[QUOTE=rnate;23571911]Alot of people in this thread seem to think that this is the only opportunity, either vote yes on this, or it's no forever. That's not true...[/QUOTE]
I think it's true. the economies doing terrible, that's what sells this prop right now IMO. If they sell this as a way to help local budgets out, I think it has a chance of passing. I think it's the only chance in the near future.
[editline]09:39PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Conscript;23559996]Basically, for pro pot people prop 19 is to ideal legalization as healthcare reform was to universal healthcare.[/QUOTE]
prop 19 would make california the most weed friendly state in the world.
It's only decriminalized in the Netherlands
[QUOTE=5150Luke;23571262]I read it, except for most of the arguments in it are easily rebutted by Marc Emery's essay.
[url]http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/content/2010/06/05/Why-You-Should-Vote-YES-California-Control-Tax-Cannabis-Initiative[/url][/QUOTE]
First off, you should notice that the person who wrote the blog in my link also works at Cannabis Culture, along with Skunk and West Coast Cannabis. Secondly, Marc Emery uses his only source of information for his support of the law from Tax Cannabis 2010, the official advocacy group for the law, whereas the author of the link I provided provides numerous and different links and facts from different people, agencies, etc.
Also...
[quote]Myth #18: This is our only chance to take a step in the direction of legalization.
Fact: This is only our first chance—it will certainly not be the last. There were three other initiatives that sought to be placed on the ballot this year; all three would have legalized not only possession, but also private distribution among individual adults. Some even called for the release of non-violent marijuana offenders. However, staffed exclusively by volunteers, all failed to gather the required number of signatures for the petitions. (Richard Lee invested $1.3 million of his own money to hire a company to obtain the requisite signatures for the current proposed initiative.[31])[/quote]
[quote][31] John Hoeffel. “Measure to Legalize Marijuana Will be on California's November Ballot,” Los Angeles Times. Mar. 25, 2010[/quote]
Marc Emery has a lot of experience as an activist, he raises some good points. We can't split in every vote because it's not ideal legislation, it's still a step forward, whether you acknowledge it or not.
But if prop 19 does pass, won't it make lots of people more aware and acceptant(sp?) of marijuana and then eventually won't we be able to ask the Terminator nicely to change the cannabis laws a bit so it is better.. for ... us?
[editline]12:16PM[/editline]
My posts are getting harder and harder for me to describe. :(
[QUOTE=White Rabbit;23577103]But if prop 19 does pass, won't it make lots of people more aware and acceptant(sp?) of marijuana and then eventually won't we be able to ask the Terminator nicely to change the cannabis laws a bit so it is better.. for ... us?
[editline]12:16PM[/editline]
My posts are getting harder and harder for me to describe. :([/QUOTE]
No, it's an initiative, once signed into law it is permanent, and it has an amendment system that doesn't require voter approval, but rather controlled by the CA legislature, so whatever they want to do with Cannabis, they very well could. The best idea would be to just start over again, completely shun this Proposition and create a better one not mainly funded by people who would have a huge stake to gain from Cannabis's "legalization", but rather so that people can freely buy, sell, distribute, and consume cannabis how they feel like it without criminal prosecution.
Bloody hell you guys are dumb/paranoid.
Do you really think the police are going to check everyone for dispensary receipts? And even if they do, so what? Dispensary weed is and still will be awesome.
Do you really think they're going to check if you smoke it with under 21s in your house? Most people drink under 21 at the moment, it won't be any different with weed.
Do you really think police will raid everyone's home and measure the size of their weed patch?
Do you really think that they could sell shit weed or put nicotine in it to anyone who knows what weed is?
If people get away with smoking all day every day in stricter places than Cali then why would they suddenly get caught IN CALI when it's legal for every 21 year old to own an ounce and a 5x5 plot of plants?
Use your fucking brain and vote yes, it may not be perfect but it beats alcahol laws (you can't distill your own) and that's bloody good.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;23577585]No, it's an initiative, once signed into law it is permanent, and it has an amendment system that doesn't require voter approval, but rather controlled by the CA legislature, so whatever they want to do with Cannabis, they very well could. The best idea would be to just start over again, completely shun this Proposition and create a better one not mainly funded by people who would have a huge stake to gain from Cannabis's "legalization", but rather so that people can freely buy, sell, distribute, and consume cannabis how they feel like it without criminal prosecution.[/QUOTE]
Really? well that doesn't sound good D:. But I agree with ruddingking that the police won't really care too much.
