if they were, it'd all ready be legal. in fact, the obama administration's just sent us (Californians) a letter saying that we better not approve prop 19 OR ELSE, lol. i don't think they'd be saying that to us if their buddies at big tobacco were looking forward to legalization.

I still can't agree. I think where there is a buck to be made the tobacco guys will find it. If not another huge conglomerate will emerge with similar tactics. You can knock tobacco companies on moral grounds all you like but they have a hell of a business model thus far.

[S14DB]

I still can't agree. I think where there is a buck to be made the tobacco guys will find it. If not another huge conglomerate will emerge with similar tactics. You can knock tobacco companies on moral grounds all you like but they have a hell of a business model thus far.

Philip Morris sponsored the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act to ban Cloves. They bought Sampoerna in 2005 to try to prevent direct imports to the US. But, grey market imports continued. This led up to the 2009 bill.

Kretek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kretek)

If they saw cloves as a threat to ban in rather then embrace it. I can only think that they see marijuana the same way.

[lflkajfj12123]

Hasn't the LAPD been raiding dispensaries for years? There's a documentary on it.

[stinky_180]

They still are. I saw on the news that like several dispensaries from LA, OC, SD, Riverside were raided recently. That fucked up part is that the dea found some of the dispensaries dealing illegal substances like cocaine. Stupid fucking dispensary owners....

[bb4_96]

Philip Morris sponsored the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act to ban Cloves. They bought Sampoerna in 2005 to try to prevent direct imports to the US. But, grey market imports continued. This led up to the 2009 bill.

Kretek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kretek)

If they saw cloves as a threat to ban in rather then embrace it. I can only think that they see marijuana the same way.

With the supposed overwhelming support for marijuana wil they be able to use the same tactic effectively?

[kingkilburn]

They will either join it or fight it. I don't see most mj smokers jumping to cigarette quality so we will likely see a huge fight from big tobacco.

[ViciousCesar!]

tobacco and marijuana can co exist perfectly. apples and oranges.

[kingkilburn]

The two products and cultures can. I don't know about the industries that provide the two products.

[ronmcdon]

don't see why not.
if anything it would allow those companies to expand to additional markets.
ruthless fuckers like Phillip Morris would probably put nicotine in mj cigarettes too.

polls I've looked at so far seem to favor prop 19 by some consistent 5% margin to date.
will be interesting to see if there's a Bradley effect here.
I really don't know what to predict tbh.

[S14DB]

California Pot Initiative Opposed By Beer Industry (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/this-buds-not-for-you-bee_n_732901.html)
Beer Lobby Gives $10,000 To 'No' On Proposition 19 Pot Legalization - Los Angeles News - The Informer (http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/09/beer_lobby_gives_10000_to_no_o.php)

[ronmcdon]

^

Title of that article is vague.
Note that the specific organization opposed is the CA Beer & Beverage Distributors.
'Beer Lobby' could mean a lot of other things, if not the industry as a whole.
Also note the organization isn't against pot per say as much as the components of Prop 19.
IMO, it's a valid point if they feel employers don't have enough control over their employees using the substance.
Could lead to a lot of lawsuits & additional risks for employers, fellow-employees, & the public in general.


Rhonda Stevenson, director of public affairs for the California Beer & Beverage Distributors, said the group's opposition comes from concerns about public and worker safety. She relied on talking points from the California Chamber of Commerce stating that if Prop. 19 passes, employers would have no ability to monitor or regulate pot consumption of employees, thereby creating the danger of stoned truck drivers and sales people on the roads, and stoned forklift drivers in the warehouses.

Stevenson said with some certainty that Prop. 19 specifically says employers can't test workers for pot. It says no such thing, though the California Chamber has made the case that some slippery wording in the initiative amounts to the same thing. Let's turn to The Huffington Post for more on this controversy:

(Prop. 19 advocates) point to the state Legislative Analyst's Office's determination that employers would "retain existing rights to address consumption of marijuana that impairs an employee's job performance."

Mainly at issue is a section of the proposition that says no one can "be denied any right or privilege" because they engaged in legal conduct permitted by the act, such as smoking pot.

The section continues: "The existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected."

The chamber claims the proposition would create a new, ill-defined standard of "actual impairment" that would prevent employers from disciplining workers simply for consuming marijuana. Instead, according to the chamber's analysis, employers would have to prove that pot impaired an employee's job performance.

