Editorial - Just Say NO

[MedicalNeed]

In the latest front/affront in the war on a medicinal herb, the U.S. government, with help from the Arkansas National Guard, state police and the sheriff, invaded the gardens of Carroll County residents, terrorizing citizens, endangering lives and wasting resources. Shame on all those participating in these unconstitutional, tyrannical, police state tactics.

Greedy billionaires created the war on marijuana, and more than 70 years later their sham continues to ruin countless lives and make criminals out of productive citizens.

The history of marijuana prohibition is a sordid tale indeed. It wasn't really about cannabis the "drug," but rather the financial impact of hemp on the timber and plastics industries. It was about money for rich people. Some things never change.

Back in the 1930s, new processing technology made hemp a far superior alternative to timber for paper and pulp -- cheaper, better quality and much more environmentally friendly.

William Randolph Hearst, for whom the term "yellow journalism" was coined, owned much of the timber industry. He used his newspaper empire to gin up a bogus, and racist, case against cannabis to protect his timber holdings.

At the same time, Dupont had just patented plastic formulas using petroleum products, and hemp oil threatened the enormous profits those patents would reap. Dupont's banker, Andrew Mellon, was also Secretary of the Treasury, and he appointed a nephew to head the new anti-narcotics bureau and the crusade to demonize cannabis. Think Reefer Madness.

In the years since, the government has religiously suppressed the truth about cannabis, and money remains the motivation. Marijuana prohibition brings billions to the police/justice industry; it's a huge boon for lawyers, jail builders and jailers, police forces, probation officers, organized crime and laboratories.

According to the Marijuana Policy Project, there were 9.5 million marijuana arrests in the U.S. between 1995 and 2008, 89 percent for possession. Growing even one plant is a felony. With a 2006 study showing nearly 15 million U.S. residents admitting to using marijuana in the previous month, the economic futures of lawyers, prosecutors, jailers and police look very bright.

Fifteen states now allow cannabis for medical use and the Veterans' Administration acknowledges its medicinal benefits, so it's hard to fathom that this war continues with such ferocity. The evidence of the herb's medicinal value is unquestionable, even with the government suppressing most of the research, including its own.

But, keeping cannabis outlawed benefits wealthy and influential competitors like the paper, pharmaceutical and liquor industries, and exploiting fear and lies helps get politicians elected.

Cannabis is probably the most beneficial and potentially profitable plant on the planet. It grows almost everywhere, is renewable and biodegradable, and requires little irrigation and few, if any, pesticides.

It can be used for fuel, building materials, plastics, paper and clothing. It's a nutritious food source and a safe and effective medicine. Those are the truths the government doesn't want you to know.

Among the tens of millions of marijuana users in this country are doctors, lawyers, law enforcement officials, politicians and every other type of professional. Many long-term, regular users are healthy, productive members of society and pillars of their communities, people who don't buy the government's lies and have embraced a safe herb that relaxes them and helps tap into their creativity.

Alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs, all legal, account for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year, yet there's no evidence of marijuana killing anyone. Just listen to any commercial to hear the long lists of prescription drugs' side effects; makes mild euphoria and the munchies seem pretty benign. So why does the government condone the use of far more dangerous drugs while continuing this sham war on marijuana? Follow the money.

Proponents of prohibition cling to the debunked "gateway drug" theory -- that marijuana use leads to harder drugs. Because of prohibition, marijuana users are forced to deal in the same black market that sells hard drugs, but saying that hard drug users started with marijuana is like saying children who shoplift candy become serial killers.

Cannabis doesn't harm society, cannabis prohibition does -- it ruins lives and bankrupts poor people. In many places, possession is treated as a minor offense, while growing for personal use remains a felony. This encourages consumers to buy on the black market and enriches the drug cartels the government is purportedly fighting. The best way to fight drug cartels is to allow cultivation for personal use.

Marijuana use is accepted by our society with a nod and a wink, presidents and senators have used it and comedians often make reference to their partaking. It's all kind of a joke -- until the laws are enforced. Then lives are ruined.

Government intimidation to stay quiet is intense, but if people don't stand up, this will become even more of a police state than it already is. It's time to declare war on the war on cannibas.