[editline]12:50PM[/editline]
aha its rukiddingme not ruddingking whoops
[QUOTE=rukiddingme;23577705]Bloody hell you guys are dumb/paranoid.[/QUOTE]
What, because I actually go down to the part of articles where it shows and lists the facts and where the source came from? Gee I'm so stupid :downs:
[QUOTE=rukiddingme;23577705]Do you really think the police are going to check everyone for dispensary receipts? And even if they do, so what? Dispensary weed is and still will be awesome.[/QUOTE]
No, but the fact it creates new fines and felonies for things that under the current medical cannabis system is perfectly fine is one of the reasons why I don't approve of it. And I don't disagree with you there about where dispensaries get their stuff.
[QUOTE=rukiddingme;23577705]Do you really think they're going to check if you smoke it with under 21s in your house? Most people drink under 21 at the moment, it won't be any different with weed[/QUOTE]
No. Again the fact that it creates new fines and felonies for currently acceptable actions is what gets me.
[QUOTE=rukiddingme;23577705]Do you really think police will raid everyone's home and measure the size of their weed patch?[/QUOTE]
Now I think something's wrong with you, why do you assume the police are gonna knock down doors and etc? I don't, I just don't want to see things that are now basically a slap in the wrist turn into fines/felonies/etc.
[QUOTE=rukiddingme;23577705]If people get away with smoking all day every day in stricter places than Cali then why would they suddenly get caught IN CALI when it's legal for every 21 year old to own an ounce and a 5x5 plot of plants?[/QUOTE]
Because they're also enacting laws for law enforcement to follow when it does become law, while right now they basically ignore weed or set it to their lowest priority.
[QUOTE=rukiddingme;23577705]Use your fucking brain and vote yes, it may not be perfect but it beats alcahol laws (you can't distill your own) and that's bloody good.[/QUOTE]
No, it's not perfect, that's why I don't agree with it nor do I believe it should become law, because if it does become law it can't be changed! Oh, also:
[quote=Wikipedia]The production of distilled beverages is regulated and taxed.[17] The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (formerly a single organization called the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) enforce federal laws and regulations related to alcohol. The illegal (i.e., unlicensed) manufacture of liquor is often referred to as "moonshining." Illegally produced liquor (popularly called “white lightning”) is not aged and contains a high percentage of alcohol.
All packaging of alcoholic products must contain a health warning from the Surgeon General.
In most states, individuals may produce wine and beer for personal consumption (but not for sale) in amounts [usually] of up to 100 gallons per adult per year, but no more than 200 gallons per household per year.[/quote]
So if it is passed, can they not change anything about it from there after?
Sounds silly.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;23579261]
No. Again the fact that it creates new fines and felonies for currently acceptable actions is what gets me.[/QUOTE]
except it makes growing pot for personal use legal, which is a felony right now with some good jail time.
[QUOTE=5150Luke;23579986]except it makes growing pot for personal use legal, which is a felony right now with some good jail time.[/QUOTE]
[quote=Article]
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. If you share a residence with other people, you’ll be sharing a 5’x5’ grow space, as well. Even if you own multiple acres that many people live on, if it is considered one parcel, the space restriction of 5’x5’ (3-6 plants) will still apply. [11] Plus, if you rent, you will be required to obtain permission from your landlord—which they may be unwilling to grant since doing so will subject them to forfeiture by the federal government.[/quote]
[quote=Article]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] 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. And if you do buy from a licensed dispensary, better keep your receipts, because the burden of proof will be on you. Not only is this inconvenient, but it sets the industry up to be monopolized.
What’s more, if your city decides not to tax cannabis, then buying and selling marijuana in the city limits would remain illegal. You would be permitted to possess and consume marijuana, but you would be required to travel to another city that taxes cannabis to buy it.[13] This is a move towards decreased, not increased, access. And since the initiative is so ambiguous that cities are destined to be tied up in a legal quagmire over how to interpret it, many local governments might find it simpler just to opt-out and send its citizens elsewhere. Indeed, 129 cities did just that with medical marijuana, banning it outright, while still others have established moratoriums against dispensaries. In fact, of the entire state, only the city of Oakland has endorsed the initiative. A vote for the initiative will therefore not ensure local access to purchase marijuana legally.[/quote]
[quote=Article]
Myth #6: The initiative will free up cops to focus on bigger crimes.