"For example, if a forklift driver showed up reeking of marijuana smoke, an employer could not take disciplinary action until it could be proven that the employee's job performance was 'actually impaired' by the marijuana use (for example, after an accident occurred)," the chamber wrote.

[soreballz]

I drove a forklift while under the influence of marjuana once upon a time. Not at work, but at a friend's shop.
I once drove the same forklift while drunk as well.
Guess which time I accidentally destroyed a stack of empty pallets.

If you guessed "the drunk time", you're correct!

BUT... I see the point. Weed in the workplace should be dealt with the same as alcohol in the workplace. You should be able to drink and smoke and be under the influence on your time, but not on your employers time.*


*medicinal mj patients excluded. But then again, mmj patients shouldn't be allowed to operate heavy equipment or machinery while medicated anyway.

[kingkilburn]

MMJ patients have the same restrictions as any on else on meds.

[ronmcdon]

Well the thing is, as I understand it, you can get away with being high at work a lot easier than being drunk.

You show up at work drunk, your employer can send you home or whatever.
You show up high as a kite, there's nothing they can legally do.
A mishap has to occur before anything can be done, lol.
Even if something bad happens, they need to prove that it was you getting high that caused whatever fuss that occurred at work.

Now I work at a warehouse too with other co-workers.
I sure as hell don't want to get impaled by a forklift b/c someone was hallucinating.
Yeah it's unlikely, by why leave it up to chance?
It sounds comical, but it could be a total disaster!

[J3123MY]

The thing is if they are smoking at work, they are probably a pot head. If they are a pothead, they probably can easily control themselves. You would be surprised at the amount of people you talk to in a day that are high.
Lol. I am pretty much almost always medicated when I run the mountains.

[HalveBlue]

Anybody who doesn't believe that marijuana impairs judgment and affects reaction times is stupid.

Needless to say, operating a vehicle or heavy machinery while under the influence of any substance is a bad idea.

[BustedS13]

Lol. I am pretty much almost always medicated when I run the mountains.

ugh... bro.

[kingkilburn]

He's really making his case for legalization isn't he.

[bb4_96]

I had made a comment in an earlier post about asshats who potentially jeopardize other peoples lives.

[240sx123$]

Anybody who doesn't believe that marijuana impairs judgment and affects reaction times is stupid.

Needless to say, operating a vehicle or heavy machinery while under the influence of any substance is a bad idea.

I agree with you. HOWEVER, I drive high regularly, and heres my argument as to why.

I DO agree that reaction times are definitely affected when under the influence of marijuana. But at the same time, I would argue that your average stoned driver is driving significantly slower and more cautiously than when theyre not stoned. This is especially true for me- Im at least twice as wreckless when I'm sober. So given that, I would argue that the potential risks of driving stoned are balanced out by the general reduction in speed by a stoned driver. Yeah, it might take me a little longer to react, but I HAVE a lot more time TO react.

People who compare driving stoned to driving drunk are absolutely clueless, because thats not even a remotely fair comparison.

You want to prevent marijuana legalization/decriminalization on the basis of the fact that people will be driving stoned, but we give oxycontin to people regularly, and rarely give out DUI's for it. I know PK's say not to operate machinery while on them, but my point is- people do. Regularly. And theres no breathalyzer for that- so why does there need to be a definitive way to test drivers for a mild sedative that only MILDLY affects driving performance? We're all so worried about the stoners on the road, when quite frankly Im more worried about little Johnny Sonovabitch texting down the freaking boulevard.

[stinky_180]

If your a current patient, you will notice that almost all medicine labels say:

"do not drive or operate heavy equipment"

You shouldn't be working/driving while under the influence of ANY substance.

Keep this on topic to Prop 19.. this isn't a debate if you can or can not drive normal while under the influence of MEDICAL CANNABIS!

[240sx123$]

Well excuse me, Mr I Run This Thread.

The debate over whether or not it is safe to drive while high is directly related to Prop 19- its a main concern of those who oppose the bill.

I wasnt talking about what SHOULD or SHOULDNT be done, I was talking about what COULD or COULDNT be done. Obviously driving while high is not recommended by anyone, the point Im making is that it CAN be done, and that its not a fair comparison to liken marijuana to alcohol. Theyre both controlled substances, but have nowhere NEAR the same affect on a driver.

[kingkilburn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA_-zquyY1A&feature=related
Jump to 3:20ish.



