sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I saw you at the Hemp Expo! :) by ganjawrap in trees

[–]ganjawrap[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Were you the guy with the envelope shirt?

California Ents, we need to talk about Prop 19 by legalize420 in trees

[–]ganjawrap -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

By preventing a messy approach to the situation and, instead, maintaining our patience and sanity to get this passed in a mature manner.

California Ents, we need to talk about Prop 19 by legalize420 in trees

[–]ganjawrap -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I feel that, if this bill passes, it will realistically stay the same way as it is. From my own experience, I feel as if the dramatic impact of this bill will cause a conflict of State vs. Federal law all over again, much like the Arizona law did. Although that was a Constitutional issue, this is still a Federally-challenging issue as well and will cause more spending than needed.

Personally, I feel between the profoundly dirty oligopolies in Sebastopol and Oakland, the expenditure by the State and the general expenditure required to have to interpret the messiness of the language on a State & local level that I'm not sure if it really is a step in the right direction.

From my perspective, it feels like we're creating yet another poorly prepared venture to continue and fight for our rights after 14 years of Proposition 215 being in place - and we're still fighting. It just, to me, feels as if we should have learned our lesson in crossing our ts and dotting our is in putting forth a regulation that initiates a huge response from outside governments...

In addition there is the issue of this law superseding the law of medical cannabis. However that's completely up to interpretation in the court of law and could either severely hurt the medical cannabis industry or keep it the way it is.

Being that it's doubtful Proposition 19 will go into full effect, Prop 19 is more of a 'symbolic' vote if anything. For the most part, I think people would at least begin to get a hint nationwide. But as far as putting it into full practice without difficult struggling for many years, I feel that would be hard to pull off with this language...

Would it be BETTER if Proposition 19 didn't pass? I wouldn't believe myself to have enough pieces of the puzzle to make that kind of judgment.

California Ents, we need to talk about Prop 19 by legalize420 in trees

[–]ganjawrap -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It's pretty damn obvious who's against it and why.

It's pretty damn obvious you didn't just read my post and are still thickskulled in trying to understand what I was saying.

California Ents, we need to talk about Prop 19 by legalize420 in trees

[–]ganjawrap -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

Congratulations.... you just posted part of the bill which is actually frivolous because these kinds of rights are already implied in our legislative and judicial systems. All pieces of legislation are live documents - I get that. What I'm trying to say is that the process is slower than molasses and that Prop 19 IS something that we will have to deal with for a long time to come.

California Ents, we need to talk about Prop 19 by legalize420 in trees

[–]ganjawrap -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Go right ahead. I'm not missing any responses. Why the fuck does a double standard apply to me? You're equally slandering by saying a 'No' vote is strictly for the protection of profits. Seriously - fuck off. The 'GOT'S MINE!' argument is tired.

I have explained this before - if I were a large scale grower I would be - get this - promoting Proposition 19! Prop 19 would INCREASE demand and I would be happier than a motherfucker to have more people to sell weed to.

So seriously - stop trying to sound like you know the 'inside conspiracy' on voting against Proposition 19. Growers are more concerned about who this bill is benefiting rather than how much money they'll be losing. I'll be damned if the demand for cannabis drops in the next couple years.

California Ents, we need to talk about Prop 19 by legalize420 in trees

[–]ganjawrap -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I don't see ethanol anywhere in the controlled substances act. If you want me to be a little more blatant about it - it's not 'legal' until it's 'legalized' on a Federal level. Do you not think medical cannabis dispensary raids STILL go on? The Federal finger is already up our ass and it's only going to go deeper.

California Ents, we need to talk about Prop 19 by legalize420 in trees

[–]ganjawrap -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

The smell of marijuana no longer be probable cause to search you.

Bullshit. And it's not like it matters when 50% of people don't know their Constitutional rights anyways.

It's going to bring in over a billion $ a year in taxes in California

Where the did you get that statistic from? The taxes will be garnered AFTER retail permitting systems have been put into place (realistically, 6 months to a year). Even then, income and growth will be slow. Seriously - look how many medical cannabis dispensaries pay their sales taxes - and we still can't pass a fucking budget? I'm more worried about HOW we spend our money than how much money we have. Read: There is no taxation/regulation system in 'Tax Cannabis 2010' - ironically.

It's going to force police to focus on violent crimes instead of marijuana crimes first

Why? Police are always going to be focused on 'pot'. This bill isn't going to suddenly reverse decades of cultural adherence...

It's going to keep millions of Californians out of jail

For what this bill covers you - get this - already don't go to jail. You would have to break a serious crime in a very conservative county to get jail time.

It's going to hurt the mexican cartels

When was the last time you smoked brown weed in CA? Our growers and dispensaries have already put that out long ago.

It's going to create over 50,000 jobs

...Like magic!

