Skipping Commerce ( business ) in Legalizing. Your opinion.

[Ernst]

Well you are out of touch on California issues Dan.

The rest is the same old pattern of finding fault in others. Boring.

 

[SisterMaryElephant]

I have been one to not go with the flow in the past but is the flow now changing?

Consider that the Federal Government will not allow any Cannabis Business to be legal and open. That means passing laws in California that allows Cannabis Business will automatically draw lawsuits and the courts will naturally suspend any Commerce laws pending the outcome of the courts.

So I have asked before and also lobbied for a non-commerce legalization initiative.

How do you feel about an initiative for 2014 or 2016 that legalizes for people to grow, consume and share in non-commercial ways but doesn't legalize cannabis shops or commercial sales?

Now please understand that I am sympathetic to all positions yet I have been of the position that freedom for the people first opens the door for everything else.

So how do you feel?

Do you feel that if we can't legalize commercial sales that we need to keep the people illegal too?
Do you think that legalization for the people is right or wrong?

Don't take this the wrong way but there is a flaw in your theory that the problem is commerce. The problem, imho, is perception not commerce. If you get caught for posession, by "the feds," with even a small amount of MJ, it doesn't matter if you were selling it or not so that seems to conflict with the commerce concern. I won't even dignify the last two questions with a reply.

The reason the federal government doesn't want commerce is because with money comes the power to change things. They want to be able to bust people for bud when ever they want. Dispensaries if allowed to get powerful enough could lobby the government to reschedule cannabis, making it legal federally. The DEA wants to stop this before they gain that kind of power (and they are getting close to having that power now). Don't give the DEA what they want, if you do, they'll only take more.

Nonsense. It wasn't a powerful booze lobby that ended the prohibition of alchohol. Who were the customers of blackmarket booze during prohibition? Was it just mobsters? No. Was it just Blacks or just Mexicans? No. It was farmers and merchants, it was "ma and pa" and they couldn't continue to demonize it or it's users. The people wanted it and they got it. Like I said earlier, it's a perception problem. The "perception" of mariajuana users is a bad one and sometimes (not always) for good (or atleast understandable) reasons. If we want MJ decriminalized, we have to change "hearts and minds" and I don't see that happening in the immediate future because that would require a change internally too. It can be done, incrementally, slowly, too but that will still require a change in perception, which is already in progress, if we don't ruin it ourselves.

but you cannot make Oxycontin or Adderall in your basement i don't think.. and they can be sold in regulated quantities..
i believe the proposition is that weed can be manufactured and injested as long as money isn't changed hands.. and i still say that is too much of a regulatory stretch.. it simply won't happen that way since black market trade would be just the same.. plus you are saying - go ahead and manufacture piles of weed, we trust you not to sell it..
i still imagine the day when pot is sold in just as many places as alcohol.. taxed and examined for quality.. for one thing it will create tons of legitimate jobs and open up to growing hemp which will create tons more on top of that..

True, you can grow MJ anywhere. I still don't agree that the problem is commerce.

I imagine decriminalization will be much like tobacco or alchohol sales but, as I said in another thread, hemp is no panacea.

I will tell you the exact reason why legalization will not work. If the government was too for what ever reason legalize marijuana in any way shape or form then anyone ever convicted of marijuana use would be free and the government would have to give some sort of compensation to those affected. The higher ups in the government have this mind set "If we legalized marijuana then the public would think we have wasted all their money for the past century" And even though they have wasted our money and they know they have they can't be seen by the general public to have wasted the publics money so that is why no legalization will happen in the US. You will see this in any business that makes a mistake that costs so much money it is unbelievable that they will just try to cover it up by saying it is working and we are successful so that the general public that only sees the headlines will think "well good on them they're dong something good and my tax dollars are spent well"

I will tell you that you're not even close.
1) They COULD release anyone convicted of voilating MJ laws but the legislation could be written with a "from this point forward" clause. Just because they make something legal today, doesn't mean the people convicted didn't break the law in the past.
2) They certainly will NOT be required to compensate people who broke a law just because that law changed.
3) Only a small percentage of people think that government spends money wisely now so "wasting our money" isn't going to frighten them at all. Look at congressional approval polls.