This documentary seems to be legit. She definitely gives the good and bad of pot.

[stinky_180]

Calm down son

[kingkilburn]

Who is that directed at?

[240sx123$]

I think that was his attempt at a rebuttal towards me.

[BustedS13]

Well excuse me, Mr I Run This Thread.

The debate over whether or not it is safe to drive while high is directly related to Prop 19- its a main concern of those who oppose the bill.

I wasnt talking about what SHOULD or SHOULDNT be done, I was talking about what COULD or COULDNT be done. Obviously driving while high is not recommended by anyone, the point Im making is that it CAN be done, and that its not a fair comparison to liken marijuana to alcohol. Theyre both controlled substances, but have nowhere NEAR the same affect on a driver.

go away please. this isn't a thread about how big of a dipshit you can be when you get high.

additionally

http://imgur.com/0gJsk.jpg

[240sx123$]

go away please. this isn't a thread about how big of a dipshit you can be when you get high.

additionally



Yeah, sounds good- rather than have a mature debate with someone who has a legitimate point, just call him a dipshit. That way you can save yourself the embarrassment of being proven wrong.

You people really need to step up your game, this shit is gettin sad.

[kingkilburn]

He has a legitimate point as well. All that the outspoken pot smokers in this thread have proven is that they seem to be dipshits.

Maybe your game needs a bit o steppin up.

[BustedS13]

Yeah, sounds good- rather than have a mature debate with someone who has a legitimate point, just call him a dipshit. That way you can save yourself the embarrassment of being proven wrong.

You people really need to step up your game, this shit is gettin sad.

this is a thread about prop 19. not about getting high.
your entire point seems to be that driving high is different from driving drunk. while that may be the case, both impair your driving. both are irresponsible, dickheaded things to do.
when potheads jump on these threads and start talking about the cool dreams they had last night, or how crazy the ride to del taco was, or how many bowls of _____ strain you smoked through ____ foot long glass on glass super mega ultra name brand illest illest hellaflush _____ chambered water pipe before posting, you sound like an ass and bring the entire thread down. people who don't smoke will see your stupid stony posts and negative stereotypes will be reinforced.

[ViciousCesar!]

A few of the outspoken pot smokers and a few of the people against it in this thread have proven that they seem to be dipshits.


*fixed for accuracy

[ThatGuy]

Evidently, people are still confused about what is and isn't tolerated on Zilvia.net.

So, allow me to demonstrate.

240sx123$, bragging about driving while under the influence is good for a month off.

Every one else, feel free to continue this discussion about Prop 19. However, if you feel the need to spout off your personal experience with illegal activities while on Zilvia.net, know that there will be repercussions.

[bb4_96]

To make the gross generalization that people who drive high drive exponentially more responsibly and therefore offset the delayed reaction time attributed to pot smoking are the reason bills related to prop 19 are opposed by the general public. Accidents happen when sober or not so why increase the odds. A car is a multiple ton projectile object as is. Fucking stupid.

I've said all along one of my primary concerns is fucktards jeopardizing theirs and other people's lives. Even people in the small spectrum of Zilvia have proven to do all these things so why wouldn't the general public do the same. And all these people elude to utmost education on pot and it's effects. Which leads me to believe that education on the substance has little bearing on the way they conduct themselves. I hope they hurry up and legalize so they can advance methods to catch and destroy people who do this type of shit. If your in the right go about your business but if your wrong you can sit in jail with the DUI's

[BustedS13]

so, the vote's this week. how's California feeling?

[ronmcdon]

polls indicate prop 19 isn't doing too well.

Northern CA favors it.
Southern CA is against it.
Central CA is against it

Younger ppl are for it
Older ppl are against it.

Latest Field Poll shows voters turning against marijuana proposition | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/10/latest-field-poll-shows-voters-turning-against-proposition-19.html)

Californians who plan to cast ballots are turning against Proposition 19, the measure to legalize marijuana, according to the Field Poll, which found likely voters were opposed to it, 49% to 42%.

That’s a reversal from last month, when the poll found likely voters favored it. Among those polled, 9% are still undecided, a figure that has been relatively unchanged for months.

Mark DiCamillo, the pollster, said he believed that U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder’s promise to enforce federal drug laws no matter what California voters did was persuasive. He also noted that the campaign was largely uneventful until Holder’s late-in-the-game entry.