Fact: Decriminalization has already achieved this. The California Police Chiefs Association publicly admits that they do not waste their time on cases involving an ounce or less.[14] Moreover, many cities have already passed measures that require law enforcement to make marijuana possession their lowest priority.
What the initiative would do is create new prohibitions and felonies where there were none before, obligating police officers to spend valuable time enforcing them. The cases cops presently de-prioritize are minor offenses, like simple possession. But the initiative takes minor offenses and reclassifies them as more serious crimes (e.g., passing a joint to an adult 18-20). Law enforcement’s time is freed up by the elimination of prohibition, not by exchanging old prohibitions for new ones.[/quote]
[quote=Article]Myth #9: Anyone can obtain a license to legally sell cannabis and compete in the market.
Fact: Few people will be able to compete in the multibillion-dollar marijuana market if the initiative passes. This is because the licensing process, engineered in Oakland, is exceptionally restrictive. Of the more than a thousand dispensaries operating in California until a recent L.A. crackdown, only a handful were licensed. (Conveniently, Richard Lee, the millionaire behind the initiative, owns one of them). In Oakland, the city that’s setting the precedent in the tax cannabis push, a license costs $30,000. Per year. Not to mention the rigorous application process, in which even well-established, law-abiding dispensaries have been denied.
Furthermore, Oakland has started a trend of capping the number of licensed dispensaries allowed to operate (in Oakland, that number is four). This all but guarantees that the average, small-time marijuana grower will be shut out of this multibillion-dollar industry, concentrating the profits of the potential economic boon in the hands of a small minority of wealthy entrepreneurs who are already making moves to monopolize the industry. Under this initiative, the marijuana industry will not be a free market in which everyone has a chance to compete. Instead, the initiative could mark the beginning of the corporatization of marijuana. (See also Fact #15)[/quote]
[quote=Article]Myth #10: Medical marijuana patients would be exempt from the initiative.
Fact: This is not exactly true. While amendments were made ostensibly to prevent the initiative from affecting current medical marijuana law, a careful reading of the initiative reveals that this is not, in fact, the case. Certain medical marijuana laws are exempt from the prohibitions the initiative would enact, while others are glaringly absent.
Cultivation is one such law that is noticeably non-exempt.[17] In spite of the fact that the tax cannabis Web site says otherwise, the only medical marijuana exemptions that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative actually makes are with regard to possession, consumption and purchase limits, which only ensure that patients would still be allowed to buy medicine at dispensaries. The word “cultivate” is conspicuously absent. Whereas today a person with a doctor’s recommendation has the right to grow up to an unlimited number of plants, the initiative would drastically reduce that number to whatever can fit in a 5’x5’ footprint (around 3-6 plants—per property, not per person). This will force many patients to resort to buying instead of growing their own medicine, because of the inconvenience caused by producing multiple grows a year rather than growing a year’s supply of medicine at one time, as many patients currently do outdoors. And growing indoors—which typically requires special grow lights, an increase in hydro use, and a lot of time and attention—is a comparatively expensive endeavor.
The initiative would further impact medical marijuana patients by banning medicating in the privacy of their own homes if there are minors present, as well as in public (currently perfectly legal[18])—an invaluable liberty to those with painful diseases who would otherwise have to suffer until they got home to relieve their pain.
Finally, the medical marijuana laws that are exempted from this initiative apparently only apply to cities. For medical marijuana patients who live in an area that has county or local government jurisdiction, according to a strict reading of the initiative, medical marijuana laws are not exempt.[19][/quote]
[quote=Article]Myth #13: Counties in which marijuana cultivation currently thrives will experience increased economic growth.
Fact: Entire economies could collapse in counties that currently rely on cultivating marijuana. Right now, the multibillion-dollar marijuana industry is legally subsidizing thousands of incomes in areas where unemployment is skyrocketing. For example, Mendocino County, the biggest pot-producing county in the U.S., reports that a full two-thirds of its economy is dependent on marijuana.[22] Much of this is due to current state medical marijuana laws, which allow people to legally cultivate plants and provide them to marijuana pharmacies. But this economy supports more than just farmers.
Many local store owners report that without marijuana farmers patronizing their businesses with cash, they would go out of business. Moreover, legitimate medical marijuana growers employ tens of thousands of seasonal workers, mostly young adults, who have managed to eke out a living in a region where none other exists, and who otherwise would have few local options to support themselves. The more humble among them are able to make a living that sustains them modestly throughout much of the year. Thousands more are able to subsidize low-paying jobs, make up for shortages in their college funding, and start creative projects such as fashion design, music production, or art. But because the initiative would limit the number of plants one could grow from up to an unlimited amount to about six, thousands of small-time medical marijuana farmers and the young adults they employ would face economic displacement and hardship, or join the ranks of the unemployed. (For more on this, see Fact #15.)[/quote]
[quote=Article]Myth #18: This is our only chance to take a step in the direction of legalization.