Bill King


NewsHawk: MedicalNeed: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: Lovely County Citizen: Newspaper serving Eureka Springs, Arkansas
Author: Bill King
Contact: Lovely County Citizen: Contact Us
Copyright: 2010 Lovely County Citizen
Website:Lovely County Citizen: Editorial: Editorial - Just say NO (09/01/10)

 

[Mama Train]

This is the case......good read. The cotton industry was also a major player in the campaign to make canna illegal. Im sure they are interested as well considering the competition from hemp.
We must end the WOD. FOLLOW THE MONEY...
This can not happen in the voting booth......it needs to happen on the house and senate floors. Thats where we need courage and credibility.
Interesting that the US GOV Dept HSS holds the patent(2003) on the process of extracting medication from MJ.
Ill provide the link to the thread here on 420 if anyone thinks this is siginifcant to the topic.

This is why I fear prop 19 may not b all we hope for

Mama luvs u all and will never stop fighting and talking to my reps

 

[Choji]

Mama prop 19 ain't perfect, but it's something. I do believe that arrest will go down because it gives local officers little incentive to arrest users and small plot growers.

 

[Mama Train]

Mama prop 19 ain't perfect, but it's something. I do believe that arrest will go down because it gives local officers little incentive to arrest users and small plot growers.

Heres one of my worries...

I believe they still have a powerful incentive to bother anyone they can. City and state law enforcement benifit from Seized property. The cities and states can use these funds as they see fit in some cases (possibly most!!!!!) This is a huge funding source for most towns and I think they will rationalize protecting it. I forgot to consider how the funds travel. The feds take it and return up to 90% to the munis(depending on state law) This makes sense because it is the cities and states that must bear the cost of investigation, trial & incarceration. This can b a powerful motive to bug the lil guy (houses, cars, bank accounts....) 2 see if he is absolutly legal and grab his stuff if not. There are a few really worrisom loopholes in 19 that can make Californians vulnerable. The possibility ur home gro could b taxed lets all kinds of nasty dirty little fingers reach right into ur front door.

Im takin plenty of heat 4 my view because im not even living in Cali

I wish U peace and total decrimialization. focus on privacy in ur home not taxes. Its not the people ur fightin...its the money...guess whos gunna win?

 

[Odin]

Heres one of my worries...

I believe they still have a powerful incentive to bother anyone they can. City and state law enforcement benifit from Seized property. The cities and states can use these funds as they see fit in some cases (possibly most!!!!!) This is a huge funding source for most towns and I think they will rationalize protecting it. I forgot to consider how the funds travel. The feds take it and return up to 90% to the munis(depending on state law) This makes sense because it is the cities and states that must bear the cost of investigation, trial & incarceration. This can b a powerful motive to bug the lil guy (houses, cars, bank accounts....) 2 see if he is absolutly legal and grab his stuff if not. There are a few really worrisom loopholes in 19 that can make Californians vulnerable. The possibility ur home gro could b taxed lets all kinds of nasty dirty little fingers reach right into ur front door.

Im takin plenty of heat 4 my view because im not even living in Cali

I wish U peace and total decrimialization. focus on privacy in ur home not taxes. Its not the people ur fightin...its the money...guess whos gunna win?

I feel the same way. I've expressed my lengthy opinion on several articles about prop 19, so I won't beat a dead horse here. But we're in the same boat. I'm voting no on prop 19. I want it to be right, not just "okay".

 

[free2blaze]

Heres one of my worries...

I believe they still have a powerful incentive to bother anyone they can. City and state law enforcement benifit from Seized property. The cities and states can use these funds as they see fit in some cases (possibly most!!!!!) This is a huge funding source for most towns and I think they will rationalize protecting it. I forgot to consider how the funds travel. The feds take it and return up to 90% to the munis(depending on state law) This makes sense because it is the cities and states that must bear the cost of investigation, trial & incarceration. This can b a powerful motive to bug the lil guy (houses, cars, bank accounts....) 2 see if he is absolutly legal and grab his stuff if not. There are a few really worrisom loopholes in 19 that can make Californians vulnerable. The possibility ur home gro could b taxed lets all kinds of nasty dirty little fingers reach right into ur front door.

Im takin plenty of heat 4 my view because im not even living in Cali

I wish U peace and total decrimialization. focus on privacy in ur home not taxes. Its not the people ur fightin...its the money...guess whos gunna win?

Very well put, I don't live in Cali. either but I do share fears about prop 19,(because I am a human being who cares about my fellow american no matter where he/she lives) I know if prop 19 passes it wont directly effect me in any way at least not until my state decides to do the same and than I believe it will be as a result of 19 so with that I try not to say too much of what I feel about it, I hope if it passes that everything goes good, I am seriously praying for good, but I am sure there will be issues even as there are with the medical laws we have now but it is in my opinion California that has brought medical use to my state and I believe it will be California that will bring an end to cannabis being a criminal offense for all of us and even than there will still be issues but one day I believe it will all be better once these career criminals get forced out of office and the terrorist pigs lose there jobs because they are obsolete. just a bit of my opinion.

