Medical Marijuana Entrepreneurs Aren't All For Legalizing Weed Via Prop. 19

[Odin]

Defiantly changed the way the the rest of the world feels about us for the better and unfortunately yes we do need the rest of the world to survive. Some say fuck everyone we should do our thing yeah there is a few countries like that we call them Korea, Iran, and Venezuela. Thing is two of them have way more oil than we do can't exactly run our tanks off solar.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I strongly disagree with you right here. We have the ability to be self sufficent, we don't need the rest of the world for anything except cheap Chinese crap at Walmart. We are sitting on who knows how much oil on our own soil and off our own shores, yet we are prevented from ultilizing it. Honestly, what is one thing we can't grow or produce here in the USA? We need to lock our borders down, bring all our men and women from around the world home, and do our own thing. Free trade is a good thing though, there really is no need to stop all of it, but why make fat cats in China, or Saudi Arabia rich from stuff we could be producing here anyway.

One good thing Bush has done I challenge anyone please educate me because I cannot think of one or find one. We are worse as a nation because of his policies nobody is arguing that Obama has a shit ton of work to do but WE ALL KNEW THAT so why is it a surprise. I'm not happy either but I'm happier than any of the other choices he just needs bigger nuts

I think Bush sucks as much as everyone else, but people seem to completely forget that he did do good things. For example - tax cuts. Going back to what I just said, free trade. More free trade statutes and free trade pacts were enacted and signed, respectively, during the Bush administration than during the three prior administrations combined. He was responsible for a lot of business/lawsuit/tort reform. For example the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act, The Healthy Forests Restoration Act, The Energy Policy Act and The Class Action Reform Act, which some might see as a bad thing, but personally, I think we need less lawsuits in the country, not more.

So there you have it, I took up your challenge hehe. Anyway, we all know Presidents are just tools for people behind the scenes. They all suck, especially the guys behind the scenes. Lets get someone in office that isn't a tool for once.

 

[DrProfessor]

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I strongly disagree with you right here. We have the ability to be self sufficent, we don't need the rest of the world for anything except cheap Chinese crap at Walmart. We are sitting on who knows how much oil on our own soil and off our own shores, yet we are prevented from ultilizing it. Honestly, what is one thing we can't grow or produce here in the USA? We need to lock our borders down, bring all our men and women from around the world home, and do our own thing. Free trade is a good thing though, there really is no need to stop all of it, but why make fat cats in China, or Saudi Arabia rich from stuff we could be producing here anyway.


Not really it's fairly hard to get to that why we are not doing it now see BP if you don't think so ask the gulf coast.


I think Bush sucks as much as everyone else, but people seem to completely forget that he did do good things. For example - tax cuts. Going back to what I just said, free trade. More free trade statutes and free trade pacts were enacted and signed, respectively, during the Bush administration than during the three prior administrations combined. He was responsible for a lot of business/lawsuit/tort reform. For example the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act, The Healthy Forests Restoration Act, The Energy Policy Act and The Class Action Reform Act, which some might see as a bad thing, but personally, I think we need less lawsuits in the country, not more.

So there you have it, I took up your challenge hehe. Anyway, we all know Presidents are just tools for people behind the scenes. They all suck, especially the guys behind the scenes. Lets get someone in office that isn't a tool for once.

You failed because you couldn't name who you would have as a real president with better policies.


Clinton is responsible for NAFTA not bush and Bush's trade agreements are mostly for big companies what good has it done we are worse off.


Environmentally his Acts were not his and don't really do anything that wasn't already covered.
Class action reform act=for big business
tax cuts=for the rich and part of why we are broke.
All of the free trade you speak of= why we have had so many jobs shipped overseas. Trust me on that I'm part of a corporation that specifically deals with NAFTA.

Less lawsuits on big corps yes the liability is limited check BP.

 

[DrProfessor]

And how and the hell does any of what you pointed out make us better he still did nothing but harm the entire time he should be in jail.

 

[DrProfessor]

I'm a huge Tommy fan but realistically we probably have the best guy available doing the job right now. And that's not saying much

 

[DrProfessor]

I say quit beating up on the men in office and look to the real evil...the association of our government with corporate america.


I see it I see it..... Mama but why are so many so lost we have really lost our focus. Forget about peoples memory because it's gone not one person seems to remember where we were just 2 years ago.

Maybe old Rom Emanual was right about us?

 

[DrProfessor]

I'd rather smoke with everyone than argue but I'm super worried and all I've heard is that things are not good enough. Guess what you are all right so change it work to change things. I see elections won all over the country with no challenger WTF that's not a democracy. Then these dumb asses help elect their buddy to governor and they get to run states like Oklahoma (Tom Colburn YUCK) and they hold the rest of the nation that wants to move forward back. I've said it before I'll say it again you start looking down the worm hole and it never ends.

 

[Mama Train]

America keeps voting them in! How long did Ted Stevens serve? After awhile it becomes a part of the machine...taking the graft, feeling entitled. Supporting certain special interests and industries because they get a new addition to the house, trips, partnerships in businesses, stock options, cool real estate deals, college educations for their kids, jobs for family members. (I served these jokers dinner many times because they frequented a restaurant i worked in...I HAVE HEARD THE CONVERSATIONS AT THE TABLE, THE JOKES ABOUT the ISSUES, the things that change hands...THATS ALL I WILL SAY HERE) You have no idea how many times I saw a state legislator nip into the head 4 a line and come out and spew their retoric at the table with a wink wink nod nod. If u think they r not in it 4 what they can get and that ther r really stupid, not parroting the lobbiests garbage to the people so they get their next donation, gift, or downright cash payoff the u r fooling urself. Ther are a few really dumb ones, a few really good ones...but the ,majority are just what I am talking about here.
What we do to expose their BS and move our issue forward is the question.