However, is allowing the citizen to have cannabis on a State level something we can do?

Serious question.

Yes, California is already decriminalized (as of 1/1/2011) for small amounts (28.5 gr or less) for adults. It went from a misdemeanor to an infraction. Buying, selling and growing, etc may still land you in trouble if you don't meet medical MJ requirements but simple possession was decriminalized nearly a year ago. (see CHSC 11357b)

That doesn't change federal laws at all.


I'm not sure I want to comment on posts, in detail, after page1...but I might.

 

[Ernst]

Well pitch in.

On the Commerce is bad MmmKay.. please understand that my lobby is about California and how it votes on Cannabis. It is about California and the continuous fight jurisdiction by jurisdiction against Cannabis and Cannabis people.

I am not against commerce. I am pointing out that it is not a popular option for a majority of California voters. It just doesn't work in California from what i can see. Not yet anyway.

My lobby is one of don't try and carry a dead horse. Once we have personal rights commerce will evolve since it already exists and isn't going away.

 

[SisterMaryElephant]

Pitch in? I helped get Prop 215 on the ballot and passed and I knew about SB420 before it was even completely written, let alone voted on.

I think I get your point but I'm just saying that *I* don't think that the reason most anti-MJ people are anti-MJ is commerce or profit related. Prop215 passed by wide margins and there wasn't any commerce restrictions in it at all; why? Because the perception was that the MMJ was helping normal, sick grandma, grandpa, uncle george, big sister and their nice old neighbor. That's why. People could relate and care about the MMJ users.


Now tell me what the perception is (rightfully or not) on the average non-medical pot smoker?


THAT is why the numbers are for MMJ are larger and less so for recreational use. It's not about the money, the revenue the government can raise is tempting them, they can't get past perception and THAT is what we have to change. How impossible that might be is debatable. We have to win hearts and minds not just preach to the choir, rant and rave nor rage against the machine.


That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

 

[Ernst]

I think we are on the same page.

I am in the Central Valley. We forbid dispensaries everywhere in the county.
We vote no on anything cannabis including prop 215.

I come from this land that my be typical of the No voter for California.I didn't work on prop 215 but voted yes on it. I did work on California Cannabis Initiative and that failed to get volunteers who were willing to pay their own way to gather signatures.

Here in this agricultural area folks worry about the quality of labor and the influx of undesirable elements to our communities.

So the thing that will not have even a slight chance of support here is anything commerce.

There is no way we can have a pot shop here but we can expand the rights of individuals to have, use and non-commercially trade cannabis. We are still needing to support MMJ people's rights.

That's where I'm at. Looking at this in a practical way.

 

[SisterMaryElephant]

I know Turlock and I still don't agree that farmers are against commerce. You said it yourself, it's the perception of what legalization might bring into the community that worries them. Change that perception and I bet they'll be more willing to support it. Of course, it's much easier to say than to actually do and sometimes our own community hurts itself when it comes to perception.

 

[ford442]

my county has no dispensaries and it sucks.. can't get clones, can't ever sample different strains.. everyone grows and now we are talking about banning grows or having 6 plants behind a 6 foot fence 1000 ft from school stops.. because too many people grow?

 

[Dan Kone]

Well you are out of touch on California issues Dan.

No. I'm just in touch with the world outside of growing websites. If you propose something that greatly benefits growers but doesn't really have any positive effect on anyone else, of course it's going to be popular in a growing website. But that doesn't mean it's popular among the general population of California.

By adding a tax to any legalization effort you get about an extra 15-20% of California voters who are willing to support it.

The rest is the same old pattern of finding fault in others. Boring.

So no one is allowed to question your unproven statements that you present as facts? Sorry, free country. I'm taking your failure to address the content of my post as you not disputing me because you know I'm right.