 

[MedicalNeed]

The best people to write the bills and laws are the lawmakers.
The lack of luster to do so on the Cannabis Front shows their lack of willingness to represent the people and the will of their votes.
Which further proves their ineptness to deal with the Cannabis issue overall and in General.

The fact that the CA. State Legislature has touched on the bill to legalize and decriminalize Cannabis many times this year alone and has failed to pass it on their own is proof of them taking the road of More Money, rather than the road of the will of the majority of the voters of California.

 

[Mama Train]

The best people to write the bills and laws are the lawmakers.
The lack of luster to do so on the Cannabis Front shows their lack of willingness to represent the people and the will of their votes.
Which further proves their ineptness to deal with the Cannabis issue overall and in General.

The fact that the CA. State Legislature has touched on the bill to legalize and decriminalize Cannabis many times this year alone and has failed to pass it on their own is proof of them taking the road of More Money, rather than the road of the will of the majority of the voters of California.

Thats why this is no longer a mission against misinformation. I believe the voters want to end the WOD. THEY KNOW. That is why this battle must b fought on the legislative floor and we have to HAMMER our lawmakers with all the tough questions. Force them to tell us what they know or Admit that they know nothing....
How effective is this war? How much does it cost? WHy give the criminals the monopoly? Will we ever win?
Why not treat as alcohol? Isnt alcohol a gateway drug? Kids safe from it now? Can they buy an arosol can or some whipped cream and get high? Is that a gateway drug? Much better than MJ?
I could go on but (he he) ima lil toasted and chattering. I think u all know what im sayin...cause the fear is from those lawmakers that have do the work in front of the whole country, stand up and say in front of all they support the end of the WOD and total decriminalization.....we can pull the curtain in the voting booth, they cant. How can we give them the education and courage they need? I beileve many lawmakers support us in when their right mind.... just not during election years. They r afraid to stand in front of their associates and constituants to say so. TOUGH ON CRIME WINS ELECTIONS and those arrest stats r a numbers game...the more the merrier

 

[goblinmarket]

I feel the same way. I've expressed my lengthy opinion on several articles about prop 19, so I won't beat a dead horse here. But we're in the same boat. I'm voting no on prop 19. I want it to be right, not just "okay".

I doubt we will ever have a proposition that everyone feels is "right." If there's about 50% support for prop 19, good luck on ever passing something that is "right" in the next 10 years.

 

[TorturedSoul]

In the latest front/affront in the war on a medicinal herb, the U.S. government, with help from the Arkansas National Guard, state police and the sheriff, invaded the gardens of Carroll County residents, terrorizing citizens, endangering lives and wasting resources. Shame on all those participating in these unconstitutional, tyrannical, police state tactics.

While I agree with pretty much everything that follows this paragraph in your post... AfaIK, cannabis is still illegal in all forms in the state of Arkansas. I can (and do) disagree with LEO over their heavy-handed tactics. Ditto for the vast amount of resources used, the punishments that are far in excess of even any possible/theoretical harm. Ditto for involving the federal LEO - I don't know if doing so is strictly unconstitutional, but the entire precept on which cannabis prohibition is based certainly is.

But cannabis is still illegal in the state of Arkansas. And when it's all said and done, it is NOT the purvey of LEO to become a de facto legislative body by selectively enforcing the laws. LEOs job is to enforce the laws.

The LEO who chooses not to enforce a law is just as corrupt as the LEO that takes bribes, harasses the innocent, and cherry-picks his assignments.

Have I ever been "inconvenienced" by a LEO that was enforcing the laws? You betcha, lol. Every time I've been pulled over for speeding, driving aggressively, <COUGH> drag-racing on a public thoroughfare, etc. Were I to do something cannabis-related that was illegal and then get caught at it, I would be greatly inconvenienced. (And my heart goes out to the vast majority of those who have been... inconvenienced.)

Have I ever gotten lucky because the LEO that I encountered either let me off with an official warning, gave me a speech about NOT driving my car home and then purposely looked the other way so that I could do exactly that, or even went so far as to say (in another state and years ago), "You're going to have to do something about that smell - not only is it starting to permeate the entire building, but my dog (K9 unit) goes nuts when you walk by five inches from my cruiser with your pockets stuffed..." (He was exaggerating a little.) Yes, I have been lucky in the past. REALLY lucky, now that I think back. On a personal level, I appreciated every "out" I was given. But all of these breaks... should not have been given. In each instance I was breaking a law (sometimes several).