 

[DrProfessor]

Well of course why do you spend 300 million to obtain a job that pays 400,000 that's shitty business first off. Unless the connections and power and hidden wealth is worth it Im sure it's Really Nice lots and lots of money, women, whatever they can shake us down for. What I worry about is the ones that use god to justify their agendas this takes us back 2000 years.

 

[TorturedSoul]

Approval ratings when after 911 or when he left his average for 2 terms was 35% that is a fact and a mutherfucking F no mater how you slice it.

Approval ratings, lol. Things that bring to mind popularity contests should be left in high (if not grade) school where they belong. Harry S. Truman received the lowest (ever) approval rating of 22% - and the highest one to be recorded until 1991 of 87%. Who broke his "record" in '91? George H. W. Bush, who managed 89%. His lowest was 29%. Nixon only received a high of 67% and a low of 23% or 24%, yet he arguably did a lot of things for the environment and against segregation. (Speaking of popularity contests, many felt that he lost to Kennedy because Kennedy "looked better on television;" indeed, the numbers would seem to support this when viewed in context of their radio vs. their television debate.) A lot of people believe that his biggest political f'up was his part in the Watergate cover-up. Personally, I feel that he just got caught doing something the likes of which others have done both before and since - only they didn't get caught - and that his big gaffe was formally declaring "war on drugs" on June 17, 1971 (and unlike those who came after (with the exception of Reagan who, while likable enough, wasn't all that intelligent), he seems to have actually believed in the concept. So I've got to give him some credit even on that one for doing something he believed in.). And then there's Carter. His approval ratings sucked (high of 75%, low of 28%) but he seemed (both then and now) to be the most compassionate of the "modern era" Presidents. Those numbers might, perhaps, be explained by the economic situation of the time - recession, inflation, energy crisis - and the fact that he had a hostile Congress. He encouraged conservationism, not just by making speeches, but also by having solar panels installed on the roof of the White House. And his method was not just a "publicity" thing where he'd say one thing to the public whilst doing the opposite in private; he also turned down the thermostats and wore sweaters. He seemed to do (or at least try to do) what he believed in inasmuch as it was possible to do so, regardless of both public approval and the difficulties he faced with Congress. (He also suggested during his campaigning that decriminalizing cannabis would be a good thing and told Congress in '77, "Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use.")

Obama's approval is low now yes but what part of that is congress and what part is him.

Strong record of opposing handguns (et al) and favoring gun-control in general, yet when he was fighting with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal order of Police, he voted (in the IL senate) for a bill that allowed retired LEOs to carry concealed handguns.

Strongly opposed NAFTA while campaigning in Ohio (called it "devastating" and "a big mistake"). Then - in a later interview with Fortune magazine - backpedaled in the other direction and stated that, "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," and, "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself."

Campaigned for the cannabis culture vote, then literally laughed at them during a televised Q&A session after becoming President.

Got lots of publicity with his promise of more than $8 billion in federal loan guarantees for two Georgia nuclear plants, which would be the first built in more than three decades. He also announced that his budget would triple loan guarantees for nuclear plants, declaring that, "to meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple." But he also killed the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility. Pretty much making sure that nuclear energy development would stop.

Made a campaign statement in Oregon (which definitely has its share of conservationists)that, "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times..." But then turned the White House thermostats UP well-past 72° because "he's from Hawaii."

Told Congress that it needs to curtail spending whilst simultaneously sinking trillions into short-term economic "solutions." (Ask even a first-year economic student what the long-term benefits to such a strategy are other than possibly to help set Obama up for a reelection campaign in a nation which turns out to have more than its share of voters who have both the attention-span of the average-length television commercial and the practical IQ to match. But that would not in truth be considered to be "long-term" in any context other than one in which the American public was the sole participant, lol.)

Repeatedly stated during his campaign that the war in Iraq made America less secure - and then told the troops at Ft. Bliss that, "because of the extraordinary service that all of you have done, and so many people here at Fort Bliss have done, Iraq has an opportunity to create a better future for itself, and America is more secure."

[At this point I realize that I could go on and on in listing these... contradictions. I have done a bit of research on issues that he has been involved with. Not because I dislike the man on both a personal and political level (although I freely admit that I do) but, rather... You see, the fact of the matter is that I actually voted for the man (in the primaries against Hillary Clinton) - and I keep trying to find some after-the-fact justification for having done so. So far I haven't had much luck. But I keep trying. The more I try to find justification for that vote, the more I learn of his, well, it's late and I'm tired and simply cannot think of a term other than "two-faced" behavior. While most, if not all, politicians have evidenced such behavior to one degree or another, I'm unable to think of another who has been so consistent that a person would be hard-pressed to come up with a single issue that he has not either stated one thing while doing the opposite or told people while campaigning one thing (and occasionally told others the opposite while campaigning in another location) and then turned around 180° after getting elected. His voting record while a senator also seemed to disagree with his Presidential campaign promises. <SHRUGS> You'll have that, right? Who bothers to remember last week? As far as I can tell, the best thing that can be said of him is that he has made no real secret of such behavior.]

did he save the auto companies Yes.

