Don’t Over-Analyze Prop. 19

Because you can count on it: the mainstream media won’t analyze it at all

Guest Post to Drug WarRant by KATE WOODS

There has been a jungle of growing chatter within the pro-cannabis community over the issue of Proposition 19, resulting in a rift between growers and advocates.

What could possibly be the issue? – one might ask. The November initiative will give Californians a choice: to either vote for legalization of cannabis, with a tax and regulation plan that assures to ease the state’s budget crisis; or to keep the therapeutic herb outlawed, to continue turning anyone who uses the weed other than a papered medicinal marijuana patient into an outlaw.

But to be droll, the devil is in the details.

From heated Internet debates to kitchen-side coffee/bong klatches, longtime pot-based partnerships have teetered on the verge of dissolution over what each side believes will be the ultimate result of this proposition, should it pass. Many cannabis farmers and brokers (otherwise known as “pushers” to the morally corrupt, “providers” to those of us who know better) believe 19 is overburdened with regulations, that it squeezes out the smaller cultivators with exorbitant fees, licenses and taxes, and that a possible excise tax on every ounce will strain the wallets of their clients. Indeed, the Prop. 19-wary envision Big Tobacco and Wal-Mart overtaking the market, to the point where a refer could become as harmful and hideously unfair as a genetically tinkered ear of Monsanto corn.

They make excellent points, though professional economists may warn that capitalism does not naturally work that way, for one thing. Competition, if allowed to flourish relatively unfettered, produces high quality goods at lowered prices, regardless of the political obstacles. Secondly, there is a sea-change of thinking in this nation right now regarding what we ingest and where it all comes from. Smaller, sustainable, chemical-free local farming, with farmers’ markets and rooftop gardens, are the wave of the future.

But let’s assume for the sake of argument that the smaller guys do lose out, that big industry co-opts the cannabis market and that it gets so bad Big Pharma even undermines the medicinal marijuana movement. What is the alternative at this point?

To vote no? That would mean the small guys would STILL be outlaws. That our prisons would STILL burst at the seams with more criminals persecuted for consensual “crimes” over a bogus “moral” issue. That the DEA would be smug with what they perceive to be a green light to generate STILL more corruption and jack-booted terror. That no money goes to saving the STILL bankrupt state. That more people, unable to obtain medical marijuana cards over technicalities, will STILL writhe in pain. That no one STILL has the right to “get high” – God forbid! That fewer folks, let’s face it, will be in a good mood.

That Prohibition STILL marches on.

And, for me, here’s the kicker: If you know of fellow cannabis supporters who vote no on Proposition 19 because it is not perfect, you can safely tell them they have encouraged mental de-evolution in the human species. It would be a massive slide backwards taking years to overcome, and here’s why.

If Proposition 19 is defeated, how do you think the glamour pusses in the talking head video media will report it? Or for that matter, the spineless weenies in the coagulated print media… and of this I know what I speak, being an expatriate of that field. The mainstream media does not ask the question “Why?” anymore, and has not for some time now. They will give dummy-downed sound bytes, proclaiming, “Well, the voters said NO with a capital N today, to legalizing pot! Tee-hee!” — or – “Californians drew a line in the sand today – saying medical marijuana… maybe… but NO WAY to wasties with the munchies who just wanna get high!” – or how about — “The children were saved today when voters decided they don’t want drug pushers peddling at the grammar schools….” Yes, it’s absurd, incorrect, even putrid, but there you have it.

They won’t go into the fact that the pro-cannabis community split the vote because some of them thought it was crafted unfairly for some growers or users. The media won’t analyze it so intellectually – because their editors wouldn’t allow such intricate, confusing thought! The mainstream media can’t wrap their heads around this, so how can they expect what they see as the “dense public” to understand it? Ergo, the public will be spoon-fed – and will swallow – the simplistic, retarded “wrap-ups” of this issue, effectively killing any chances of bringing legalization back to the table for years.

Remember, medicinal marijuana – voted in by the public in 1996 – wasn’t perfect either. In fact, it had to be amended some eight years later to allow dispensaries to operate. (Oh, I know. If only local city councils realized that dispensaries are legal, that patients are really in pain, that medicinal marijuana is legal to smoke, to sell.)

Let’s unite ourselves, once and for all, on our collective goal. We have come so far, and it would be a travesty if some of our own – disgruntled over just half a pot of gold instead of a whole pot of gold – were to lose the entire prize for all of us. If there is a glaring problem that presents itself after the victory, believe me, it can and will be fixed. If we can get this so long overdue proposal on the ballot, we can certainly rally ourselves and the system to work out the kinks soon after.


Kate Woods is a freelance writer and a staff writer for Union Local 13

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Don’t Over-Analyze Prop. 19

  1. James says:

    Brilliant article. Ticks me off these growers are so against it’s movement.