So. I can be upset with a LEO for doing almost anything where cannabis is concerned - even for looking the other way - except for choosing to enforce the laws on the books in his/her jurisdiction (as long as he/she is enforcing each law with the same diligence).

I would rather be faced with a police force that was comprised of nothing but hard-assed rookies who had "the book" memorized cover to cover and who enforced every law 100%, 100% of the time than a police force that was comprised of some rookies such as I've described, some "good ol' boys" who enforced some laws 100% in some situations and looked the other way when dealing with their friends, pretty women, and those from whom they were seeking favor while at the same time going "above and beyond" with those that they did not like or had some grudge against, and some real pricks who did what they wanted whenever they wanted and screw (literally and figuratively) everyone whenever possible.

At least we'd all know where we stood from the start. AND... I have a feeling that if such were the case in every jurisdiction in this nation from the smallest town to the largest city, state, and beyond to the federal level, that we'd soon see some REAL change in the laws (and not just where cannabis is concerned). After all, when everyone is held accountable to the law, everyone must then consider the laws.

NOTE: I strongly advocate legalization of cannabis in all forms for adults. Not decriminalization and not (just) for medicinal use. I also advocate making it available for free or at least at a minimal cost to those who are truly in need of it for medicinal purposes. I also advocate reform of the medicinal cannabis laws so that a person that has a true reason to use it medicinally would be qualified in all states instead of being qualified in one state but not another (and being allowed to grow/posses/use one amount in one state but a different amount in another); a person's medical profile does not change as he/she steps across a state line. But I also advocate reform in those states in which anyone that wants to consume cannabis can get a "medical" recommendation. Such harms the true medicinal user in that there will likely never be a free/reduced-price medicinal cannabis program, there could well be a tax applied to medicinal-use cannabis (I'm strongly against taxing ANY medical product or service), et cetera. It also harms the legalization movement in that many recreational users are of the mindset of, "Why bother with legalization? Just go get your recommendation." (And BtW, that's called fraud!)

I just felt like stating all of that. This probably wasn't the best thread in which to do so, but I've never been great at timing and all that, lol.

 

[goblinmarket]

What do you mean by a true medicinal reason? I'm just curious. Only those with cancer or AIDS? Or would this also include people with chronic pain (back pain, endometriosis), insomnia, etc? I'm a little...sensitive about this issue, after seeing people say that only those who suffer from conditions deemed horrible enough should be allowed to be a medicinal user.

 

[Mama Train]

While I agree with pretty much everything that follows this paragraph in your post... AfaIK, cannabis is still illegal in all forms in the state of Arkansas. I can (and do) disagree with LEO over their heavy-handed tactics. Ditto for the vast amount of resources used, the punishments that are far in excess of even any possible/theoretical harm. Ditto for involving the federal LEO - I don't know if doing so is strictly unconstitutional, but the entire precept on which cannabis prohibition is based certainly is.

But cannabis is still illegal in the state of Arkansas. And when it's all said and done, it is NOT the purvey of LEO to become a de facto legislative body by selectively enforcing the laws. LEOs job is to enforce the laws.

The LEO who chooses not to enforce a law is just as corrupt as the LEO that takes bribes, harasses the innocent, and cherry-picks his assignments.

Have I ever been "inconvenienced" by a LEO that was enforcing the laws? You betcha, lol. Every time I've been pulled over for speeding, driving aggressively, <COUGH> drag-racing on a public thoroughfare, etc. Were I to do something cannabis-related that was illegal and then get caught at it, I would be greatly inconvenienced. (And my heart goes out to the vast majority of those who have been... inconvenienced.)

Have I ever gotten lucky because the LEO that I encountered either let me off with an official warning, gave me a speech about NOT driving my car home and then purposely looked the other way so that I could do exactly that, or even went so far as to say (in another state and years ago), "You're going to have to do something about that smell - not only is it starting to permeate the entire building, but my dog (K9 unit) goes nuts when you walk by five inches from my cruiser with your pockets stuffed..." (He was exaggerating a little.) Yes, I have been lucky in the past. REALLY lucky, now that I think back. On a personal level, I appreciated every "out" I was given. But all of these breaks... should not have been given. In each instance I was breaking a law (sometimes several).

So. I can be upset with a LEO for doing almost anything where cannabis is concerned - even for looking the other way - except for choosing to enforce the laws on the books in his/her jurisdiction (as long as he/she is enforcing each law with the same diligence).