While I am happy for you that you still have a job, I don't really feel that guaranteeing that you were able to do so was really of tantamount importance in the greater scheme of things. In so doing, he ran contrary to the whole "capitalist free-market system;" those auto companies that he bailed out ran willingly into the hole that they were in (after digging it themselves) and that after decades of hurting the environment, the alternate-energy movement... And the average wage-earner. While it is true that many "foreign" car manufacturers have and have had help from their respective governments, theirs were almost universally NOT along the same lines - but rather help that was given to industries/companies that clearly showed that they deserved the help. Americans don't purchase foreign automobiles simply because they're cheap (Have you priced a Japanese vehicle lately? LMAO) but because they've traditionally been more fuel-efficient and of a higher overall quality than their domestic counterparts. When domestic automakers were quashing new technology, safety innovations, and other things along those lines because to embrace them meant less short-term profits, foreign automakers were embracing them because their idea of the future stretched past next Tuesday. If I see someone get hit by a bus, I'll do what I can to help save them. But if I see someone shoot them self in the head (after trying to shoot others first, lol), I might not spend nearly as much effort. Why? I'd figure that they wanted to die - and that they'd just find a way to do a better job of it next time.

Defiantly changed the way the the rest of the world feels about us for the better

Uhh... Have you got any documentation on that one, lol?

Probably saved what was left of your parents 401k so they won't be out on the street.

Huh? I've actually seen a couple of retired people go back to work because their retirement "nest egg" cracked.

I could go on Bush set us back 20 years that's the simple truth tell me how Bush is even better than Richard Nixon he did way more for the country and is one of the worst ever.

I didn't think much of GW Bush's Presidency. I believe that he only really ran for political office in the first place because of his "acceptance issues" with his father. He was obviously happier when he was drilling dry hole after dry hole while he was an oil wildcatter. His first official act after becoming governor of Texas was to have himself issued a new driver's license number (in Texas, as in many states, a person gets ONE DL number for life). One surely must wonder what the purpose of such an act was - other than to destroy records of his drunken driving and cocaine arrests. He often seemed to be uninterested in his job as President, unversed with the current issues, and improperly equipped (mentally) to deal with them.

But... Could you state on what grounds do you base your statement that Nixon was "one of the worst ever?" And, can you do so without using the word "Watergate?"

 

[goblinmarket]

You do have to spend to get out of a recession. And there could have been a genuinely good stimulus if the Republicans hadn't forced it to be watered down with tax cuts. We didn't spend anywhere near close to what was needed. That was called before the thing was even voted on. But there wasn't political capital to do otherwise.

If someone lists Watergate as a reason nixon was one of the worst, they have a point. It was so incredibly stupid. Although I would prefer mentioning Cambodia. And William Rehnquist. And the Southern Strategy.

Carter isn't given enough credit. Those solar panels need to be put back on the White House.

 

[DrProfessor]

Approval ratings, lol. Things that bring to mind popularity contests should be left in high (if not grade) school where they belong. Harry S. Truman received the lowest (ever) approval rating of 22% - and the highest one to be recorded until 1991 of 87%. Who broke his "record" in '91? George H. W. Bush, who managed 89%. His lowest was 29%. Nixon only received a high of 67% and a low of 23% or 24%, yet he arguably did a lot of things for the environment and against segregation. (Speaking of popularity contests, many felt that he lost to Kennedy because Kennedy "looked better on television;" indeed, the numbers would seem to support this when viewed in context of their radio vs. their television debate.) A lot of people believe that his biggest political f'up was his part in the Watergate cover-up. Personally, I feel that he just got caught doing something the likes of which others have done both before and since - only they didn't get caught - and that his big gaffe was formally declaring "war on drugs" on June 17, 1971 (and unlike those who came after (with the exception of Reagan who, while likable enough, wasn't all that intelligent), he seems to have actually believed in the concept. So I've got to give him some credit even on that one for doing something he believed in.). And then there's Carter. His approval ratings sucked (high of 75%, low of 28%) but he seemed (both then and now) to be the most compassionate of the "modern era" Presidents. Those numbers might, perhaps, be explained by the economic situation of the time - recession, inflation, energy crisis - and the fact that he had a hostile Congress. He encouraged conservationism, not just by making speeches, but also by having solar panels installed on the roof of the White House. And his method was not just a "publicity" thing where he'd say one thing to the public whilst doing the opposite in private; he also turned down the thermostats and wore sweaters. He seemed to do (or at least try to do) what he believed in inasmuch as it was possible to do so, regardless of both public approval and the difficulties he faced with Congress. (He also suggested during his campaigning that decriminalizing cannabis would be a good thing and told Congress in '77, "Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use.")



Strong record of opposing handguns (et al) and favoring gun-control in general, yet when he was fighting with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal order of Police, he voted (in the IL senate) for a bill that allowed retired LEOs to carry concealed handguns.

Strongly opposed NAFTA while campaigning in Ohio (called it "devastating" and "a big mistake"). Then - in a later interview with Fortune magazine - backpedaled in the other direction and stated that, "Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," and, "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself."

Campaigned for the cannabis culture vote, then literally laughed at them during a televised Q&A session after becoming President.

Got lots of publicity with his promise of more than $8 billion in federal loan guarantees for two Georgia nuclear plants, which would be the first built in more than three decades. He also announced that his budget would triple loan guarantees for nuclear plants, declaring that, "to meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple." But he also killed the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility. Pretty much making sure that nuclear energy development would stop.

Made a campaign statement in Oregon (which definitely has its share of conservationists)that, "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times..." But then turned the White House thermostats UP well-past 72° because "he's from Hawaii."

