Entropymancer said:

I guess since Cali already has prop 215 so anyone can get medical regardless of whether they have any legitimate claim to it, there's no real harm in passing this thing.  Just pay your $150 a year and you can actually grow, rather than just have a 5'x5' space.

---

lazyfingers said:

From what I read in that thing, there was nothing specific, so get your friends together and vote for local officials who want what you want.

---

lazyfingers said:

Which ones do you disagree with? Would you like it distributed to children?

---

Quote:

Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.

---

Quote:

(ii)    Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property.  Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.

---

Quote:

Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:

---

lazyfingers said:

You need to define "harder on weed smokers" by pointing out a specific item in the bill that I can agree or disagree with.

---

danielx said:

lazyfingers said:

Which ones do you disagree with? Would you like it distributed to children?

---

gee I dont know. Ive made what 4 posts in this thread talking about it. Maybe you should try reading.

you realize you have to be 18 to get your medical recommendation as is right now right? So in that aspect it doesn't change anything except raising it to 21. Were you smoking weed at age 18? If yes, then quit being a hypocrite.

so lazyfinger, lets go over this again. What does tax cannabis 2010 really do?

Quote:

Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.

---

one ounce. Thats it. I can smoke that in one sitting. Guess how much you can have right now with prop 215? As much as you want. Who wants more regulation on how much weed you can have, especially such a small number like 28 grams.

Quote:

(ii)    Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property.  Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.

---

25 square feet per residence. Guess how much you can have as of current? As much as you want. So you want added regulation to how much weed you can grow?

Quote:

Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:

---

I won't copy and paste the whole excerpt, but what it basiclly says is it will allow counties to discriminate still. If your county doesn't approve of you consuming marijuana, they can prevent you from doing so. Therefore, helping liberal spots such as oakland whilst screwing conservative counties. So tell me. Why add useless regulation, and make things worse on weed smokers. because it sounds nice? You tell me.

---

lazyfingers said:

Without this bill, what rights do you have?

Sometimes you have to give a little to receive a lot. I understand that you don't like government, but tough shit.

---

Entropymancer said:

It's clear their interest is in making obscene profits off cannabis users, not promoting their civil liberties.  They fired one of their faculty, a longstanding member of the medical cannabis and legalization movements, simply for expressing his belief that people should be allowed to grow their own cannabis without paying exorbitant taxes.

I don't have any problem with some taxation if that's what it takes to make it legal in the short-term.... but it's clear that Oaksterdam's priority is not legalization, but simply making fat stacks of cash.

Fuck them and the horse they rode in on

---

meams said:

Entropymancer said:

It's clear their interest is in making obscene profits off cannabis users, not promoting their civil liberties.  They fired one of their faculty, a longstanding member of the medical cannabis and legalization movements, simply for expressing his belief that people should be allowed to grow their own cannabis without paying exorbitant taxes.

I don't have any problem with some taxation if that's what it takes to make it legal in the short-term.... but it's clear that Oaksterdam's priority is not legalization, but simply making fat stacks of cash.

Fuck them and the horse they rode in on

---

I'm sorry.  Did you expect the inherently-capatalistic nature of the American spirit to simply not apply to the medical marijuana sector?

Even fucking churches are here to make money, this shit is the same.

---