Californians might get a chance to vote on legalizing marijuana akin to alcohol. by Dumpy Dooby - Page 4 - TribalWar Forums
Click Here to find great hosting deals from Branzone.com


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page Californians might get a chance to vote on legalizing marijuana akin to alcohol.
Page 4 of 8
Thread Tools
Shadow13
VeteranX
Contributor
Old
61 - 07-01-2008, 22:20
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by XTasy View Post
pretty much what he said. it doesnt even matter. even if it passes, under no circumstances and no string pulling will it matter. you'll still be able to be arrested by the federal government
for activists its less about making it legal with out federal interaction, its about showing the US that the PEOPLE want it legalized in that state and the message that sends to the goverment at least about peoples views in california about the war on drugs and the costs it brings them.
 
Shadow13 is offline
 
Sponsored Links
fartiusstinkius
VeteranXV
Old
62 - 07-01-2008, 22:29
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by XTasy View Post
pretty much what he said. it doesnt even matter. even if it passes, under no circumstances and no string pulling will it matter. you'll still be able to be arrested by the federal government
Well it would actually make a very large difference. The majority of enforcement is on city or state level...
 
fartiusstinkius is offline
 
XTasy
VeteranXX
Old
63 - 07-01-2008, 22:35
Reply With Quote
you're right. sorry let me clarify. it won't even matter because the federal law still has the same power to override it.
 
XTasy is offline
 
RNJBOND
VeteranXV
Old
64 - 07-01-2008, 22:48
Reply With Quote
Hell no.
 
RNJBOND is offline
 
m00g00
VeteranX
Old
65 - 07-01-2008, 22:48
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigWorm View Post
voting no
 
m00g00 is offline
 
Shadow13
VeteranX
Contributor
Old
66 - 07-01-2008, 22:53
Reply With Quote
so we hear all the people are for it, but we have tons of people who just post no..

as a previous smoker, non resident of cali now I am curious on why people would vote no to more money coming into their state with less spent on housing them in jails.

I am not looking for some sort of troll argument, but just honestly curious what the "other side" views as reasons for saying/voting no. I would also be interested because I am the curious type if the people voting no smoke tobacco or drink alcohol
 
Shadow13 is offline
 
HybridX
VeteranXV
Old
67 - 07-01-2008, 23:28
Reply With Quote
I vote yes, and I don't even smoke, at least people would be at home getting stone and taking naps rather then going to get a club getting drunk. Drink driving , fights , and death or dumb people at home doing nothing....


HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
 
HybridX is offline
 
HybridX
VeteranXV
Old
68 - 07-01-2008, 23:29
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow13 View Post
so we hear all the people are for it, but we have tons of people who just post no..

as a previous smoker, non resident of cali now I am curious on why people would vote no to more money coming into their state with less spent on housing them in jails.

I am not looking for some sort of troll argument, but just honestly curious what the "other side" views as reasons for saying/voting no. I would also be interested because I am the curious type if the people voting no smoke tobacco or drink alcohol
Just think about how much money cali would get back if they release all the pot smokers from jail, and make if they sell or tax pot. bye bye debt.
 
HybridX is offline
 
cogzinofa
VeteranXV
Old
69 - 07-01-2008, 23:40
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by XTasy View Post
pretty much what he said. it doesnt even matter. even if it passes, under no circumstances and no string pulling will it matter. you'll still be able to be arrested by the federal government
feds won't bother with you unless you're growing a ton, or selling a ton.

otherwise they don't give a **** because it's not worth their time.
 
cogzinofa is offline
 
Shadow13
VeteranX
Contributor
Old
70 - 07-01-2008, 23:45
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by cogzinofa View Post
feds won't bother with you unless you're growing a ton, or selling a ton.

otherwise they don't give a **** because it's not worth their time.
thats bull****. Last week in Ocean Beach they brought 30 agents plus vehicles and a command center to raid a medicinal use paitent who had 2 plants. TWO PLANTS.

They were wearing shirts under the DEA vest that said "No matter how small your grow, We will show". They are wasting HORDES of our tax payer money to make headlines.
 
Shadow13 is offline
 
SniperOmega
VeteranXX
Old
71 - 07-01-2008, 23:47
Reply With Quote
i think it can be posted to be voted on, and wont be interfered with until then
 
SniperOmega is offline
 
fartiusstinkius
VeteranXV
Old
72 - 07-02-2008, 00:58
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by XTasy View Post
you're right. sorry let me clarify. it won't even matter because the federal law still has the same power to override it.
Our state and local police enforce state and local laws. Hence if the state/cities says it's legal, only federal officers will arrest you for it. So let's say that 90% (no idea what real number is) of drug use arrests are done by local/state police. That would mean that 90% of drug use arrests would not occur. Hell since federal officers rarely get involved in small things, it would basically be the decriminalizing of marijuana...except for when you happen to smoke a bowl with an FBI agent walking down the street.

It really would matter.
 
fartiusstinkius is offline
 
Travace
VeteranXV
Old
73 - 07-02-2008, 01:00
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby View Post
It's just in the proposal stage right now, but with less than 700k more signatures (by Sept 5) they can get it put on the ballot in CA and the people would be able to vote on whether or not normal citizens could buy Marijuana from anyone with a license (I think the wording puts it in the same licensing category as alcohol). CA would tax the substance and regulate how it's sold in the same way alcohol and tobacco is currently. The proposal would also reclass weed in the same category as alcohol and tobacco instead of crack and heroine which is where it is now.