"I think voters were toying with Proposition 19," he said, noting that the Field Poll and others had found that about half the electorate favored legalizing marijuana but that support for this initiative had slipped. "In the final analysis, they just didn’t think it was realistic."

The poll found the biggest drop in support among Democrats, who backed it by 60% last month and now supported it by 51%. Men also have switched sides, moving from 54%-38% for it to 48%-44% against it. Voters ages 40 to 49 also flipped, from 53% in favor to 52% opposed.

Opposition also increased among women and voters who are 65 or older.

Support remains strongest among the youngest voters. Voters ages 18 to 39 backed it by a 26-point margin last month and still favored it by a 16-point margin.

Proposition 19 would allow adults 21 and older to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana, and it would allow cities and counties to authorize commercial production and retail sales.

The proposal remains popular in the San Francisco Bay Area, the home field of the most prominent marijuana activists, and pulled ahead elsewhere in Northern California. It is behind in Southern California and the Central Valley. In Los Angeles County, where a quarter of the voters reside, it was ahead, 58% to 37%, last month, but had fallen behind and was now opposed, 51% to 38%

[supervenom]

For everyone who supports Prop 19, please remember to make time on Tuesday to cast your vote. Every vote counts and the "powers that be" are spending heavy amount of money to try to kill this very rare and valuable opportunity for the citizens of California.

LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!!!

[J3123MY]

lol. the vote is tommorrow?

Polls are usually not that accurate. I think this shit isn't gonna pass. All the potheads will be stoned and forget about it. And I know Zilvia gonna hate, but honestly, I don't even care enough to vote. Happy with medical marijuana.

[kingkilburn]

What a fucking douche. You came in here talking all big for pot and now you wont vote on it.

Why did you even open your mouth?

[ViciousCesar!]

he was against 19. I'm glad he isn't voting.

[soreballz]

lol. the vote is tommorrow?

Polls are usually not that accurate. I think this shit isn't gonna pass. All the potheads will be stoned and forget about it. And I know Zilvia gonna hate, but honestly, I don't even care enough to vote. Happy with medical marijuana.
For fucks sake, man... You are an absolute fucking moron. If you're happy with MMJ and don't want 19 to pass, get off your retarded ass and vote!

[J3123MY]

lol. fucking zilvia haters.

kingkilburn, go find some legitimate shit on marijuana causing cancer. lol. still cant find it? fucking douchebag. And this is a fucking internet forum, I can post what I wanna post. I was just correcting your dumbass assumptions about marijuana and cancer, which you still have legitimately yet to prove me wrong. Go read some blogs. lol.

visciousceasar, I am actually at a standstill slightly leaning toward prop 19. That is one of the reasons why I don't feel like voting. Along with the fact that there is no place to vote on campus.

Soreballz, I don't care if prop 19 passes or not, as I am not sure what I want, because we have yet to see what it is like. There will still be medical marijuana if prop 19 passes. I am not against prop 19 anymore, and I will let California decide, as I am unsure what it will be like. Soreballz you dumbass, read the thread. So quick to hate, lol.

Basically you haters, I do not feel strongly enough to vote for either side. That is why I am basically not voting. (along with the fact that there is no where on campus). People shouldn't vote to just vote. You should really believe in who and what you are voting for, as well as know what you are voting for.

[ESmorz]

I'm about to go vote. This will be the only thing I vote for.

I might put down Jerry Brown, just because if I have to see Meg Whitman's face for 4+ years I am not going to enjoy it. Not like it really matters who's Governor anyways, they all eat out of the same trough.

[kingkilburn]

Hating on you implies that you have something that I am envious of. That is not the situation.

The situation is you are a loud mouth douche who has now thrown hypocrite on top of it.

[J3123MY]

lol. how am i a hypocrite? Gonna go look it up in a blog?

[20 til 3]

hmm, voted today for south dakota's medical

doubt that will pass

[az_240]

Voted for Arizonas prop 203... Looks like this is going to pass!!!

I'm not holding my breath for prop 19.

[kingkilburn]

What does a blog have to do with you being a hypocrite?


A credible source is a credible source. You don't get to be the one to vouch for it unless you are actually a professional in that field.

[J3123MY]

Hope your medical marijuana passes. You guys are gonna love it if it does.

kingkilburn, basically, in simpler words for you so that you are able to understand, I am asking for you to explain how I am a hypocrite.

