Entropymancer said:

Civil liberties > fat stacks of cash IMO

And hell, I can even understand them supporting regulations to help them maintain their inflated profit margins.... but firing an old-school activist and ally simply for having the audacity to put more faith in civil liberties than a big $$$ is really crossing a line... at that point they're not just acting on behalf of pseudolegalization for their own self-interests, they're actively opposing any form of legalization that doesn't line their pockets

---

Entropymancer said:

Civil liberties > fat stacks of cash IMO

And hell, I can even understand them supporting regulations to help them maintain their inflated profit margins.... but firing an old-school activist and ally simply for having the audacity to put more faith in civil liberties than a big $$$ is really crossing a line... at that point they're not just acting on behalf of pseudolegalization for their own self-interests, they're actively opposing any form of legalization that doesn't line their pockets

---

youbreakyoubuy said:

and whoa?  Jack Herer is in a coma? 

---

Quote:

Contrary to web rumors that he had died, Herer spent nearly a month in critical condition in a Portland hospital, including several days in a medically induced coma. It was reported on October 13, 2009, that he had been discharged to another facility. He is "waking up and gazing appropriately when talking... but he is not really communicating in any way."

---

lazyfingers said:

A low price isn't good for anybody, even potheads.

---

Freedom said:

but even if they only legalize it in a way that makes it expensive and gives big profits to businesses and government, wouldn't this be a move in the right direction?

---

Jordanian said:

Seems to me that the only people that prices would affect would be med
patients anyway.  Every pothead I know would be growing their own.

---

Entropymancer said:

Freedom said:

but even if they only legalize it in a way that makes it expensive and gives big profits to businesses and government, wouldn't this be a move in the right direction?

---

I have no problem with the taxes going to the government, they need some incentive to get the ball rolling. Fighting to bring those taxes down to a reasonable level can be a battle for tomorrow.

What I have a problem with is a prohibition on growing your own.  Rather than being able to pay your tax to the gov't, you'd have to support the profits of the very same people who want the law to prohibit you from growing your own.  That's the part that I think is fucked up.

The only way that would be different from the current situation is that right now the law subsidizes black market profit margins.  If people like Rich Lee (the proprietor of Oaksterdam) get their way, then the law will subsidize profits for themselves instead.  Call me a lunatic, but I believe in a free market.  With a commodity like cannabis, profits do not need to be subsidized

---

Entropymancer said:

Freedom said:

but even if they only legalize it in a way that makes it expensive and gives big profits to businesses and government, wouldn't this be a move in the right direction?

---

I have no problem with the taxes going to the government, they need some incentive to get the ball rolling. Fighting to bring those taxes down to a reasonable level can be a battle for tomorrow.

What I have a problem with is a prohibition on growing your own.  Rather than being able to pay your tax to the gov't, you'd have to support the profits of the very same people who want the law to prohibit you from growing your own.  That's the part that I think is fucked up.

The only way that would be different from the current situation is that right now the law subsidizes black market profit margins.  If people like Rich Lee (the proprietor of Oaksterdam) get their way, then the law will subsidize profits for themselves instead.  Call me a lunatic, but I believe in a free market.  With a commodity like cannabis, profits do not need to be subsidized

---

lazyfingers said:

Well then, people who can grow and brew don't have to worry then. But from a business perspective, it's not good to teach people to grow unless you're selling seeds. If you're selling what comes from the seeds and telling them to go buy seeds, then you might want to go start investing in soil and fertilizer.

---

Rebirtha said:

That doesn't mean the the citizens of California have to pay them, they can just grow...

---

Jordanian said:

entropy can you link something that outlines all this so i can have a

better grasp on whats being discussed, i'm somewhat in that dark on the

subject.

---

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.

---

Freedom said:

but even if they only legalize it in a way that makes it expensive and gives big profits to businesses and government, wouldn't this be a move in the right direction? Once they admit that it is not going to destroy your life, they will have to lower the penalties for someone growing pot, because then the grower isn't thought of as a distributer of poison, just someone going around the system like the moonshiners, the moonshiners who are not nearly as heavily prosceuted as the pot growers are now today.

---

Morican said:

I've grown twice in my life before all this medical marijuana legal right to grow and I did it in a smaller area than 5x5 and yielded almost enough (my second time) to almost supply myself and my best friend in bud for a year, but I had to store in the fridge and freezer.

There are ways around the 5x5 restrictions, or rather ways to maximize the small space.

---

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

---