I think this is great. It's been 12 years since they legalized medical use of pot, and now they might get to vote on whether or not to make it fully legal. I don't really know how it would work in practice since it is federally illegal and even the state-run medical marijuana facilities are very secret so they don't get raided by feds (which does happen sometimes).

However, passing the law could pave the way for changing the federal laws and making it a state issue. That would be a magnificent step forward.


Here's the link to the short text, which also has a link to the full text.

California Secretary of State - Elections & Voter Information - Initiative Update
we already did a vote like this. we voted on a prop to make weed legal for medical uses.. it passed and the feds came in and said **** off but NO!!!

and sorry but 12 years is wrong that prop was not that long ago
 
Travace is offline
 
Last edited by Travace; 07-02-2008 at 01:02..
fartiusstinkius
VeteranXV
Old
74 - 07-02-2008, 01:04
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travace View Post
we already did this we voted on a prop to make weed legal for medical uses.. it passed and the feds came in and said **** off but NO!!!
There are still very many medicinal marijuana dispensaries and they aren't going away simply because the feds don't have the money to prosecute all of them. California cops do not consider them illegal. Dispensaries just keep opening and all the feds' existence leads to is a little more legal preparation by those dispensaries (i.e. they pay some lawyers to give them the low-down and then plan for the contingency of federal prosecution).

So basically medical marijuana is still here and the feds aren't going to be able to really shut it down...they're only able to make it run less efficiently.
 
fartiusstinkius is offline
 
Shadow13
VeteranX
Contributor
Old
75 - 07-02-2008, 01:05
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travace View Post
we already did a vote like this. we voted on a prop to make weed legal for medical uses.. it passed and the feds came in and said **** off but NO!!!

and sorry but 12 years is wrong that prop was not that long ago

someone should do more research before talking ****, because no, you are wrong. Thats why its called the compassionate use act of 1996 ****tard. Ok well I guess it hasn't been "12" years, its only been 11 years and 4 months give or take a day or two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_215
 
Shadow13 is offline
 
Last edited by Shadow13; 07-02-2008 at 01:08..
Artemis Pockels
VeteranX
Old
76 - 07-02-2008, 01:14
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow13 View Post
read as I can't find a valuable argument or answer to the question so I have to nit pick and make sure you can't use the biggest example in history of proving me wrong in your arguments!


In closing, Answer the question. What is more harmful to the state alcohol or marijuana. Which if legal would provide more benefits? Both Industrial, and Medicinal. Or lets just keep it simple, since you are AGAINST legalizing marijuana, why?
when you use a term like "time and time again" it would imply that there is more than one example (that example being prohibition which is hardly a clear cut case in support of what you are arguing for)

see, this is why potheads never accomplish anything: they dont understand that certain combinations of words mean certain things

for example: you state at the end of your post to "just keep it simple" by me answering a question, "why?", which calls for an answer that is inherently more complex than "what is more harmful to the state?"

do you even understand what you are typing?
 
Artemis Pockels is offline
 
TheAnk
VeteranXV
Old
77 - 07-02-2008, 01:20
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis Pockels View Post
when you use a term like "time and time again" it would imply that there is more than one example (that example being prohibition which is hardly a clear cut case in support of what you are arguing for)

see, this is why potheads never accomplish anything: they dont understand that certain combinations of words mean certain things

for example: you state at the end of your post to "just keep it simple" by me answering a question, "why?", which calls for an answer that is inherently more complex than "what is more harmful to the state?"

do you even understand what you are typing?
why not just answer the why question if ur gonna take time to read the thread and post responses?
 
TheAnk is offline
 
Shadow13
VeteranX
Contributor
Old
78 - 07-02-2008, 01:22
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnk View Post
why not just answer the why question if ur gonna take time to read the thread and post responses?
because he is trolling. I remember now why most of the time I don't answer any of his posts because its always the same bait and switch arguments and attempts to keep playing ring around the rosey.

You can tell by all the pot head comments he makes because he knows I am not a pot head and that I don't smoke.. but he figures its a good way to sound "funneh"
 
Shadow13 is offline
 
styr
VeteranXX
Old
79 - 07-02-2008, 01:24
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis Pockels View Post
when you use a term like "time and time again" it would imply that there is more than one example (that example being prohibition which is hardly a clear cut case in support of what you are arguing for)

see, this is why potheads never accomplish anything: they dont understand that certain combinations of words mean certain things

for example: you state at the end of your post to "just keep it simple" by me answering a question, "why?", which calls for an answer that is inherently more complex than "what is more harmful to the state?"

do you even understand what you are typing?
dodging the question repeatedly makes you look like a retarded troll

oh yeah
 
styr is offline
 
TheAnk
VeteranXV
Old
80 - 07-02-2008, 01:25
Reply With Quote
hmm fair enough. i think mstrike should get a tat of "artemis sounds like a gay"
 
TheAnk is offline
 
Page 4 of 8
Reply


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page Californians might get a chance to vote on legalizing marijuana akin to alcohol.

Social Website Bullshit

Tags
california , cops are the anti-christ , dr. dre , dumpy dooby is retarded , ender has herpes , fuckin stoners , fucking hippies , ld50=1:40000 , legalize it!! , lol stoners lol , loldrugslol , marijuana , nugz , pot , pot is bad mmmmmkay? , stoner faggots , towelie , weed


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


AGENT: claudebot / Y
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:54.