And basically, lets pretend you are trying to write a paper. A good paper. Would you really put a blog as a source? And I even quoted the blog's thesis sentence, which uses words such as may and possibly and other unsure words. Comeon man, I can go find a book with numbers and research stating that marijuana doesn't cause cancer. However, it was done in the 70's, but I have read the numbers and the text content, and it was legitimate research.

[kingkilburn]

IF the blog is credible I will. That wasn't just some Joe Shmoe's blog. The ScienceDaily is a credible source of news and information on science and medicine.

If you have ever read and scientific or medical journal you will have seen the words may and possibly used a lot. That means that although there IS a correlation, either they aren't certain of the cause or the rate at which it shows up. The fact remains that there is a correlation. There is no doubt that burnt plant matter is a carcinogen but some compound in cannabis MAY also inhibit the growth of cancerous cells. Cancer is also not the only concern when smoking pot.

[ineedone]

IF the blog is credible I will. That wasn't just some Joe Shmoe's blog. The ScienceDaily is a credible source of news and information on science and medicine.

If you have ever read and scientific or medical journal you will have seen the words may and possibly used a lot. That means that although there IS a correlation, either they aren't certain of the cause or the rate at which it shows up. The fact remains that there is a correlation. There is no doubt that burnt plant matter is a carcinogen but some compound in cannabis MAY also inhibit the growth of cancerous cells. Cancer is also not the only concern when smoking pot.

and your view on vaporizers?

[az_240]

IF the blog is credible I will. That wasn't just some Joe Shmoe's blog. The ScienceDaily is a credible source of news and information on science and medicine.

If you have ever read and scientific or medical journal you will have seen the words may and possibly used a lot. That means that although there IS a correlation, either they aren't certain of the cause or the rate at which it shows up. The fact remains that there is a correlation. There is no doubt that burnt plant matter is a carcinogen but some compound in cannabis MAY also inhibit the growth of cancerous cells. Cancer is also not the only concern when smoking pot.

As stated numerous times you can get a vaporizer or use it to cook with.

But it doesnt really matter. People should have the freedom to consume it however they want just like alcohol and nicotine.

[kingkilburn]

From what I have read and seen first hand(from seeing a friend use one) when used correctly the only problem is breathing in the hot air, which isn't all that bad.

I would be interested in seeing what compounds are released in a vaporizer versus through combustion.


az_240

If you look at my other posts you can see how I feel about that.

[ViciousCesar!]

People should have the freedom to consume it however they want just like alcohol and nicotine.

agreed.

specially when you consider that we are allowed to consume all sorts of other things that are known to contain carcinogens in them. off the top of my head; peanut butter, coffee and BBQ'd foods all fall into this category.

[J3123MY]

If it is smoke it CAN give you cancer and it WILL damage your lungs. No physician will tell you otherwise.

Having said that, it is your business if you choose to smoke anything as long as the healthcare you will eventually get isn't paid with tax dollars.


IF the blog is credible I will. That wasn't just some Joe Shmoe's blog. The ScienceDaily is a credible source of news and information on science and medicine.

If you have ever read and scientific or medical journal you will have seen the words may and possibly used a lot. That means that although there IS a correlation, either they aren't certain of the cause or the rate at which it shows up. The fact remains that there is a correlation. There is no doubt that burnt plant matter is a carcinogen but some compound in cannabis MAY also inhibit the growth of cancerous cells. Cancer is also not the only concern when smoking pot.


lol. Kingkilburn you don't seem so confident about marijuana and cancer anymore. is that so?

Also, "Correlation does not imply causation"

The blog's article needs more details on how the study was done and the numerical results of the study. where are they?

And cancer is what we were talking about. Also, cancer is like one of the worst things you can get.

Also, you have failed to tell me why I am a hypocrite. Don't call me a hypocrite if you can't back it up. How am I a hypocrite?

And honestly, I really did not have time at all to vote today, even if I really wanted to. School comes first.


Seriously though, anyone else use a magic-flight launch box? These are like the best hand held vaporizers.

[kingkilburn]

You cam in here talking all this big game about why people should or should not vote for it and you are to damn lazy or can't be bothered to even vote absentee.


That IS HYPOCRISY.








With the cancer thing, when there is only one variable to account for correlation is causation.
Did you smoke weed, yes or no?
Did you get damaged dna while smoking only weed?


If you answered yes to the first and no to the second the conclusion isn't that it doesn't cause cancer. You are left with the question of why didn't you get damaged dna.