  2. Florida says:

    THANK YOU. I’ve been trying to tell this to my “No on 19” brothers, but they don’t seem to understand the gravity of the situation, that if it doesn’t pass now, it won’t pass for a while. Amendments can, and will, be made in the future! A big argument is that 21+ users can’t legally supply any marijuana to youngsters. It’s just like alcohol, big deal, you can’t smoke with your kid brother. I don’t think minors should smoke, either. The punishment is steep, but I can almost say rightfully so. There have been studies linking cognitive issues with chronic adolescent use, which you can certainly observe in some smokers who started early.

    As for the theory that marijuana will become industrialized like with cigarettes and all that… I’m a bit scared, too. All of a sudden the media will say that cannabis is causing cancer (after radioactive pesticides and filler has been added to the crop, like tobacco.) But, like alcohol, there will still be a significant amount of “microbreweries”, little growers that truly care about organic, natural growing. Then again, I’m sort of skeptical that marijuana will be SUCH a cash crop for corporations, it grows so quickly.

    If 19 passes in California, I foresee other states following suit rather quickly. There’s uncertainty in the future, but I can’t see it being much worse than what prohibition brought us.

  3. kitkat says:

    Thanks very much, James. Yeah, i was biting my tongue in order to prevent myself from saying the phrase, “greedy growers.” Ah, hell… that’s what it is, really. I love Pete G.’s analysis under “Ruminations on Prop. 19” — wherein he boiled it down to two reasons to vote no: 1) you must be a greedy grower: or 2) you must be a moron. HA! thanks again, friend, Kate w.

  4. Tony Aroma says:

    Regardless of what happens in CA this November, it will affect the rest of the nation. If it passes, it will encourage similar legislation elsewhere. Maybe some politicians might start thinking being anti-prohibition isn’t political suicide after all. It will start the ball rolling. And if it does not pass, it will set back anti-prohibition movements everywhere. Politicians will know for sure that being “soft on crime” is not good for their careers. Prohibitionists will talk about how we were at the brink and narrowly avoided the end of civilization. Even those proposing medical cannabis legislation may have second thoughts.

    No piece of legislation is perfect. But putting people in jail for a plant is about as far from perfect as you can get. So I hope all you folks in CA think about the rest of us when you cast their vote this November.

  5. Calimann says:

    Prop 19 is not perfect, but you are never going to see perfect. Prop 215 was not perfect either, but I voted for it and I am voting for 19. We have to get the ball rolling and this is our only shot. By legalizing it in California we put enormous pressure on the Feds to take an honest look at marijuana. We know it stays illegal due to propaganda, truth will set us free. When it becomes legal and the sky does NOT fall, the Feds are going to look bad.
    As long as we don’t give it the support the politicians need to see, it will remain illegal. They need cover, it can be suicide to support in many of their views, we have to show it is popular.

  6. kitkat says:

    “putting people in jail for a plant is about as far from perfect as you can get.”

    Tony, you said it all! — kATE W.

  7. Ed Dunkle says:

    Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

  8. Just me. says:

    Why would you vote no to stopping terrorism and loss if LIBERTY?

    Why would you vote no on a plant that CAN treat for cancer(and many other deseases) or could, with more studies , cure cancer?

    Excellent Kate.

    Thanks Pete.

  9. kitkat says:

    Dear Just Me:

    Yes, indeed. The latest studies — one 40 years in the making, conducted by a pro-Prohibitionist scientist — finally conceded that cannabis actually reduces cancer tumors and … I know this is hard for drug warriors to swallow… really DOES lessen the pain and damage caused even by LUNG CANCER. I spent weeks on that one, looking up white papers and sifting through the gobble-dee-goop analyses, a month ago. Yeah. Why would anyone want to keep a cure illegal? Can anyone say greedy industrial corporations? Ha! Many thanks for your input, Just Me. — k. woods

  10. Nick says:

    As much as I love your arguments Pete, to say that “assures to ease the state’s budget crisis” is overstepping even for you.
    There is no assurance. You of all knows how money involved with an ellegal or legal substance can disappear.

    • Pete says:

      Nick, you should probably address your concern to our guest blogger, Kate Woods, whose name was clearly noted at both the top and the bottom of the post, rather than putting words in my mouth.

      However, I’ll briefly note that, while of course there is no absolute assurance of anything, it seems extremely likely that the state will be better off financially if Proposition 19 passes, due to a number of factors of which tax revenue is only one.

  11. Servetus says:

    There are far more advocates, aficionados and sympathizers for cannabis legalization and regulation in California than there are growers and merchants of the herb.

    In a state vote, the advocates and consumers have the advantage in overall voter numbers.

    Marijuana consumers want the state legal system off their backs, and they want a quality product for less money. They will get both by passing California’s Prop 19.