I would rather be faced with a police force that was comprised of nothing but hard-assed rookies who had "the book" memorized cover to cover and who enforced every law 100%, 100% of the time than a police force that was comprised of some rookies such as I've described, some "good ol' boys" who enforced some laws 100% in some situations and looked the other way when dealing with their friends, pretty women, and those from whom they were seeking favor while at the same time going "above and beyond" with those that they did not like or had some grudge against, and some real pricks who did what they wanted whenever they wanted and screw (literally and figuratively) everyone whenever possible.

At least we'd all know where we stood from the start. AND... I have a feeling that if such were the case in every jurisdiction in this nation from the smallest town to the largest city, state, and beyond to the federal level, that we'd soon see some REAL change in the laws (and not just where cannabis is concerned). After all, when everyone is held accountable to the law, everyone must then consider the laws.

NOTE: I strongly advocate legalization of cannabis in all forms for adults. Not decriminalization and not (just) for medicinal use. I also advocate making it available for free or at least at a minimal cost to those who are truly in need of it for medicinal purposes. I also advocate reform of the medicinal cannabis laws so that a person that has a true reason to use it medicinally would be qualified in all states instead of being qualified in one state but not another (and being allowed to grow/posses/use one amount in one state but a different amount in another); a person's medical profile does not change as he/she steps across a state line. But I also advocate reform in those states in which anyone that wants to consume cannabis can get a "medical" recommendation. Such harms the true medicinal user in that there will likely never be a free/reduced-price medicinal cannabis program, there could well be a tax applied to medicinal-use cannabis (I'm strongly against taxing ANY medical product or service), et cetera. It also harms the legalization movement in that many recreational users are of the mindset of, "Why bother with legalization? Just go get your recommendation." (And BtW, that's called fraud!)

I just felt like stating all of that. This probably wasn't the best thread in which to do so, but I've never been great at timing and all that, lol.

Very well said! its time true medical need be seperated from rec use and the medication available to those in need in every state. At fair price point with assistance from medicare/medicade and insurance for those in need just like any other med. We should not get our meds from a glorified head shop and the product should b informativly, not commerically packaged and 'marketed'. Clinics are processing people for a price and this does nothing for the credibility of the medical program. Iv'e saved my insurance company a BOATLOAD of bucks by entering the medical program.
The gov knows this...I think u posted "am i the only one bothered by this?"
They want me to pay a much steeper price than the price of a seed and some nutes. There are jobs and money at stake

I was blown away and I share your passion. Im glad I found the post....dont care where.

I wish u a peaceful life but I fear we still have too much to do. And we have our cards!

Mama appreciates ur view.

 

[DrProfessor]

I feel the same way. I've expressed my lengthy opinion on several articles about prop 19, so I won't beat a dead horse here. But we're in the same boat. I'm voting no on prop 19. I want it to be right, not just "okay".

Just like everything else "want it to be right" that's a dream world voting no will send a shockwave to DC and the rest of the GOV would start to peruse a stronger anti-marijuana course, if 19 is voted down. That logic is CRAZY when exactly do you think enough votes will be around to GET IT RIGHT.

Way better to get 19 passed then work to perfect it or amend it voting it down swings the momentum it the other direction. WHAT WILL LEO DO when he knows this pot crap was voted down by the people.......RAIDS.

Voting no because it's not perfect is really sick, WORK To AMEND as we move forward. Don't take us back that's just craziness

 

[DrProfessor]

We can always ADD to the law, this is basic government why do we not understand this.

What can we add to right now?

I'm on my way as we speak to Cali please help me understand this way of thinking. I see only fear on a lot of these posts and I truly want to do the right thing but I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND.

I can barely remember the last time Cannabis was even close to being legalized I'm 38. How long will it be till it comes back?..?..?..

I honestly can't understand I'm not trying to start a argument with the whole place but I can't understand it. All I have heard was theoretical situations and some bad information remember there was a lot of fight on medical marijuana before 215 was passed.

SB 420 has been added since from where I sit it seems you would have to be a fool to vote no on prop19 but I hear some people I respect say it's not a good thing. Only thing is they are in the business so what do you believe?...

 

[DrProfessor]

Very well said! its time true medical need be seperated from rec use and the medication available to those in need in every state. At fair price point with assistance from medicare/medicade and insurance for those in need just like any other med. We should not get our meds from a glorified head shop and the product should b informativly, not commerically packaged and 'marketed'. Clinics are processing people for a price and this does nothing for the credibility of the medical program. Iv'e saved my insurance company a BOATLOAD of bucks by entering the medical program.
The gov knows this...I think u posted "am i the only one bothered by this?"
They want me to pay a much steeper price than the price of a seed and some nutes. There are jobs and money at stake

I was blown away and I share your passion. Im glad I found the post....dont care where.