[ESmorz]

Who the fuck cares?

It failed.

[BustedS13]

looks like every marijuana vote across the nation failed.

okay we can close this. shit's weak.

[ronmcdon]

horrible CA elections!
Was hoping prop 19 could put up more of a fight
(even if I didn't agree with it).

I'm glad Pelosi is no longer speaker of this house.
Tired of hearing that bitch yak.

[ViciousCesar!]

http://hatshrapnel.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/crying_baby.jpg

[az_240]

Prop 19 was flawed...Paving the way for national legalization!

[kingkilburn]

I think the best chance it has nationally will be California passing it and having to push some kind of states' rights thing in the supreme court.

Technically the Federal government can't outlaw it or any other drug.

[J3123MY]

You cam in here talking all this big game about why people should or should not vote for it and you are to damn lazy or can't be bothered to even vote absentee.


That IS HYPOCRISY.








With the cancer thing, when there is only one variable to account for correlation is causation.
Did you smoke weed, yes or no?
Did you get damaged dna while smoking only weed?


If you answered yes to the first and no to the second the conclusion isn't that it doesn't cause cancer. You are left with the question of why didn't you get damaged dna.


lol. Kingkilburn. I had such a good discussion in here that I in the end, did not know what to vote for.

And where in the article did they say there is only one variable. There are always multiple variables in shit like this.

The second part of your post with the questions, does that even make sense? lol. So if you had an experiment, where 10000 people, who lived healthy, ate healthy, didn't smoke anything other then marijuana through a glass bong, and no one got lung cancer, you would still be asking why didn't they get lung cancer?




Anyway, sorry guys, did not pass. I feel like this is for the better, because a better proposition will be on the ballot in the future. Making laws is easy, removing flawed laws is ridiculously hard.

Everyone, just get your medical cards. Marijuana is great medicine for headaches, nausea, migraine, joint pains, insomnia, glaucoma, loss of appetite and many other symptoms.

I'm surprised it lost by so much.

[kingkilburn]

. . . a better proposition will be on the ballot in the future. Making laws is easy, removing flawed laws is ridiculously hard.

We both agree on that.

[S14DB]

I'm surprised it lost by so much.
Yes: 46.2%
No: 53.8%
Proposition 19 Map Election Results|November 2, 2010|California Secretary of State (http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/ballot-measures/19/)

I think it did fairly well. Lost by less than 4%.

I am more surprised that with all the attention to close races that won/lost by more percentage points being reported. That most articles on Prop 19 are that it lost not mentioning the percentage of the votes or how close it was.

[sucide_s13]

so what happen busted s13
everybody tried tellin u it was NOT going to PASS:nono::nono::nono:
I love haters

[kingkilburn]

They pulled a bull moose and divided the voters.

I think a better written and thought out bill will pass, maybe even next year.

[aa87]

Medical Marijuana in california is a joke anyway. Docs are handing scrips out left and right for it.

i think medical marijuana needs regulation if its just gonna be medical marijuana, otherwise gangs of hipster kids with chronic back pain will be giving the chronic a bad name.

[ViciousCesar!]

it actually did extremely good for being a grassroots movement with very very VERY limited funding.

[aa87]

Prop 19 Pot Legalization: The Money Chase - Los Angeles News - The Informer (http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/09/prop_19_pot_legalization_the_m.php)

it was fairly well funded, i read that the pro- achieved an addition 1.7 million, totalling about 3.5 million dollars in the campaign, half from one source

[ViciousCesar!]

interesting. because at our volunteer meeting they told us we had very limited funding and kept trying to raise money thru donations.

[kingkilburn]

lol

Welcome to the machine.

[supervenom]

lol. the vote is tommorrow?

Polls are usually not that accurate. I think this shit isn't gonna pass. All the potheads will be stoned and forget about it. And I know Zilvia gonna hate, but honestly, I don't even care enough to vote. Happy with medical marijuana.

Most experts (RAND Corp.) predicted the price of an ounce of the highest grade pot would be around $38 if Prop 19 were to pass.

An ounce of SuperVenom (like my name, hehe) or Durbin Poison goes for about $380. So, all things considered, a 90% drop in price would have been nice.

No worries. 2012. With in the next 2 years, lots of old voters will die and lots of 16 year old's will be 18. The battle starts now. We will win next time.

DON'T TREAD ON ME!