Fact: This is only our first chance—it will certainly not be the last. There were three other initiatives that sought to be placed on the ballot this year; all three would have legalized not only possession, but also private distribution among individual adults. Some even called for the release of non-violent marijuana offenders. However, staffed exclusively by volunteers, all failed to gather the required number of signatures for the petitions. (Richard Lee invested $1.3 million of his own money to hire a company to obtain the requisite signatures for the current proposed initiative.[31])
What now?
The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative is not the only path to legalization. We have come so far, and are now so close—it is imperative that we let the next step be the right one. Legalized marijuana is within reach, yet the movement could be set back with such a problematic initiative at the helm. Instead of rushing to pass a measure that prohibits marijuana under the guise of legalization, we can draft an initiative that calls for true legalization and that has the full support of marijuana law reform organizations and leaders of the movement.
The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Initiative is rife with ambiguity, expands the War on Drugs, undermines the medical marijuana movement, arrests more people for marijuana, offers no protection for small farmers and insufficient protection for medical marijuana users, has a high potential for monopolization, provides no regulations to prevent corporate takeover of the industry, cartelizes the economy, and divides our community into poor, unlicensed, mom-and-pop gardener versus rich, licensed, corporate farmer. And since the one thing that’s clear about the initiative is that it’s vague, it could very easily prove to be a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences. Beyond its vagueness, which itself is problematic, these side effects are inherently socially dangerous. The impact that such a failed legalization initiative could have on the movement nation-wide could be disastrous.
This is not a question of whether to legalize or not to legalize. Legalization is the goal and it is inevitable. The question is whether we want to rush in and settle for an initiative that is so poorly-worded as to be ambiguous, and so vague as to be open to vast interpretation from judges—or wait for the wording and other inconsistencies to be corrected for 2012. If we hold out for a perfect initiative we will wait forever. But if we at least hold out for an initiative that is direct, unambiguous, well-defined and clearly written, we will have an unprecedented opportunity to inspire the world to join the movement to legalize marijuana.
Many pro-legalization activists are rallying behind the idea of taking the time to craft an initiative that will be a clear step up from the current cannabis situation of in California and will result in increased access—not its opposite. Both NORML and the MPP, the foremost cannabis law reform organizations in the country, have suggested we wait and make another attempt at legalization during the 2012 elections. Dale Gieringer, Director of California’s NORML, said, “I do think it’s going to take a few more years for us to develop a proposal that voters will be comfortable with.”[32] Likewise, Bruce Mirken, MPP’s Director of Communications, was quoted as saying, “In our opinion, we should wait and build our forces and aim at 2012.”[33][/quote]
[quote][11] Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls: (ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel.[/quote]
[quote]
[12] Section 3: Lawful Activities: Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: (g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300; [Section 11300: (i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301]
[13] B: 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. (Note: The word “cultivate” is conspicuously absent.)[/quote]
[quote][14] Brian Braiker. “California: Odd Bedfellows in the Pro-Pot Ballot Initiative,” ABC News. Apr. 5, 2010[/quote]
[quote][15] Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees (a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.[/quote]
[quote]
[17] Medical marijuana exemptions: B: 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. (Note: The word “cultivate” is conspicuously absent.)
Although this refers to cities that decide not to tax marijuana, even in cities that do choose to tax, the initiative explicitly supersedes medical marijuana law and gives local government control over how much patients can cultivate, as seen in Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls: Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following: (a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized. (This section provides no exemptions for medical marijuana law.)[/quote]
[quote][18] Proposition 215 (Compassionate Use Act): Section 11362.79: Nothing in this article shall authorize a qualified patient or person with an identification card to engage in the smoking of medical marijuana under any of the following circumstances: (a) In any place where smoking is prohibited by law.[/quote]
[quote][19] Medical marijuana exemptions: B: 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.[/quote]
[quote][22] Trish Regan. “California's Emerald Triangle: Small Towns, Big Money,” CNBC Marijuana and Money Special Report. Apr. 20, 2010
[/quote]
[quote][31] John Hoeffel. “Measure to Legalize Marijuana Will be on California's November Ballot,” Los Angeles Times. Mar. 25, 2010[/quote]
[quote][32] Stu Woo. “Legal-Pot Backers Split on Timing,” Wall Street Journal. Oct. 3, 2009.[/quote]
[quote][33] “California Marijuana Legalization Initiative Effort Underway, Aimed at 2010 Ballot,” Drug War Chronicle. Jun. 19, 2009[/quote]
Please at least read this, this is why I don't want the law to pass.