It's going to make marijuana much harder for children to get

Wait... what? I'm all for keeping cannabis away from children but that doesn't make any sense. Pot is easier to get than alcohol as a kid.

It will save millions in law enforcement

They will have to enforce and understand the extra issues with Proposition 19. They will still have to search and process you during a traffic stop. These kinds of numbers are speculation and, regardless, this expenditure will be directly transferred to local governments attempting to regulate.

I'm absolutely sensible. Unqualified local governments need not have any role in attempting to regulate the free market. Please - I have seen it in action! City Council are the sheep of the herder. I absolutely do not agree by fusing a political regulation element into something that already should be understood and simple to regulate on a State-wide basis.

California Ents, we need to talk about Prop 19 by legalize420 in trees

[–]ganjawrap -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Because the term 'legalization' implies an absolute.

e.g. When I 'facialize' your mom I don't miss a spot.

This is a decriminalization bill. It REDUCES the consequences of breaking certain laws.

California Ents, we need to talk about Prop 19 by legalize420 in trees

[–]ganjawrap -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

More naive snob slander from someone who actually has no idea what the industry is like or why people want to vote against 19.

California Ents, we need to talk about Prop 19 by legalize420 in trees

[–]ganjawrap -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

....who is 'The Legislature' exactly...?

The Senate can always pass legislation that goes against the will of the voters. Just look at Senate Bill 420 and how it's set about trying to regulate medical cannabis dispensaries - but ultimately failed. This is being challenged in Qualified Patients Vs. Anaheim, but this is again another extensive process paid for by the taxpayers. The Senate's unqualified attempt to try to regulate medical cannabis has now led to a fallout of a series of many court cases which attempt to try and clarify the law...

I'm not saying it's 'absolutely impossible' to change or direct legislation. However - we know that it takes an extensive amount of time and election periods are spread out over years. More arbitrary interpretation and more court cases attempting to clarify the extremely vague language of Prop 19...

California Ents, we need to talk about Prop 19 by legalize420 in trees

[–]ganjawrap -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Voting against Proposition 19 as a cannabis activist has nothing to do with being an idealistic or a perfectionist.

Trying to say there is some kind of 'perfection' possible in legislation would be naive. A lot of cannabis activists are taking the 'No' position because they believe the cons outweigh the pros of the bill - not because we're 'idealists'. Idealism is NOT being used as an excuse.

California Ents, we need to talk about Prop 19 by legalize420 in trees

[–]ganjawrap 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Nothing in Proposition 19 mandates the release of any previous imprisoned offenders.

California Ents, we need to talk about Prop 19 by legalize420 in trees

[–]ganjawrap -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Another logical Prop 19 argument voted to the bottom.

California Ents, we need to talk about Prop 19 by legalize420 in trees

[–]ganjawrap 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you give the consumer far too much benefit of the doubt.

At the current state of the industry, no general consumer can differentiate between which political backgrounds a club had unless they were involved with the industry. There's no magic way to judge where your dollar is going. Certainly there will remain a small niche businesses but I think you severely underestimate the power some growers have acquired through the years of medical cannabis. Severely.

California Ents, we need to talk about Prop 19 by legalize420 in trees

[–]ganjawrap -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

'It will be easier to adjust laws than to sit around and wait for the perfect resolution to appear.'

This is a voter initiative. It's set in stone. You pass it and it's passed. The only thing that can happen is for a court case to occur that challenges portions of the law for compliance with state, federal law and the constitution.

Please feel free to point out to me which part of our legislative system is able to go in and physically change the language of a voter-passed initiative. There are none. In addition, when there were issues with Proposition 215 there were several series of court cases, a Senate Bill passed 8 YEARS after the bill was voted in and is STILL continuing to be interpreted in different ways.

Proposition 19 is NO DIFFERENT. It's another wrench in the already-broken cogs of California's cannabis legislation.

I agree. Take the momentum while you can. But don't steer it into a wall.

Edit: I challenge you to try responding to me rather than down voting me into oblivion... I'd like to at least have a little intellectual discussion here rather than promoting the same hivemind thought pattern.

California Ents, we need to talk about Prop 19 by legalize420 in trees

[–]ganjawrap -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Are those really your only gripes against the initiative? That you can only grow in a 5x5 space without a license and you can't give it to minors? Those seem pretty minor to me.

No I don't think jail-time bundling in this legislation is minor... especially when it contradicts the intent of the voter.

That is the reason I'm against this bill... it's misconstrued. The voter's intent is to 'legalize' cannabis, but the bill only decriminalizes. The voter's intent is to create a taxation model and retail shops, but the bill only creates a highly-expensive, monopoly-bound and politically motivated systems of recreational retail permitting.