You know this is what his thermostat is set atYour a smart dude

Really you are talking about his thermostat seriously he runs the fucking country if the man wants it 80 with clouds and flowers that's fine he's probably earned it. I think a presidential schedule even Bush's weak one would smoke you like a blunt.

This is a lame point!,,,,

Told Congress that it needs to curtail spending whilst simultaneously sinking trillions into short-term economic "solutions." (Ask even a first-year economic student what the long-term benefits to such a strategy are other than possibly to help set Obama up for a reelection campaign in a nation which turns out to have more than its share of voters who have both the attention-span of the average-length television commercial and the practical IQ to match. But that would not in truth be considered to be "long-term" in any context other than one in which the American public was the sole participant, lol.)
That's obvious because how quickly we forget where we were headed, also kinda my point we should be speaking out way more this is not what we signed up for.

This is why I never posted before long ass BS you can't say the sky is blue without crap talk constantly on anything. Peace I'll see the 420 folks later much later I have more important shit to do then bicker about how fucked up things are. Thats right they are we all agree but bicker exactly why we get exactly shit out of our elected officials and they continue to play us. No focus on a goal sometimes to get to the top you have to take a different route. We get all riled up because our freedoms are gone and fight amongst each other because we're not all in agreement on how much freedom we should have. Silly ass!,,, tricks are for kids THEY PLAY US AGAINST each other don't you get it. Look at prop 19 perfect example they have some actually thinking it will be bad for MMJ the price will drop, they will raid us Bla bla bla create uncertainty and split us fairly easy. I'm out folks Good Luck And Chronic to all the Dr will not be back.


Bla bla bla I said already he gets a C at best and earlier stated polls mean shit

Trillions No not even close get the facts strait.
Repeatedly stated during his campaign that the war in Iraq made America less secure - and then told the troops at Ft. Bliss that, "because of the extraordinary service that all of you have done, and so many people here at Fort Bliss have done, Iraq has an opportunity to create a better future for itself, and America is more secure."

[At this point I realize that I could go on and on in listing these... contradictions. I have done a bit of research on issues that he has been involved with. Not because I dislike the man on both a personal and political level (although I freely admit that I do) but, rather... You see, the fact of the matter is that I actually voted for the man (in the primaries against Hillary Clinton) - and I keep trying to find some after-the-fact justification for having done so. So far I haven't had much luck. But I keep trying. The more I try to find justification for that vote, the more I learn of his, well, it's late and I'm tired and simply cannot think of a term other than "two-faced" behavior. While most, if not all, politicians have evidenced such behavior to one degree or another, I'm unable to think of another who has been so consistent that a person would be hard-pressed to come up with a single issue that he has not either stated one thing while doing the opposite or told people while campaigning one thing (and occasionally told others the opposite while campaigning in another location) and then turned around 180° after getting elected. His voting record while a senator also seemed to disagree with his Presidential campaign promises. <SHRUGS> You'll have that, right? Who bothers to remember last week? As far as I can tell, the best thing that can be said of him is that he has made no real secret of such behavior.]



While I am happy for you that you still have a job, I don't really feel that guaranteeing that you were able to do so was really of tantamount importance in the greater scheme of things. In so doing, he ran contrary to the whole "capitalist free-market system;" those auto companies that he bailed out ran willingly into the hole that they were in (after digging it themselves) and that after decades of hurting the environment, the alternate-energy movement... And the average wage-earner. While it is true that many "foreign" car manufacturers have and have had help from their respective governments, theirs were almost universally NOT along the same lines - but rather help that was given to industries/companies that clearly showed that they deserved the help. Americans don't purchase foreign automobiles simply because they're cheap (Have you priced a Japanese vehicle lately? LMAO) but because they've traditionally been more fuel-efficient and of a higher overall quality than their domestic counterparts. When domestic automakers were quashing new technology, safety innovations, and other things along those lines because to embrace them meant less short-term profits, foreign automakers were embracing them because their idea of the future stretched past next Tuesday. If I see someone get hit by a bus, I'll do what I can to help save them. But if I see someone shoot them self in the head (after trying to shoot others first, lol), I might not spend nearly as much effort. Why? I'd figure that they wanted to die - and that they'd just find a way to do a better job of it next time.



Uhh... Have you got any documentation on that one, lol?

Probably saved what was left of your parents 401k so they won't be out on the street.

Huh? I've actually seen a couple of retired people go back to work because their retirement "nest egg" cracked.




I didn't think much of GW Bush's Presidency. I believe that he only really ran for political office in the first place because of his "acceptance issues" with his father. He was obviously happier when he was drilling dry hole after dry hole while he was an oil wildcatter. His first official act after becoming governor of Texas was to have himself issued a new driver's license number (in Texas, as in many states, a person gets ONE DL number for life). One surely must wonder what the purpose of such an act was - other than to destroy records of his drunken driving and cocaine arrests. He often seemed to be uninterested in his job as President, unversed with the current issues, and improperly equipped (mentally) to deal with them.

But... Could you state on what grounds do you base your statement that Nixon was "one of the worst ever?" And, can you do so without using the word "Watergate?"

 

[DrProfessor]

Why did the nest egg crack and who set us up for this Champ?

Shit they wanted to bleed us even more just imagine if everyones "nest egg" had all of their Social Security they will be back for it though don't worry. We can't focus long enough without sniveling and switching sides that's why we are here ya think?

They can they have their eyes on the $ as we speak.

 

[DrProfessor]

You know absolutely crap about the automotive industry and it shows.......I might have thought the same as you until I actual started to work for a Automotive Supplier and see the system and understand the design and manufacturing process.