I wish u a peaceful life but I fear we still have too much to do. And we have our cards!

Mama appreciates ur view.

Exactly wouldn't you save even more with legal cannabis plus what about the selections as things progress? Help me understand I'm really lost on why this is bad, but if it is really then I don't want to add to it. Anyone ?

 

[Odin]

Its not so much "its bad" as where does this potentially go? More government control, or less? Its feeling like MORE government control to me.

Legalization of personal marijuana-related activities
Persons age 21 and older:

May possess up to one 1 ounce (28 g) of marijuana for personal consumption.

Currently I can posess up to 2 pounds. There are no limits on alcohol possession, why on pot?

May use marijuana in a non-public place such as a residence or a public establishment licensed for on site marijuana consumption.

I currently can smoke in public as I please. I'm not rude, and generally don't do it, but its still a right the only legal pot smokers in CA have. If as a medical user, I am still allowed my rights under 215? Due to the wording of Prop 19 I am not so sure this will be the case. Also, the Prop clearly states NO smoking around minors. Even if the current law says alcohol may not be consumed in the presense of minors, its a pretty much useless and unfollowed rule. That being said, will the "minor" aspect play out as an unfollowed rule, or will it be another reason to find people guilty of a crime? All my nephews and nieces have been educated from a young age about all drugs, so there is no reason I shouldn't be able to stand on my front porch and light up while my kid plays in the yard without being in violation of the law. I don't blow hits or smoke in the house with kids, nor do I pour them shots.

May grow marijuana at a private residence in a space of up to 25 square feet for personal use.

In my county, I am allowed 6 mature plants OR 12 immature plants any size, or in the alternative, 75 square feet of total canopy area AND up to 2 pounds of trimmed bud. 25 square feet is a joke.

What bothers me the most about the text of Prop 19 is the frequent use of "Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law..." Throughout basically the entire Proposition.

While that is open to interpretation by the courts, my understanding of that statement is: the law stands regardless of any other law. Any changes made by it are permanent. You can not change it by any other law and no law already in existance will resist whatever happens as a result of this new law. Basically it appears to me this law supersedes Prop 215. Of course it is open for interpretation by the courts, but I think you understand what I am saying. And by all means if my interpretation of legal mumbo jumbo is misguided I am all ears. My cousin dated a lawyer for several years, and unfortunately half the knowledge just went in one ear, and out the other. I have read over Prop 19 about 5 times now and these are my simplified thoughts on it.

My hope is that either A) it is voted down, and brought back to the ballots the way it should be, or B) it is voted in, and not overturned despite the will of the voters. After we see that it is, and here to stay, I would hope it is quickly revised to a more realisitic law.

Also the local LEOs and the Feds regularly raid MMJ collective grows, dispensaries, and personal grows here in California. California legal citizens have their rights violated evey single day here. What makes you think at least for a while, the Feds aren't going to vamp up their efforts to prosecute people who are again legal under state law, but ultimately illegal due to Federal law? Not to mention the whole slew of people who are going to be in posession of more than an ounce, and more than 25 square feet of canopy. The county Sheriff just wrote a letter to the local newspaper explicitly detailing how he will continue to fight marijuana, both recreational and medicinal. Been trying to vote his ass out, but the county keeps voting him back.

Like I said, everyone seems to think we are smooth sailing. I think its all just begining. If you dig back to one of my first posts, you can read my story on the War on Drugs in California based on my life time experience, and why I personally believe we are far from victory. I hope for the best but knowing the Government, how they have operated the last 100 years, and how they have been operating in California since Prop 215, I know its not over yet. I just really hope I am 100% wrong.

 

[DrProfessor]

Really that's your answer .......for real paranoid much come on man seriously! There's 20 million illegals in this country that the DOJ would love to deport. They can't get them but they will find your sorry ass little stash and put you away. I don't know about you but when you write it out is looks MAD SILLY.

Hell no there is no smooth sailing there is always a wave some place, but if you don't get to the lake you can't sail shit. Smooth or rough ........this fight will probably never be over check Roe Vs Wade is that over.?.........I'll wait ....you gotta fight as long as your in the octagon or until your opponent taps. Unfortunately were going to have to break limbs to get things right the dark side is strong with them.

 

[greengo840]

Its not so much "its bad" as where does this potentially go? More government control, or less? Its feeling like MORE government control to me.



Currently I can posess up to 2 pounds. There are no limits on alcohol possession, why on pot?