 

[Dan Kone]

I am not against commerce. I am pointing out that it is not a popular option for a majority of California voters. It just doesn't work in California from what i can see. Not yet anyway.

Please provide some evidence that shows that legalization is more popular if it doesn't include the benefits of commerce. Simply stating things doesn't make them true.

What you're advocating isn't without commerce. It's just without the benefits of commerce. Cannabis will be sold regardless. What you're advocating is a purely black market system for cannabis distribution. That is something that is wildly unpopular universally outside of people who make money distributing cannabis on the black market.

 

[Dan Kone]

my county has no dispensaries and it sucks.. can't get clones, can't ever sample different strains.. everyone grows and now we are talking about banning grows or having 6 plants behind a 6 foot fence 1000 ft from school stops.. because too many people grow?

It's not about what growers are doing. There is a hidden government agenda at work here.

It doesn't matter how well behaved Cali growers are. The feds will still find an excuse to do what they do.

 

[Ernst]

As I have said we can work on all aspects of legalizing. It's just that if we split the issues up the voters can focus on each separately such that the voter doesn't vote no on the whole again. That is my solution to getting a majority vote.

So Dan, we have already run this down and over already.

Promoting one aspect at a time is not the end of the world friend.
It makes sense to me that the people come first and commerce, since it is a big Federal No-No, comes later.

 

[Dan Kone]

As I have said we can work on all aspects of legalizing. It's just that if we split the issues up the voters can focus on each separately such that the voter doesn't vote no on the whole again. That is my solution to getting a majority vote.

And by doing that you create the problem of losing voters who will only support legalization if it has economic benefits.

The only majority support you get by limiting legalization benefits to growers only is the majority of growers, not the majority of California voters. Read the polling.

So Dan, we have already run this down and over already.

And the result of that was the majority of people agreed with me.

Promoting one aspect at a time is not the end of the world friend.

It's not a successful model of legalization. You are limiting the benefits of legalization to a very small group of people by doing so.

Don't get me wrong, as a grower that would be great for me. But it isn't realistic.

So Dan, we have already run this down and over already.

Do you really want to go there? Let's spare the people here of reliving all of that. Let's stick to discussing the topic please.

It makes sense to me that the people come first and commerce, since it is a big Federal No-No, comes later.

Cannabis in any form is a big federal no-no.

If you're putting the people first, you need commerce. The majority of people buy their bud, they do not grow their own. If you're putting people first, you need to provide those people with safe access to bud in the law.

Having a law saying bud is legal, but you can't buy or sell it instead you have to grow your own only benefits a very very small group of people. It benefits growers only and even then only small growers. People would still have to turn to the black market to buy their buds. People who work on farms would still have to constantly fear the government throwing them in prison. How about a law that benefits the majority instead of an extremely small minority?

Legalizing sales benefits the entire state. The average cannabis user gets safe access to buy his cannabis while non-smokers get the benefit of increased tax revenue. It would also provide legal jobs for many people who just want to put in an honest days work. Not everyone wants to be pushed into the black market. Also non-smokers oppose the black market as well.

If you want a law that has a chance at passing it has to have broad appeal. What you're proposing is only appealing to a small group of people. It doesn't give the average voter incentives for voting for it.

 

[Girdweed]

If you're putting the people first, you need commerce. The majority of people buy their bud, they do not grow their own. If you're putting people first, you need to provide those people with safe access to bud in the law.

This is a geographic stand, Dan. I know far more growers than purchasers. Alaska grants the freedom to possess and grow in your home, though the possession limits (4 oz) are unreasonably low. Commerce is a double edged sword. The problem IMHO is the fucktards (yes, that's a PC term) that are slinging tiny bags of grass for peanuts and wanting to be gangster. This is the perception that much of the anti-MJ crowd use as a base for comparison. A transitional shift that gets rid of the dime bag slinging punks and presents an image of responsibility and respectability would gain a far stronger hold. Legalization must be done in stages IMHO. All or nothing doesn't leave much room to negotiate.