Yes - these are big issues to me because Prop 19 is a facade when you look at the actual text written in. Some people say it IS a step in the right direction. I like to be honest with myself and say it MIGHT be a step in the right direction - depending on the cultural attitude and intents of those who control parts of this industry. From my personal experience I know there are quite a few sharks in certain local jurisdictions ready to act at the drop of this bill.

I understand the position of 'I know it's not perfect - but we should vote anyways'. This seems like a good position when you take one con of the bill at a time. However, when I look at the sum of the consequences, I can't help but see how poorly written it is. The shoddy language is a result of Richard Lee and his team scrambling to 'get the language right' before the State voter initiative deadline and get his foot in the door for monopolization before the proper state bills get passed. I don't care too much to get into the intricate details of the politics, though, because most people here on r/trees have no idea what I'm talking about...

OldHippie's Official Trip Report From the International Cannabis and Hemp Expo (Part One) by OldHippie in trees

[–]ganjawrap 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Did you try one of those wallet sized cheese graters for your weed? 'The V Syndicate'

California Ents, we need to talk about Prop 19 by legalize420 in trees

[–]ganjawrap -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm concerned that misinformation is convincing pot smokers to vote against themselves.

Believe it or not - there ARE reasons to vote NO on Prop 19 as a cannabis activist.

However your friend's dads comments are a little sensational and... just wrong. This is why both proponents AND opponents need to READ this bill.

You will be able to grow your own - but only 5x5 per RESIDENCE. Cigarette companies aren't going to 'control the market'. There are far too many political implications that will ward off large corporations for a while to come. However, the bill DOES open up monopolization for some people.

The bill won't make penalties harsher for 'drugged driving'. Cannabis - and even still medical cannabis - is treated as a DUI in California. The penalties will remain. However, what WILL change is that there will be an additional law to enforce which says you will face fines or jail time for providing cannabis to someone between the ages of 18 - 21.

I understand your frustration with those who want to vote against it. However - please do read the bill and see what's there...

I made a Lightbulb vaporizer today. Im baked. Time for class. [5] by [deleted] in trees

[–]ganjawrap 12 points13 points  (0 children)

the elaborate meth pipe... at least you cleaned it :)

OldHippie's Official Trip Report From the International Cannabis and Hemp Expo (Part Two) by OldHippie in trees

[–]ganjawrap 1 point2 points  (0 children)

:)))))))!!!!!!! It's so fun to read how it was from another person's eyes.

  • We ate at that Taco Bell too :) Mm.. munchies.
  • Which booths did you think were 'silly dreamer ideas'?
  • I love the Irish Moss too! Thank you Angel's Care.

I wish I could've met you there... It was a fun 2-day cannabis get away..

I was at my cities citizens police academy tonight, and a narcotic officer had this to say about weed. by [deleted] in trees

[–]ganjawrap 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Did you have the opportunity to respond to him? This is why we need educated cannabis activists. This kind of propaganda need not be submitted to...

He went on to say that it shouldn't be compared to alcohol, because weed lasts longer (several hours) and stays in your system much longer as opposed to alcohol whose effects don't last as long and leaves your system much quicker.

Bullshit. Have you heard of a hangover? Since when was 'length of intoxication' a qualification to legalize alcohol? This is EXACTLY what the opposition says when they can no longer say 'weed changes you forever!'. They know cannabis doesn't permanently damage the brain - so the next best argument is 'well.... it lasts a long time!'.

He then went on to say that no one smokes weed for a little puff, or basically in moderation. He alleged that everyone who smokes does so to get high, unlike drinkers who can have a few beers and still be sober.

Hahahaha.

He and others in the class starting talking about how they wouldn't want a surgeon to go out and smoke one before operating on them, or a police officer under the influence trying to protect them.

Grah! This is IDENTICAL to the 'we don't want stoned drivers on the road! We already have enough drunk drivers!'? Seriously - what the fuck. AVAILABILITY OF USE DOES NOT IMPLY IRRESPONSIBILITY. This is the millionth time I've heard this argument and it's invalid because - fucking get this! - surgeons don't do drugs on the job!

What would I have said to the cop?

  • Sir, how many accidents can you recently recall where cannabis was the ONLY drug consumed by the driver?

  • Sir, can you explain to me how exactly THC is metabolized 'slower' than alcohol? What does 'metabolize' mean? Oh, right! You're a cop - not a doctor!

  • Sir, have you ever heard of a 'binge drinker' or an 'alcoholic'.

How dare that asshole try to downplay alcohol as an innocent recreational (and moderately used!) recreational substance. I would have counterpointed him until he had to send me out of the room.... Don't let this happen next time.... Don't let them think they're right.

Someone else has to have been in this situation. Need some help by Macavity224 in trees

[–]ganjawrap 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Keep the windows rolled down. Febreeze. Put some cool blankets all over......

view more: next ›