  12. Ned says:

    The gist of the post by Kate Woods is on target. I hear people say that some growers in Humbolt and elsewhere are against it as it represents a threat to their profit. All I can say is they haven’t been busted yet and been forced to forfeit all their assets. Nobody who has been through that wants to preserve the status quo.

    She is absolutely right about the symbolic meaning of this and how it will be treated by the media.

    Think about it. Big corporate interests are not a threat until Federal law changes. They also will not be a threat until large scale outdoor agribusiness type operations are fully legal, and that will require development of many aspects of the entire chain of the operation. There is no guidebook on how to set up and operate cannabis farms for commercial production. Tobacco doesn’t provide one and it isn’t grown in CA. Walmart is not a threat to CA growers. For one thing Walmart does everything in China and even though China could probably compete producing cheap decent cannabis, imports are not in the picture any time soon.

    The stakes for ending prohibition are HIGHER THAN THEY’VE EVER BEEN! Any cannabis advocate is crazy to oppose prop 19. I think there’s PLENTY wrong with it but I would not dream of voting against it. No Way.

  13. kitkat says:

    Thanks, Pete, for reminding Nick that it was I, not you, who wrote this one. Nick, i want to thank you for adding in your comments. But also, when I wrote the introduction, characterizing the gyst of the proposition… “assures to ease the state budget crisis…” — it was coming from a pro-proposition stance in order to set up the next argument. Oh.. I whole-heartedly agree, my friend! When the “lawgivers” and pork-barrelists get through with the “revenue,” there will be precious little to laud over. Many thanks for the input! — k. woods

  14. C Olson says:

    We have come to far to back down now! I do not smoke, but I can not deny the absolute necessity of this proposition. For too long have people been jailed for practicing a very basic human right.

    Allow free citizens the right to grow and possess a simple plant. Keep it away from children. Expand the market and apply the taxes to good causes. AND keep our citizens out of jail.

  15. Pingback: Anonymous

  16. claygooding says:

    They hold up the “tax issue” like a carrot and miss the biggest impact on our economy that legalization would cause. The impact of $40 billion untaxed dollars remaining in our country when we can provide our own marijuana.
    And with unemployment numbers still going up,no one is touting the jobs that would be realized when a new legal market opens up.

  17. Nz says:

    Maybe some politicians might start thinking being anti-prohibition isn’t political suicide after all.

    Yes, this is an effect we all need. I’m in Mass, not CA, and i predict if it passes in CA, my state will be close behind. The majority has been beating the prohibs in the polls for some time, but the goobers have been vetoing them, under the direction of Big Pharma and the DEA.

    Those who don’t believe legalization will generate all that much revenue for the economy are very wrong. They should also realize that hemp, the low-THC sister-plant of cannabis, may also be legalized for other purposes, because one of the main reasons why it was outlawed was its close resemblance to cannabis. Hemp has so many practical uses, it is a sure cash-crop capable of generating billions.

  18. BruceM says:

    I think I’m of the opinion that we should vote for anything that will bankrupt the states and the country the fastest. Only after they lack the money to enforce their laws, and are replaced with new regimes, will we truly have a clean slate to try for meaningful freedom. Keeping pot illegal in california will help bring about an end to california quicker. Legalizing and taxing would surely help but not enough, it (among others) is already a failed state. Same with the federal government. It’s only a matter of time before it’s “closed.”

    I say vote against 19, do what you can to bankrupt california the fastest.

    And as long as the majority of people are stupid, being anti-prohibition will continue to be political suicide. You know, “the children.” What we need to do is impeach all politicians who say the words “child” or “children” and then we can go back to having more reasonable, responsible government.

  19. claygooding says:

    Legalization is a two sided sword. The Rand study that reported that marijuana prices would drop has everyone of us excited about the possibility of cheaper buds but until more states follow CA into legalization and add more cannabis to the present market,CA will be the only source of legal marijuana for recreational use.

    And for anyone to claim that the people from other states will not go to CA in search of cheaper buds would be foolish.

    And this will give the ONDCP more fodder for his propaganda machine when he grabs his heart with one hand,points west and moans how he had marijuana stopped until CA became the source of all of America’s problems,from unemployment too being out of toilet paper in the rest room.

  20. claygooding says:

    “I love Pete G.’s analysis under “Ruminations on Prop. 19″ — wherein he boiled it down to two reasons to vote no: 1) you must be a greedy grower: or 2) you must be a moron.”

    3. you are troll trying to spread doubt and controversy within the supporters of Prop 19. Possibly even hired to do so.

    My most stubborn of opponents on Prop 19 are the people under 21 that are arguing that since they are not included in the freedom of legalized cannabis,it is not really legalization. They will argue and whine with every poster that tries to show them that their claims of “industrialization” ruining cannabis with genetics or chemicals is not possible as long as people can grow their own goes over their heads or they ignore it.