I'm not even going to get at it it would take too long. Know this these foreign car plants are usually completely subsidized buy the state and or city They're built in from free land for plants to tax breaks equal or greater to the initial investment the manufacture would incur. We don't even know what they get from Korea, Japan, China as far as assistance. Don't be a simpleton there is so much more to this.

And not just my job son 3 million jobs that would probably not be here right now

 

[Odin]

You failed because you couldn't name who you would have as a real president with better policies.


Clinton is responsible for NAFTA not bush and Bush's trade agreements are mostly for big companies what good has it done we are worse off.


Environmentally his Acts were not his and don't really do anything that wasn't already covered.
Class action reform act=for big business
tax cuts=for the rich and part of why we are broke.
All of the free trade you speak of= why we have had so many jobs shipped overseas. Trust me on that I'm part of a corporation that specifically deals with NAFTA.

Less lawsuits on big corps yes the liability is limited check BP.

I fail because I don't provide an alternative? To me thats more of a fail on logic, on your part.

 

[greengo840]

Yeah I don't know if I would call everyone kicking and screaming the whole way totally in. The only reason the majority of week Dem's went along was they were being called non patriotic "they attacked us" as in Afganistan and Iraq. The country was hurting the Republicans replaced that hurt with what is the natural next emotion for all humans FEAR sprinkled in a little bullshit and lies and there you have it. Bush wanted a war and he was determined to have one. Highest approval rating of any president ever when right after 911 then what......I'll wait......oh yeah people started to see him for the criminal he is and what was it when he left oh yeah 29% so even the dumb asses left him. Average approval for both terms 35% that's a Fucking F in any grading curve. Take away the rich and I would guess it's half that. Please don't talk to me about Bush he should be in prison as we speak along with Rove and Dick. If you want to defend Bush go ahead the simple fact is I wish I was wrong, I wish he had left the country as he found it But he didn't he royally screwed us for a long long time. Will we come out? I'm not going to say we won't but I am defiantly concerned. I suggest you read something else because whatever that crap is your on now is bunk. I'm going to stop now about the politics but really that's all it is who can maneuver for position to bleed the cash from the American people.

Oh and so you know I have no affiliation with any party they all suck. I just have a real love to smash on the Bush......I voted for Obama and so far considering the gift he's was
left to unwrap he has a C his drug policy and war polices only slightly better than "W" but better none the less.......Still shity but wee can at least take a breath let the Republicans back in office and see what kinda crap they pull I'm worried at least a little.

I'm no GWB fan. You missed the point completely. And the book you so quickly dismissed is an unbiased text book written by a couple of very bright individuals. It's merely a collection of raw data.

Your focus on Republican vs. Democrat is a product of fear. Both parties have sold out on your freedoms and rights, and yet you blindly condemn one and praise the other as a lessor of two evils rather than speak objectively. Both parties support and encourage (perhaps not in speech but in action) NAFTA, foreign geostrategic expansion, Globalization, and an expansion of Federal power. Bill Clinton started much of this shit, GWB accelerated the process with insane religious zealousness, and BO is continuing most of the Bush policies.

If you chose to read books rather than dismiss without knowing than perhaps your argumentative abilities could move beyond the juvenile "but they did this," and come up with a solution rather than handing out grades which I'm sure no one will lose sleep over.

Smashing Bush is easy; getting people to listen to reason is not.

Ron Paul for pres!!

 

[greengo840]

Tommy Chong for president 2012!!

Ok, I'm in.

Stern/Stewart 2012!!!

Chong would serve better as secretary of state in my humble view. He'd be great on those foreign trips, sending nothing but positive vibes.

 

[YouGrowBoy]

I work with activists in Riverside Ca, and there's a lot die hard stoners on the side of No. There are some arguments for both. One very knowledgeable and hard working activist in Riverside, Lanny Swerdlow asked me to post his comments about prop 19 and why it's imperative we vote yes. Here's Lanny's view with comments from prominent cannabis attorney J. David Nick.

From Lanny Swerdlow:
For my support of Prop. 19, I have been subject to the scorn, approbation and the most demoralizing denunciations imaginable by a group of medical marijuana patients exhibiting what can only be termed "medical reefer madness."

With the best of intentions based on a poorly researched legal analysis, these anti-19 folks have joined forces with the people whose indifference and outright hostility have resulted in, and continue to result in, the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of thousands of medical marijuana patients.

Their never-ending harangues that Prop. 215 will go into the trash can of history if Prop. 19 is passed is causing medical marijuana patients extreme anxiety and leading them to question their support of this historic and critical piece of reform legislation. Graphically describing the horrors that will descend like a plague of locusts on unsuspecting medical marijuana patients if Prop. 19 passes, the anti-19 cabal insinuates that we are being duped by unscrupulous and untrustworthy people like Chris Conrad, Judge Jim Gray, Dale Gerringer, Dr. Frank Lucido, State Senator Mark Leno, Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, Jeff Jones, Mark Emery and hundreds of others. To see a list of all their claimed enemies of medical marijuana patients, go to: Endorsements | yeson19.com

To reveal the fallacy of their arguments and to stop stressing patients, I asked my friend, and frankly the friend of every medical marijuana patient in the state of California, J. David Nick, to weigh in on the controversy.

For 18 years, David Nick has successfully litigated a cornucopia of issues regarding cannabis and the applicable laws in both trial and appellate courts. He has not confined his practice to marijuana law, but also litigates cases involving constitutional rights and criminal procedure.