I currently can smoke in public as I please. I'm not rude, and generally don't do it, but its still a right the only legal pot smokers in CA have. If as a medical user, I am still allowed my rights under 215? Due to the wording of Prop 19 I am not so sure this will be the case. Also, the Prop clearly states NO smoking around minors. Even if the current law says alcohol may not be consumed in the presense of minors, its a pretty much useless and unfollowed rule. That being said, will the "minor" aspect play out as an unfollowed rule, or will it be another reason to find people guilty of a crime? All my nephews and nieces have been educated from a young age about all drugs, so there is no reason I shouldn't be able to stand on my front porch and light up while my kid plays in the yard without being in violation of the law. I don't blow hits or smoke in the house with kids, nor do I pour them shots.



In my county, I am allowed 6 mature plants OR 12 immature plants any size, or in the alternative, 75 square feet of total canopy area AND up to 2 pounds of trimmed bud. 25 square feet is a joke.

What bothers me the most about the text of Prop 19 is the frequent use of "Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law..." Throughout basically the entire Proposition.

While that is open to interpretation by the courts, my understanding of that statement is: the law stands regardless of any other law. Any changes made by it are permanent. You can not change it by any other law and no law already in existance will resist whatever happens as a result of this new law. Basically it appears to me this law supersedes Prop 215. Of course it is open for interpretation by the courts, but I think you understand what I am saying. And by all means if my interpretation of legal mumbo jumbo is misguided I am all ears. My cousin dated a lawyer for several years, and unfortunately half the knowledge just went in one ear, and out the other. I have read over Prop 19 about 5 times now and these are my simplified thoughts on it.

My hope is that either A) it is voted down, and brought back to the ballots the way it should be, or B) it is voted in, and not overturned despite the will of the voters. After we see that it is, and here to stay, I would hope it is quickly revised to a more realisitic law.

Also the local LEOs and the Feds regularly raid MMJ collective grows, dispensaries, and personal grows here in California. California legal citizens have their rights violated evey single day here. What makes you think at least for a while, the Feds aren't going to vamp up their efforts to prosecute people who are again legal under state law, but ultimately illegal due to Federal law? Not to mention the whole slew of people who are going to be in posession of more than an ounce, and more than 25 square feet of canopy. The county Sheriff just wrote a letter to the local newspaper explicitly detailing how he will continue to fight marijuana, both recreational and medicinal. Been trying to vote his ass out, but the county keeps voting him back.

Like I said, everyone seems to think we are smooth sailing. I think its all just begining. If you dig back to one of my first posts, you can read my story on the War on Drugs in California based on my life time experience, and why I personally believe we are far from victory. I hope for the best but knowing the Government, how they have operated the last 100 years, and how they have been operating in California since Prop 215, I know its not over yet. I just really hope I am 100% wrong.

"Currently I can posess up to 2 pounds. There are no limits on alcohol possession, why on pot?"

Not true. Any amount of alcohol is illegal if the container is open and you’re in a car or public. Who the fuck needs to drive or walk around with 2 pounds, someone in the bizz maybe, but not the individual consumer. Your 2 lbs. will be safe at home; hopefully that ounce will be enough till you get there.

I agree in principle and people should be allowed to have as much as they want, but prop 19 serves more individuals, not just you, myself, and every other swinging dick with a doctor’s note (ladies included, but I just read a military journal and was dying to use the term.)

"I currently can smoke in public as I please. I'm not rude, and generally don't do it, but its still a right the only legal pot smokers in CA have. If as a medical user, I am still allowed my rights under 215? Due to the wording of Prop 19 I am not so sure this will be the case. Also, the Prop clearly states NO smoking around minors. Even if the current law says alcohol may not be consumed in the presense of minors, its a pretty much useless and unfollowed rule. That being said, will the "minor" aspect play out as an unfollowed rule, or will it be another reason to find people guilty of a crime? All my nephews and nieces have been educated from a young age about all drugs, so there is no reason I shouldn't be able to stand on my front porch and light up while my kid plays in the yard without being in violation of the law. I don't blow hits or smoke in the house with kids, nor do I pour them shots."

With few exceptions, people shouldn't be medicating in public. It's legal to drink in front of one's child, but all things considered, that's not always the wisest impression to leave on the young and impressionable. Same logic applies to pot. People do it, but the wisdom of doing so could be debated.

Feel free to release the wording that you believe "supersedes" patient rights as defined in 215. Others would be interested in proving this beyond the chopped up memories of a sibling's past lover's knowledge.