Holy shit this thread is full of childish fuckstains. How old do you have to be, before you stop putting numbers beside each of your points of dispute? That's like 5th grade e-thug shit right there. Grow up guys
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;23580995]Please at least read this, this is why I don't want the law to pass.[/QUOTE]
i've read the whole thing. still makes growing legal, with restrictions.
[editline]04:16AM[/editline]
[quote=aaronn;23581198]holy shit this thread is full of childish fuckstains. How old do you have to be, before you stop putting numbers beside each of your points of dispute? That's like 5th grade e-thug shit right there. Grow up guys[/quote]
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
[QUOTE=5150Luke;23572392]I think it's true. the [B]economies doing terrible[/B], that's what sells this prop right now IMO. If they sell this as a way to help local budgets out, I think it has a chance of passing. I think it's the only chance in the near future.
[/QUOTE]
This would make the economy in California almost instantly collapse, there's 1 county (I don't even remember which one, I heard this on the TV the other day) that 80% of people DEPEND on the medical MJ industry. And when 90% of the dispensaries can't obtain a license to avoid being foreclosed, 90% of the economy goes with it.
[QUOTE=Aaronn;23581198]Holy shit this thread is full of childish fuckstains. How old do you have to be, before you stop putting numbers beside each of your points of dispute? That's like 5th grade e-thug shit right there. Grow up guys[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about? I'm trying to explain my side of an argument and now just because I list them out that means I'm a "childish fuckstain"? You haven't even stated your opinion and you start name calling.
[QUOTE=rnate;23582439]This would make the economy in California almost instantly collapse, there's 1 county (I don't even remember which one, I heard this on the TV the other day) that 80% of people DEPEND on the medical MJ industry. And when 90% of the dispensaries can't obtain a license to avoid being foreclosed, 90% of the economy goes with it.[/QUOTE]
Humbolt county.
u were fooled
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;23582639]What are you talking about? I'm trying to explain my side of an argument and now just because I list them out that means I'm a "childish fuckstain"? You haven't even stated your opinion and you start name calling.[/QUOTE]
He's just a dumb biatch who didn't bother to read your post.
What you don't seem to get is that they won't enforce any of these new fines and felonies any more than they enforce the current ones now.
[QUOTE=rukiddingme;23586820]What you don't seem to get is that they won't enforce any of these new fines and felonies any more than they enforce the current ones now.[/QUOTE]
That's like saying that's how they treat alcohol and cigarettes. Because that's how it'll be treated.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;23582639]What are you talking about? I'm trying to explain my side of an argument and now just because I list them out that means I'm a "childish fuckstain"? You haven't even stated your opinion and you start name calling.[/QUOTE]
My opinion is that you're retarded. If you have to add numerical values to structure your argument, you may have a serious mental handicap
If anything, areas that are highly dependent on weed, would make legislation that is weed friendly.
[QUOTE=Aaronn;23587531]My opinion is that you're retarded. If you have to add numerical values to structure your argument, you may have a serious mental handicap[/QUOTE]
That again is your opinion, but your opinion is starting to sound more like "Hurf durf dis gui is dum he uses numbahs 2 list tings dawww.:downs:"
Using numbers doesn't show mental handicap, it is because I'm on the internet trying to [i]type my points and arguments[/i], therefore listing them. Gee, like I'm the only person. That's also saying that laws are retarded because they're numerically structured, they're structured like that so that it provides ease for people to help understand it, and help point out things in a piece of writing. I did it just so people could easily correlate what I was trying to convey against Luke.
[QUOTE=Aaronn;23587531]My opinion is that you're retarded. If you have to add numerical values to structure your argument, you may have a serious mental handicap[/QUOTE]
He didn't add any numbers you moron he copy and pasted that and those are the source numbers.
[QUOTE=5150Luke;23572392]
prop 19 would make california the most weed friendly state in the world.
It's only decriminalized in the Netherlands[/QUOTE]
Okay? That's not helping you if a watered down bill constitutes california as the most weed friendly state. That's disappointing, isn't it?