David Nick has never lost a jury trial in a state marijuana case including many precedent setting trials involving some of the most revered figures in the medical marijuana movement such as Brownie Mary, Dennis Peron (Nick has been Peron's sole attorney since 1994) and Steve Kubby.

One of Nick's early defenses of Peron's medical marijuana activism resulted in the first appellate court decision affirming that marijuana can be sold. Kubby's case was the first large quantity (200 plants) case to be won on the argument that Kubby's serious ailments necessitated his use of cannabis to keep him alive.

A recent case of interest to patients is the Strauss case, involving a farm in Mendocino County that cultivated marijuana exclusively for a collective in Los Angeles. Nick succeeded in getting a hung jury followed by outright dismissal of all charges involving 250 pounds of processed marijuana, 200 large marijuana plants and $1.5 million in several bank accounts - not exactly consistent with the idea of small collectives with everybody planting, harvesting, trimming and singing Kumbaya.

He is currently representing collectives in Palm Springs, Riverside and Los Angeles in preemptive lawsuits asserting the rights of collectives to provide medicine to their members without undue interference from local government officials.

Nick does not confine his practice to marijuana law, but is involved in significant federal criminal litigation.

His litigation has established the right not to be searched by sniffing dogs without probable cause. This is in contract to car searches where police can search you car for no reason at all.

His litigation has lead to policies requiring police to not draw weapons in a marijuana search unless they have information that the person being apprehended is dangerous.

He has successfully litigated jury trials utilizing a necessity for life defense in order to uphold the operation of needle exchange programs.

As far as I am concerned, these experiences qualify him to provide an opinion about Prop. 19 superior to those I have read from the "sky-is-falling" alarmists

Here is Mr. Nick's analysis of the effects of Prop. 19 on medical marijuana patients. I will have a few more choice words for you to peruse at the conclusion of Mr. Nick's thoughtful, rational, reasoned, and accurate analysis.

PROP. 19 IS THE BEST THING TO HAPPEN TO MMJ PATIENTS SINCE PROP. 215

Anyone who claims that Proposition 19 will restrict or eliminate rights under the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) or the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) is simply wrong. If anything, Proposition 19 will permit individuals to grow and possess much more than ever before with patients, coops and collectives still receiving the same protections they are entitled to under the CUA and MMP.

Here is why.

The legal arguments claiming the "sky will fall" if Prop. 19 passes are based on the fallacious conclusion that the Initiative invalidates the CUA and MMP. This baseless fear stems from a flawed legal analysis which focuses on just about every portion of Prop. 19 EXCEPT the relevant portions. This flawed legal analysis is driven by an incorrect understanding of the rules of statutory construction.

Although extrinsic materials (such as legislative committee memos or voter pamphlet arguments) may not be resorted to when the legislative language is clear, courts may never ignore the purpose of the legislation. Every interpretation a court gives a statute must be consistent with the purpose of the legislation. This is why statutes have long "preambles" which explicitly state the purposes of the legislation.

This rule is so controlling that a court is required to ignore the literal language of a legislative statute if it conflicts with the purpose of the legislation. By example I call attention to the appellate court case of Bell v. DMV. In this precedent setting case, the court ruled that a statute must be interpreted to apply to civil proceedings even though the statute they were interpreting stated it applied only to "criminal" proceedings. The court's interpretation of the statute was consistent with the purposes of the legislation and the limitation to criminal cases in the statute itself was not.

PROP. 19 PROVIDES ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS TO PATIENTS FROM THE ACTIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

Section 2B presents the controlling and relevant purposes for understanding what Prop. 19 can and cannot do. This section EXPRESSLY excludes the reach of Prop. 19 from the CUA and MMP. Sections 2B (7 & 8) specifically state that the purpose of this initiative is to give municipalities total and complete control over the commercial sales of marijuana "EXCEPT as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9."

Prop. 19 makes it perfectly clear that the Initiative does NOT give municipalities any control over how medical marijuana patients obtain their medicine or how much they can possess and cultivate as the purpose of the legislation was to exempt the CUA and the MMP from local government reach. Whatever control municipalities have over patients and collectives is limited by the CUA and the MMP, not by Prop. 19.

To further reduce everyone's understandable anxiety over allowing municipalities to unduly control collectives, I direct everyone's attention to the last statute of the MMP, 11362.83, which reads. "Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or other local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws CONSISTENT with this article."

Since collectives are expressly allowed, local ordinances banning them are not consistent with the MMP. Health and Safety Code Section 11362.83, which limits municipalities ability to ban coops or overly restrict them, is unaffected by Prop. 19 as it expressly states in Sections 2B (7 & 8) that the laws created by Prop. 19 must be followed "EXCEPT as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9."

PROP. 19 PROTECTS PATIENTS PERSONAL AND COLLECTIVE CULTIVATIONS

Further protecting patients from local law enforcement actions, Section 11303 states that "no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact SEIZE or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is LAWFULLY CULTIVATED." If you are a patient, you may "lawfully cultivate" as much marijuana as medically necessary and Prop. 19 protects that right. If you are cultivating for a collective, you may "lawfully cultivate" as much marijuana as your collective allows you to and Prop. 19 protects that right. Unfortunately, many law enforcement officials refuse to recognize the rights provided under the MMP for collectives to "lawfully cultivate" and sell marijuana. Prop. 19 reinforces those rights and makes it even more difficult for law enforcement to bust a collective or collective grower.

IT WILL KEEP POLICE FROM COOPERATING WITH THE FEDS

As you can see from the above paragraph, the statutory scheme Prop. 19 creates expressly forbids law enforcement from seizing lawfully cultivated cannabis.