"In my county, I am allowed 6 mature plants OR 12 immature plants any size, or in the alternative, 75 square feet of total canopy area AND up to 2 pounds of trimmed bud. 25 square feet is a joke."

I understand you here, but I assure you that in my 3 x 3 tent I can knock out a hellava load for myself and anyone lucky enough to be a buddy. You appear to be the more experienced grower, and I sympathize, but these are the areas of improvement to be worked on. 5 x 5 isn’t so bad if you're growing for yourself.

And with your concerns around raids, you are correct in that they continue at noisome. To this I say numbers my friend! These nefarious characters do raid the dispensaries and/or quit grow houses as is; Prop 19 will may not provide an immediate stop to them, but it will increase consumer access and availability, as well as flood the state with users and personal home growers. The lies will be exposed as more voters come to realize that the sky's falling doesn’t coincide with Cannabis' proliferation.

People with a medical rec should above all others, understand why more people should have safe access to cannabis.

 

[Odin]

Sigh. I expected more out of 420 Magazine. Censorship without even so much as a private message. Pretty low.

 

[Odin]

"Currently I can posess up to 2 pounds. There are no limits on alcohol possession, why on pot?"

Not true. Any amount of alcohol is illegal if the container is open and you’re in a car or public. Who the fuck needs to drive or walk around with 2 pounds, someone in the bizz maybe, but not the individual consumer. Your 2 lbs. will be safe at home; hopefully that ounce will be enough till you get there.

I agree in principle and people should be allowed to have as much as they want, but prop 19 serves more individuals, not just you, myself, and every other swinging dick with a doctor’s note (ladies included, but I just read a military journal and was dying to use the term.)

"I currently can smoke in public as I please. I'm not rude, and generally don't do it, but its still a right the only legal pot smokers in CA have. If as a medical user, I am still allowed my rights under 215? Due to the wording of Prop 19 I am not so sure this will be the case. Also, the Prop clearly states NO smoking around minors. Even if the current law says alcohol may not be consumed in the presense of minors, its a pretty much useless and unfollowed rule. That being said, will the "minor" aspect play out as an unfollowed rule, or will it be another reason to find people guilty of a crime? All my nephews and nieces have been educated from a young age about all drugs, so there is no reason I shouldn't be able to stand on my front porch and light up while my kid plays in the yard without being in violation of the law. I don't blow hits or smoke in the house with kids, nor do I pour them shots."

With few exceptions, people shouldn't be medicating in public. It's legal to drink in front of one's child, but all things considered, that's not always the wisest impression to leave on the young and impressionable. Same logic applies to pot. People do it, but the wisdom of doing so could be debated.

Feel free to release the wording that you believe "supersedes" patient rights as defined in 215. Others would be interested in proving this beyond the chopped up memories of a sibling's past lover's knowledge.

"In my county, I am allowed 6 mature plants OR 12 immature plants any size, or in the alternative, 75 square feet of total canopy area AND up to 2 pounds of trimmed bud. 25 square feet is a joke."

I understand you here, but I assure you that in my 3 x 3 tent I can knock out a hellava load for myself and anyone lucky enough to be a buddy. You appear to be the more experienced grower, and I sympathize, but these are the areas of improvement to be worked on. 5 x 5 isn’t so bad if you're growing for yourself.

And with your concerns around raids, you are correct in that they continue at noisome. To this I say numbers my friend! These nefarious characters do raid the dispensaries and/or quit grow houses as is; Prop 19 will may not provide an immediate stop to them, but it will increase consumer access and availability, as well as flood the state with users and personal home growers. The lies will be exposed as more voters come to realize that the sky's falling doesn’t coincide with Cannabis' proliferation.

People with a medical rec should above all others, understand why more people should have safe access to cannabis.

You obviously didn't read my post. If you did, you didn't comprehend. I provided my opinion and my understanding of the law. You telling me I am wrong based on me saying I could be wrong is not proof I am wrong. Please define the bill to me in a manner other than I intepreted it, and I will gladly accept a correction. The legal mumbo jumbo is explained how I understand it, from community college law classes to what lawyers have told me, and a couple google searches. If I am wrong, please clarify how Prop 19 does not overrule Prop 215. Also, your assertion that "people with a medical rec should above all others, understand why more people should hae safe access to cannabis" reveals how little you comprehended from my post. I want MORE access for EVERYONE, not less!!! That is my whole point!!! Nowhere did I state I wanted people to be able to possess 25 ounces in joints while driving down the road. I can go to Bevmo and buy 10 kegs of beer if I want. Why not should we all be allowed to grow and possess as much as we want?! Why is this a bad thing?! I just don't get the opposition on that.