[QUOTE=GerardV2;23598271]He didn't add any numbers you moron he copy and pasted that and those are the source numbers.[/QUOTE]
Wait, he thinks I'm retarded for copy/pasting pieces of the article and sources, and not for how me and Luke were arguing on the last two pages?
[editline]02:23PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=5150Luke;23587607]If anything, areas that are highly dependent on weed, would make legislation that is weed friendly.[/QUOTE]
Again.
[quote=Article]Myth #13: Counties in which marijuana cultivation currently thrives will experience increased economic growth.
Fact: Entire economies could collapse in counties that currently rely on cultivating marijuana. Right now, the multibillion-dollar marijuana industry is legally subsidizing thousands of incomes in areas where unemployment is skyrocketing. For example, Mendocino County, the biggest pot-producing county in the U.S., reports that a full two-thirds of its economy is dependent on marijuana.[22] Much of this is due to current state medical marijuana laws, which allow people to legally cultivate plants and provide them to marijuana pharmacies. But this economy supports more than just farmers.
Many local store owners report that without marijuana farmers patronizing their businesses with cash, they would go out of business. Moreover, legitimate medical marijuana growers employ tens of thousands of seasonal workers, mostly young adults, who have managed to eke out a living in a region where none other exists, and who otherwise would have few local options to support themselves. The more humble among them are able to make a living that sustains them modestly throughout much of the year. Thousands more are able to subsidize low-paying jobs, make up for shortages in their college funding, and start creative projects such as fashion design, music production, or art. But because the initiative would limit the number of plants one could grow from up to an unlimited amount to about six, thousands of small-time medical marijuana farmers and the young adults they employ would face economic displacement and hardship, or join the ranks of the unemployed. (For more on this, see Fact #15.)[/quote]
[quote][22] Trish Regan. “California's Emerald Triangle: Small Towns, Big Money,” CNBC Marijuana and Money Special Report. Apr. 20, 2010[/quote]
[quote][15] Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees (a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.[/quote]
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;23598587]Wait, he thinks I'm retarded for copy/pasting pieces of the article and sources, and not for how me and Luke were arguing on the last two pages?
[/QUOTE]
I pretty clearly said that you are retarded adding numerical values to your points of argument. Argument.
[QUOTE]argument
ar·gu·ment
   /ˈɑrgyəmənt/ Show Spelled[ahr-gyuh-muhnt]
–noun
1.
an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: a violent argument. [/QUOTE]
And yes, it is a clear example of your lack of maturity.
[editline]06:10PM[/editline]
Also, no, this doesn't apply to laws or relate to anything else numbered. You're simply an idiot for trying to show such a relation.
Dude are you fucking retarded Aaron? He didn't add any numbers to his post, all the insults you just flung at purvisdavid1 should go directly back to you for being such a dumbass.
[QUOTE=GerardV2;23599987]Dude are you fucking retarded Aaron? He didn't add any numbers to his post, all the insults you just flung at purvisdavid1 should go directly back to you for being such a dumbass.[/QUOTE]
Lol idiot, I really hate having to spell this out for you. It's almost painful.
This is an example of information posted with a source number:
[QUOTE]
[15] Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees (a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.[/QUOTE]
This is an example of two idiots fighting:
[QUOTE=5150Luke;23556116]oh jesus wall of text
1. I don't really care, I don't get caught with pot even though i'm allowed to have it now.
2. you're on crack, it's 6 mature plants OR 12 immature plants in my county.
3. you're vaping weed, it's vapor, not smoke ;)
4. You're allowed to have 8 ounces of bud on you in cali if you have a medical card period.
EDIT:
If prop 19 passes, it's more "legal" in cali then damn Amsterdam. that's a pretty good reason to vote yes in my opinion.
they have medical cards, it wouldn't really be that bad if they got busted.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;23556457]1) OK.
2) The minimum is different per county, though the state legal limit Is 20 plants, no more.
3) Fuck you got me there, I didn't think about edibles.
4) If you're a medical cannabis patient, I've never said they couldn't or could, I'm saying if it becomes "legal" here anyone 21 and up can only possess an ounce at any given time. And you can still get busted if it's not from a dispensary.
[editline]09:21PM[/editline]
I don't believe that, I just wouldn't like to see it monopolized in general.[/QUOTE]
Gerard, stop proving everything that DD, OIFY, and basically FP in general, has said about you: That you're completely and unavoidably retarded.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