Prop. 19 will create an insurmountable barrier for local law enforcement which is still bent on depriving you of your rights through the despicable device of using federal law enforcement officers.

Here's why.

Federal drug enforcement is nearly 100 percent dependent on the ability to use local law enforcement. They do not have the manpower to operate without it. Prop. 19 in no uncertain terms tells local law enforcement that they cannot even "attempt to" seize cannabis. If Prop. 19 passes, California will actually have a law on the books that expressly forbids local police from cooperating with the feds in the seizure of any "lawfully cultivated" California cannabis.

PROP. 19 DOES NOT LIMIT PATIENTS RIGHTS UNDER THE CUA & MMP

The nail in the coffin for those arguing against Prop. 19 is found in Section 2C (1). This is the only section which discusses which other laws the acts is "intended to limit" and nowhere in this section is the CUA or the MMP listed. If the purpose of Prop. 19 was "to limit" the application and enforcement of the CUA and MMP, those laws would have been listed along with all the other laws that are listed in Section 2C (1). Since the CUA and MMP were not listed, then Prop. 19 does not "limit" the CUA and MMP.

It's that simple.

PROP. 19 MAKES IT EASIER FOR PATIENTS TO OBTAIN THEIR MEDICINE

Section 2B (6) states that one of the purposes of Prop. 19 is to "Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes." This section is one of the many reasons Prop. 19 is very good for patients. If Prop. 19 passes, the days of having to go through the hassle of getting a doctor's recommendation to treat simple medical conditions will be coming to an end in those communities which allow Prop. 19 "stores" to exist. When you need an aspirin you do not have to go to a doctor and then to the health department and then to Walgreens - YOU JUST GO TO WALGREENS (the founder of which, Mr. Walgreen, became rich during prohibition by selling "medical" alcohol to patients who had obtained a prescription for alcohol from their doctor).

In those communities which are stubborn and will not allow Prop 19 "stores," patients will still have the protections of the CUA and MMP and the statutory right to form coops and collectives. Prop. 19 specifically recognizes that these rights are not invalidated and does nothing to limit the ability of patients to cultivate or form collectives or coops.

PROP. 19 ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE A LOT OF MARIJUANA

As an attorney called upon to defend patients and non-patients in marijuana cases, I cannot tell you how beneficial and how much freedom Section 11300 subdivision A (3) of Prop.19 will be to cannabis users. Read it!

Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual's personal consumption, and not for sale.
(iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of ANY harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.

Section (i) limits possession to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOUSE. Section (iii) permits people 21 and over to have within their residence or single parcel ALL the cannabis which one grew in their 25 sq. foot parcel, including what you grew this year, what you grew last year and EVERY SINGLE 25 SQ. FT. HARVEST YOU EVER HAD ON THAT SINGLE PARCEL. This covers as many cycles of indoor and/or outdoor grown cannabis as a person can produce as long as each grow was no more than 25 square feet and done in succession.

Clearly section 11300(a) (i) limits personal possession and consumption to one ounce OUT OF YOUR HOME while section11300(a) (iii) is what you are allowed to have AT YOUR RESIDENCE if that is where your 25 sq. ft. garden is located. That this is the case is established by another rule of statutory construction, i.e. the specific controls the general. Here (iii) is the specific statute with respect to what you can have AT YOUR RESIDENCE ONLY or in the words of subdivision (iii) "on the premises where grown".

The one ounce limitation only applies when you leave your house, not wherever it is you grow your 25 foot plot. I can picture being able to easily defend a person with 200 pounds who is not even medical.

Under Prop. 19 you can only travel with one ounce, but if you are a patient you can still enjoy the protections of the CUA and MMP and can safely travel with eight ounces, or whatever your doctor permits you to have or the needs of your collective, as allowed by the CUA and the MMP. YOUR SUPPLY PROBLEMS CAUSED BY PARANOID CULTIVATION LAWS AND POLICIES THAT AT TIMES LIMIT YOUR PERSONAL CULTIVATION PROJECTS ARE SOLVED BY PROP. 19.

Prop. 19 creates a marijuana sanctuary IN YOUR HOME ONLY. Prop. 19 allows you to have AT YOUR HOME ONLY ALL OF THE PROCEEDS of every successive 25 sq. foot plot. However, Prop 19 only allows you TO REMOVE IT FROM YOUR HOME one ounce at a time if you are a recreational user.

For patients this is not the case because Prop. 19 exempts them from the one ounce out of home restriction. As stated above, if you are a patient then you can take out of your house up to eight ounces, or whatever your doctor permits you to have or the needs of your collective.

Both medical patients and recreational users should note that Section 11300(a) (i) allows you to "share" up to an ounce which tells me that you can furnish as many one ounces to as many friends as you wish, thus if you have a party with 50 people you could give away 50 ounces.

UNDERSTANDING "NOTWITHSTANDING"

As for the argument that the various "Notwithstanding" clauses invalidate the CUA and MMP, I reiterate, that in section 2C (1) where Prop. 19 expressly states which statues are being altered, the CUA and MMP are not listed. Therefore, when you use the word "notwithstanding," you cannot be referring to statues that have been expressly excluded.

Claiming there is some doubt as to what "notwithstanding" means or refers to requires at most that we reach back to the purpose of the legislation in order to give it proper meaning. Whatever interpretation you give it, "notwithstanding" cannot be in conflict with Sections 2 B (7 & 8) which exempt patients covered under the CUA and MMP from any actions taken by municipalities to regulate the non-medical use of cannabis.

