OMG - They're saying we'll poison children and drive stoned now!

the "experiment" did nothing to show the public what they really want to know: What would responsible adult use look like, and would it change our culture significantly?

but instead of real information they put on a circus, and i wonder why none of the adults chosen to participate did nothing to make it more realistic, like, say waiting before you drive after you smoke, at least 45 minutes? What they wanted to do was paint a picture in the voter's minds and they got the media to walk right along with them as they propagated their agenda of lies and deceit to insure their kids college funds.

and tonight i saw them saying that we'd poison children by "accidently" giving them marijuana candies that weren't labelled correctly. They still cost and arm and a leg, and no one's letting that candy get mixed into the halloween stuff, this is just rediculous and shamefull what they're doing.

shooting up weed can be a dangerous habit - serious infections at the injection site as well as resin clogging your heart valves..
it is also bad to get high by sticking a joint in your eye, it hurts and does not get you very stoned..
sometimes trans-gender, welfare taking, immigrant, satanist terrorists sell joints to babies that are really uranium ore and the babies sell that to embryos so that they can get abortions..

all I know is that prop 19 has no chance. even if it does pass the Obama administration will enforce strict federal narcotics laws. thats what they said. and thats gud. prop 19 is a scam for a couple of people to get rich while everyone that made the bizz what it is today will be out of work

Although I voted no, I'm amazed at how bad the ads are against P19.

MrStickyScissors said:

all I know is that prop 19 has no chance. even if it does pass the Obama administration will enforce strict federal narcotics laws. thats what they said. and thats gud. prop 19 is a scam for a couple of people to get rich while everyone that made the bizz what it is today will be out of work

Click to expand...

yet another obvious reference to the profiteering that is going on under 215.... "work"? Please.....

veggiegardener said:

Although I voted no, I'm amazed at how bad the ads are against P19.

Click to expand...

And you are now associated with those ads. I hope 19 does fail. Then I hope that California authorities realize the huge abuse taking place under 215 growers and they shut them down. Opppssss, would that piss off the smoking anti 19 peeps? A person with allergies should not be permitted a 99 plant grow. That is just plain ridiculous. If 19 fails, 215 wins as the most abused compassionate use law. That is the ONLY reason a stoner would vote no, because of misbeliefs held that their profit machine will dry up. Pretty sad...

MrStickyScissors said:

all I know is that prop 19 has no chance. even if it does pass the Obama administration will enforce strict federal narcotics laws. thats what they said. and thats gud. prop 19 is a scam for a couple of people to get rich while everyone that made the bizz what it is today will be out of work

Click to expand...

the same hysteria was trying to be created about medical marijuana when 215 passed in 1996, the feds fought back a bit for a few years but eventually realized it is a LOSING battle.
first of all they simply do not have the resources (meaning funds, and man power) to shut down even a small percentage of the gardens that potentially will start sprouting up as soon as 19 passes.

veggiegardener said:

And you are pretty clueless.

Take a look at my grow, then think about the fact that the police chief in my city personally APPROVED its size based on facts presented by our doctors. He's arrested hundreds of users, and the above agreement was reached shortly after his SWAT team attempted to rob us, and steal my our plants. Who called the police? A next door neighbor who had ripped us off the year before and was pissed when I installed security.

The ripper moved to Oregon very quickly, after that.(After showing them the hole in the greenhouse wall and telling how it got there, the police went over and had a talk with them about things.)

I'm as legal as you can get in California. I don't sell.

Fuck you and your narrow mind.

Click to expand...

central cali? fresno? im out here in modesto

luvourmother said:

the same hysteria was trying to be created about medical marijuana when 215 passed in 1996, the feds fought back a bit for a few years but eventually realized it is a LOSING battle.
first of all they simply do not have the resources (meaning funds, and man power) to shut down even a small percentage of the gardens that potentially will start sprouting up as soon as 19 passes.

Click to expand...

i some what agree with that

veggiegardener said:

And you are pretty clueless.

Take a look at my grow, then think about the fact that the police chief in my city personally APPROVED its size based on facts presented by our doctors. He's arrested hundreds of users, and the above agreement was reached shortly after his SWAT team attempted to rob us, and steal my our plants. Who called the police? A next door neighbor who had ripped us off the year before and was pissed when I installed security.

The ripper moved to Oregon very quickly, after that.(After showing them the hole in the greenhouse wall and telling how it got there, the police went over and had a talk with them about things.)

I'm as legal as you can get in California. I don't sell.

Fuck you and your narrow mind.

Click to expand...

I posted a thread almost exactly to yours. It's called - True Story - House Raided - What the cops told me. Only thing is yours has a better ending. Your ripper is gone, mine are still here - and yes - I had to install security cameras too! Anyone who smokes and votes NO - is nothing but a hypocrite. YES ON 19!

veggiegardener said:

And you are pretty clueless.

Take a look at my grow, then think about the fact that the police chief in my city personally APPROVED its size based on facts presented by our doctors. He's arrested hundreds of users, and the above agreement was reached shortly after his SWAT team attempted to rob us, and steal my our plants. Who called the police? A next door neighbor who had ripped us off the year before and was pissed when I installed security.