 

[Dan Kone]

This is a geographic stand, Dan. I know far more growers than purchasers.

That's a matter of perspective. If you're a grower, that's probably true. But those buds on dispensary shelves are being sold. People are buying them. More people buy buds than grow them, by a lot.

Alaska grants the freedom to possess and grow in your home, though the possession limits (4 oz) are unreasonably low. Commerce is a double edged sword. The problem IMHO is the fucktards (yes, that's a PC term) that are slinging tiny bags of grass for peanuts and wanting to be gangster. This is the perception that much of the anti-MJ crowd use as a base for comparison. A transitional shift that gets rid of the dime bag slinging punks and presents an image of responsibility and respectability would gain a far stronger hold. Legalization must be done in stages IMHO. All or nothing doesn't leave much room to negotiate.

I'm not sure how pushing all sales back to the black market helps solve any of those problems.

If you take taxes out of a legalization bill where's the incentive for non-smokers to support it?

If you leave the dispensaries out in the cold when it comes to legalization who's going to pay for the ballot initiative to become law?

 

[doc111]

And by doing that you create the problem of losing voters who will only support legalization if it has economic benefits.

The only majority support you get by limiting legalization benefits to growers only is the majority of growers, not the majority of California voters. Read the polling.



And the result of that was the majority of people agreed with me.



It's not a successful model of legalization. You are limiting the benefits of legalization to a very small group of people by doing so.

Don't get me wrong, as a grower that would be great for me. But it isn't realistic.



Do you really want to go there? Let's spare the people here of reliving all of that. Let's stick to discussing the topic please.



Cannabis in any form is a big federal no-no.

If you're putting the people first, you need commerce. The majority of people buy their bud, they do not grow their own. If you're putting people first, you need to provide those people with safe access to bud in the law.

Having a law saying bud is legal, but you can't buy or sell it instead you have to grow your own only benefits a very very small group of people. It benefits growers only and even then only small growers. People would still have to turn to the black market to buy their buds. People who work on farms would still have to constantly fear the government throwing them in prison. How about a law that benefits the majority instead of an extremely small minority?

Legalizing sales benefits the entire state. The average cannabis user gets safe access to buy his cannabis while non-smokers get the benefit of increased tax revenue. It would also provide legal jobs for many people who just want to put in an honest days work. Not everyone wants to be pushed into the black market. Also non-smokers oppose the black market as well.

If you want a law that has a chance at passing it has to have broad appeal. What you're proposing is only appealing to a small group of people. It doesn't give the average voter incentives for voting for it.

And this, IMO, is the biggest flaw with Ernst's vision of legalization. He has such clearly self motivated interests in this he can't even see them himself! lol! I admire his tenacity and conviction but I also admired Don Quixote's tenacity and conviction. lmfao!!!!!!!!

 

[Ernst]

And by doing that you create the problem of losing voters who will only support legalization if it has economic benefits.

Oh yeah Dan. I get it. There are so many voters that only want to have sales (commerce) that we must advance commerce ahead of rights for the people. NOT!

I'm not going to waste my energy on you this time. Arguing this point with you gets ridiculous as it is with your very first point in this reply.

If Right to Cannabis for all Californians isn't a broad appeal what is? Commerce is a small portion of Cannabis re-legalization and is one many jurisdictions across California have fought and or prohibited since the start of prohibition.


Ernst

 

[Ernst]

And this, IMO, is the biggest flaw with Ernst's vision of legalization. He has such clearly self motivated interests in this he can't even see them himself! lol! I admire his tenacity and conviction but I also admired Don Quixote's tenacity and conviction. lmfao!!!!!!!!

But who is fighting the Federal No Commerce Windmill? Not me.. So there we go with tenacity and conviction.


By promoting Horticulture, use and private non-commercial trade for all Californians it opens the doors to more than simply allowing people to spend money at a cannabis store.