The word "notwithstanding" is used when reversing prior legislation and has traditionally been interpreted by prior case law to be a word employed for the purpose of allowing conduct that had previously been forbidden by other statutes. If the word "notwithstanding" was not used in Prop. 19, municipalities would be able to claim that there is still a prohibition on their participation in the licensing and regulating of this activity.

For example, a law making skipping in front of a school illegal would be overturned by a law which says "notwithstanding other laws, skipping is legal." If the word "notwithstanding" was not there, then skipping in front of a school would still be illegal even though skipping itself would be legal at any other location.ddddd

The rationale behind this rule emanates or comes from another rule of statutory construction which is that existing laws cannot be repealed by inference and instead must be EXPRESSLY repealed. A court cannot find that a law, such as the CUA or MMP, was changed by "implication." In other words, it cannot repeal a law by ruling that another law implied that it should.

Although Sections 2B (7 & 8) gives cities control over the non-medical distribution of cannabis, that in no way allows a court to repeal or even change the CUA and MMP by ruling that it was "implicit" in Prop. 19 that they do so. It is contrary to any rational understanding of statutory construction to infer that since Prop. 19 gives cities control over the distribution of non-medical marijuana, that it also gives cities the right to control the medical distribution of cannabis beyond what the CUA and MMP allows.

The word "notwithstanding" is simply a legal necessity to repeal the various statutes that prohibit the conduct that prop. 19 now permits.

So can everyone please VOTE YES ON 19.

Sincerely,

J. David Nick
Attorney-at-Law

There you have it in plain simple English — patients have everything to gain and nothing to lose with the passage of Prop. 19 You can believe who you want, but ask yourself, who would you want defending you in court? J. David Nick or your choice of any or all of the authors of the anti-19 screeds?

Get real people. Do you really think the Marijuana Policy Project, National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Drug Policy Alliance, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, and Law Enforcement Against Prohibition would stand idly by, let alone support, an initiative that will undo the millions of dollars and the thousands of hours of staff time they have invested in establishing, protecting and defending the medical marijuana laws that many of themt helped put on the books in the first place?

Americans for Safe Access has chosen to stay neutral on the issue because they see themselves as strictly a medical marijuana organization and Prop. 19 is about the recreational use of marijuana, not medical. Do you think ASA would take a neutral position on Prop. 19 if they thought it would undermine Prop. 215?

The only people who will profit from the undermining of Prop. 19 are narco-cops, bail bondsmen, prison guards, Mexican drug cartels, greedy growers, profit-making collectives and old dogs that can't learn a new trick.

Those medical marijuana advocates who have chosen to dedicate their existence to defeating Prop. 19, could actually do something of benefit for the medical marijuana community if they would expend their negative energy defeating Steve Cooley, the Republican candidate for California Attorney General.

Unlike Prop. 19, this man is a real threat to medical marijuana patients. As the District Attorney for Los Angeles, he has claimed collectives have no right to sell marijuana and that collectives must be small groups where everybody gets their hands in the soil. He has spent literally millions of taxpayer dollars pursuing medical marijuana patients and providers and if elected Attorney General will probably rescind AG Jerry Brown's guidelines thereby making every collective in California that operates a storefront or delivery service illegal.

Unfortunately, the money is on him to win the AG race and if he is elected, you better hope Prop. 19 passes so he will be so busy trying to undo 19 that he won't have time to screw patients.

Don't just vote YES on 19, work with us to pass this historic initiative that will help, not hurt patients, bring compassion and common sense to marijuana law and deliver a decisive, maybe fatal blow to the war on drugs.

Lanny Swerdlow, RN, LNC

P.S. For those of you who recognize the extreme importance to patients for getting Prop. 19 passed, I encourage you to come to the Prop. 19 meeting this Wednesday, Sept. 8 at 7:30 p.m. where will begin putting into motion our college outreach program. College students are a key constituency for passage of Prop. 19 and we need your help for this critical outreach. The meeting will take place at the THCF Medical Clinic, 647 Main St., Riverside 92501. You do not need to be a college student or of college age to be involved in this program.

 

[Mama Train]

Well of course why do you spend 300 million to obtain a job that pays 400,000 that's shitty business first off. Unless the connections and power and hidden wealth is worth it Im sure it's Really Nice lots and lots of money, women, whatever they can shake us down for. What I worry about is the ones that use god to justify their agendas this takes us back 2000 years.

God can b a smokescreen for greed and other things evil. God is a diversion, an excuse, a rationalization for the most horrible sins. I dont believe Sarah is a real christian, she reads a different bible than the one I read...

Because God says so sounds to me just like it did coming from my mother...questionable....

 

[Mama Train]

Im watching cali and prop 19 as an american and medical paitent. I dont live in cali and ur right...there is a fear that we r giving away the farm when we look at the text of the bill. Ive written about my own doubts. I applaud the work u do and I hope for an outcome that allows californians privacy in their homes med. paitent and individuals alike. I will withold judgment until we see what unfolds. Thank you 4 the post. I love to hear from well informed attorneys. Ive received sound advice from every one I have consulted.

 

[DrProfessor]

I fail because I don't provide an alternative? To me thats more of a fail on logic, on your part.

If you have no answer your pissing in the wind, what is your solution none and it's me who has a problem,,,, shah as if exactly why I'm done here nothing but nothing no answers you can't complain if you have a bullshit solution and your style is week. We have to come better than that exactly why we lose all the fucking time. Piss poor planning promotes nothing but piss poor performances with piss poor information.....