The ripper moved to Oregon very quickly, after that.(After showing them the hole in the greenhouse wall and telling how it got there, the police went over and had a talk with them about things.)

I'm as legal as you can get in California. I don't sell.

Fuck you and your narrow mind.

Click to expand...

Oh, the irony, "...He's arrested hundreds of users,...". You got yours, fuck those "hundreds of users".

With regard to driving high, be realistic, the sheer number of people on this site who vehemently defend toking as they drive. There are certainly a LOT of irresponsible tokers out there

tip top toker said:

With regard to driving high, be realistic, the sheer number of people on this site who vehemently defend toking as they drive. There are certainly a LOT of irresponsible tokers out there

Click to expand...

Amen. The cops need a test for current impairment so these guys can be arrested for DUI.

Indeed they do, even if just for our own benefit. There is no doubt that the dangers involved with driving high are not quite the same as those driving drunk (bbc did that documentary where the woman went to amsterdam and smoked lots of weed and they did a test on this)

The difference is not to say that it is therefore not dangerous, i may be able to stop or turn just as fast as if sober, but that's not very useful as i'm cruising down a street at 50mph eyes locked on the buttons of the stereo, i find i get drawn away from the raod and distracted incredibly easily when driving high.

veggiegardener said:

Maybe you found the language exempting my 300 sq. ft grow?

Nobody here has posted it, and I've read every reference to such language but never found it.

Therefore, I voted NO.

You don't give a shit about my family, so you are the hypocrite. You don't get the fact that my wife CANNOT do without her meds, even for a day.

P19 carries the real possibility that I would be limited to 25 sq. ft.

In good faith I voted no, because no one of your ilk could show me otherwise.

I was all for legalization, but not at the price of you getting a "legal" bag, while my spouse suffers.

Fuck you, and your inability to accept that P19 is badly written, and unacceptable to many in the (already legal) medical community.

And damn you for being too lazy to go get a medical recommendation.

Click to expand...

Maybe you found the language exempting my 300 sq. ft grow?

Nobody here has posted it, and I've read every reference to such language but never found it.


Here you go, read the whole thing at http://hightimes.com/blog/evan/6681:

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 & 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 & 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.”

tip top toker said:

With regard to driving high, be realistic, the sheer number of people on this site who vehemently defend toking as they drive. There are certainly a LOT of irresponsible tokers out there

Click to expand...

I don't defend it. I just choose to maintain my medication at all times. If I get busted, my bad.

If I ever hurt someone, I'll accept my blame, and pay the price.

Nearly all Marijuana related accidents also involve alcohol or other drugs.

I have to use cruise control to stay at 55, otherwise I end up driving 35, which is just right for enjoying the scenery, for me.

Irresponsible I'm not. Just medicated.

I remember a Big colloge study of marijuanas effect on driving several years back.
The first group was stoners recruited on campus, they actualy drove better high than sober,
So the test was repeated with first time smokers who drove like they were drunk.

tip top toker said:

Indeed they do, even if just for our own benefit. There is no doubt that the dangers involved with driving high are not quite the same as those driving drunk (bbc did that documentary where the woman went to amsterdam and smoked lots of weed and they did a test on this)

The difference is not to say that it is therefore not dangerous, i may be able to stop or turn just as fast as if sober, but that's not very useful as i'm cruising down a street at 50mph eyes locked on the buttons of the stereo, i find i get drawn away from the raod and distracted incredibly easily when driving high.

Click to expand...

I don't seem to have that problem(distractions), but that has more to do with titration levels. I don't get stoned, but just a slight buzz that dissipates after a little while, while leaving the pain relief for an hour or two. Near bedtime, I use more, which leads to a sedative effect after getting the munchies. About 2 hours from medicating to slumber.

SCARHOLE said:

I remember a Big colloge study of marijuanas effect on driving several years back.
The first group was stoners recruited on campus, they actualy drove better high than sober,
So the test was repeated with first time smokers who drove like they were drunk.

Click to expand...

Autralia's tests showed the same thing. Experienced tokers are better drivers than those with no intoxicants in their systems.

Drinkers were the worst, of course.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/dot78_1e.htm

"In summary, this program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a steady lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate where they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small. Still we can easily imagine situations where the influence of marijuana smoking might have an exceedingly dangerous effect; i.e., emergency situations which put high demands on the driver's information processing capacity, prolonged monotonous driving, and after THC has been taken with other drugs, especially alcohol. We therefore agree with Moskowitz' conclusion that "any situation in which safety both for self and others depends upon alertness and capability of control of man-machine interaction precludes the use of marijuana". However, the magnitude of marijuana's, relative to many other drugs', effects also justify Gieringer's (198 conclusion that "marijuana impairment presents a real, but secondary, safety risk; and that alcohol is the leading drug-related accident risk factor". Of the many psychotropic drugs, licit and illicit, that are available and used by people who subsequently drive, marijuana may well be among the least harmful. Campaigns to discourage the use of marijuana by drivers are certainly warranted. But concentrating a campaign on marijuana alone may not be in proportion to the safety problem it causes."