Now as the Bunny wrote a while back "What is the plan.. I'm All Ears." What has been done with all our legalizing Commerce efforts are that they have failed.
We have maybe RMLW for 2012 and we can see if California will vote yes on it and if they do the fine but if we fail again then we have to accept that we are going about it wrong. This will be strike three.

My proof is the reality of the real such as voting results and crack-downs.

No one is saying we can't get it all what I am saying is we have to put a foot forward we can keep planted so we have a leg to stand on when we go up against Federal Law which is a much larger task than allowing all Californians to grow their own.

And by the way.. People have gotten their weed and will continue to get their weed. If anything allowing more people to grow their weed will mean weed will be everywhere.

So it comes down to if you two want all the people to have legal weed or not.. What is it friends?

 

[doc111]

But who is fighting the Federal No Commerce Windmill? Not me.. So there we go with tenacity and conviction.


By promoting Horticulture, use and private non-commercial trade for all Californians it opens the doors to more than simply allowing people to spend money at a cannabis store.

Now as the Bunny wrote a while back "What is the plan.. I'm All Ears." What has been done with all our legalizing Commerce efforts are that they have failed.
We have maybe RMLW for 2012 and we can see if California will vote yes on it and if they do the fine but if we fail again then we have to accept that we are going about it wrong. This will be strike three.

My proof is the reality of the real such as voting results and crack-downs.

No one is saying we can't get it all what I am saying is we have to put a foot forward we can keep planted so we have a leg to stand on when we go up against Federal Law which is a much larger task than allowing all Californians to grow their own.

And by the way.. People have gotten their weed and will continue to get their weed. If anything allowing more people to grow their weed will mean weed will be everywhere.

So it comes down to if you two want all the people to have legal weed or not.. What is it friends?

Let's see if I can spell this out for you in simple language without a lot of wind. People are interested in what benefits THEM. Obviously, this law would benefit you and many growers, but it completely ignores the vast majority of folks on both sides of the law. Most people who consume cannabis are either unable or unwilling to grow it for whatever reason. A very small percentage of us actually grow, although that number is climbing daily. Your proposal, if I understand it correctly, would do nothing to increase tax revenues, and leaves no way for the majority of folks who can't grow to safely get their cannabis. I hear what you're saying about forward progress, but we have to try to include all segments of the population in some way, whether it be the incentive of increased tax $$ or a way to safely purchase their bud without fear of getting locked up or the aftermath an arrest causes, such as inability to get jobs, etc. With the crackdown happening now, it would seem the tide is turning, and not for the better I'm afraid, so all of this may be moot (at least in the near term).

 

[Ernst]

Yeah that is what I am saying.. Leave the current commerce mess alone and give rights to all people and then see where we are.


Cool you do get it. Remember people will have more weed around if people can grow, use it and share it with out State arrest.

So it's a win win for us all unless you are greedy.

As I just reread it looks like your main argument is that "it looks like something will happen over the crackdown."

Remember the crack down effects only a small segment of the population because it is medical. We need to expand the base to every Californian to effect a larger lobby. A larger lobby has a chance to effect change on the federal Level.

You only hope that things will change.

 

[doc111]

Yeah that is what I am saying.. Leave the current commerce mess alone and give rights to all people and then see where we are.


Cool you do get it. Remember people will have more weed around if people can grow it with out State arrest.

So it's a win win for us all unless you are greedy.

As I just reread it looks like your main defence is that "it looks like something will happen over the crackdown."


You have absolutely nothing to lead us with. You only hope that things will change.


LOL

This of course assumes that nobody will be greedy............I know even you're not naive enough to believe this. The sole motivation for many growers is profit. Without the profit motive I'm sure supplies would be not nearly enough to meet demand. Which in turn would create what????? What about tax revenue? What about those folks who don't consume cannabis? You're right, I do hope things will change. I may have nothing to lead us with but does that make me somehow insignificant? You have utterly NO CLUE what I do to help further legalization efforts! It seems that someone is pretty full of himself.