  21. Probably the largest flaw in the bill is the fact that the age limit will be 21 instead of 18. I think the age limit for alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis should all be 18 since that is the age of majority. Also, the penalties for passing a joint to someone under 21 are a bit too harsh IMO. Nonetheless, that can all be ironed out by the legislature anytime after it passes. In fact, the legislature can tweak it anyway they want, provided it does not conflict with the purposes of the initiative spelled out in the preamble. Thus we should vote for it, and not make the perfect the enemy of the good.


  22. Duncan says:

    To me Prop 19 has been the most telling example of the truth of the old chestnut that politics makes strange bedfellows with some of the most devoted cannabis users around crawling into bed with the likes of Skip Miller and Calvina Fay.

    Anyway Ms Woods I’d like to thank you as you’ve given the argument practically as I would were I as good with the language as you. It will certainly be a shame if prop 19 loses by less than a couple of percentage points because it will be the potheads themselves that defeated it. One fellow pothead that I’ve read who has been adamantly against Prop 19 actually suffered a major police action at his grow and is now up on several felony charges, yet he still rails against passing Prop 19. It’s enough to make me consider the possibility that cannabis use really does cause brain damage. Hey I’m kidding. While cannabis doesn’t make intelligent people stupid, it also certainly doesn’t make stupid people intelligent.

  23. ezrydn says:

    Damned greedy outlaws are trying to break it for everyone else solely over THE DOLLAR. Honestly, they could care less about the Mom and Pop grows. That puts them in the same arena with Larry, Moe and Kerlie.

  24. kaptinemo says:

    (Venomous, paint-scorching epithets)

    Look, CA people have no effin’ idea what it’s like for the rest of us out here in the cold of non-MMJ States. They’ve had it relatively sweet while the rest of us have tasted nothing but ashes for the past 14 years.

    19 will be the battering ram, the bangalore torpedo, the breach that will crash through the wall of prohibition and begin the process to FREE all of us!

    And some pro-cannabist ‘no on 19’ forces want to get pissy about the details?

    Worry about that later! Emancipation awaits, and they want the rest of us to wear our chains just a little bit longer? SCREW THAT!

  25. Shap says:

    Politics is the art of the possible. It’s not about what you could achieve in fantasy land. This is for any of those who advocate for some weed free-for-all with no taxes or regulations and for those who advocate throwing out every sitting politician (even though if this were possible, I’d be all for it). Any recreational pot smoker who votes No on Prop 19 and who does not have some kind of monetary interest in keeping pot illegal is so stupid that they should have their right to vote permanently revoked (regardless of whether they are over 21).

  26. BluOx says:

    Prohibition is the incumbent. Vote for change.

  27. Duncan says:

    kitkat, I feel compelled to comment on the Tashkin study which shows that cannabis smoking causes no increased incidence of cancer. From my layman’s perspective I find it hard to accept that smoking anything regularly won’t increase the incidence of cancer. It has been shown that cannabis smoke certainly contains the nasties that have been linked to tobacco’s causing cancer. It is my opinion that if person A and person B, both with identical genetic predisposition to cancer (let’s make them identical twins) were both to consume cannabis but identical twin A smokes the cannabis and identical twin B uses a delivery method that doesn’t involve combustion that identical twin A would have a higher likelihood of getting cancer than twin B. This because twin B gets the cancer preventing benefit that twin A cancels out by choosing to smoke. No, nothing more than my personal observation and biased belief that cannabis is a good thing for humans to consume, and that smoking is a negative thing for humans to inhale. But in this hypothetical the smoking is still causing more disease because it cancels out the benefit that cannabinoids offer. In the scenario with twin A smoking cannabis and twin B not smoking anything or ingesting cannabis the rate of cancer would be almost identical.

    Even with my biased predisposition to believe that cannabis is the food of the gods I still think ‘cure/prevents cancer? Too good to be true’, and if something is too good to be true it usually is. But if cannabis really is the cure for or prevents cancer cannabis prohibition will have to be seen as a ghastly crime against humanity which by comparison to Hitler and Stalin’s mass murders will make them look like a misdemeanants.

  28. Duncan says:

    Well I’ve got to vote with Nick that it’s doubtful that the tax collected on cannabis will ease California’s budget woes. The State got where it is by spending money like drunken sailors, and they’ll swallow up what they collect on cannabis and spend 25% more. California collects more than enough money to efficiently run it’s State. Who wants to bet that if cannabis is legal that CA will cut it’s prison budget by the number of dollars that would have been spent to incarcerate these people? Anyone? Please speak up, I love making sucker bets. Heck, I’ll even change it to I lose the bet if they cut their prison budget by a single dollar and still call it a sucker bet if someone is silly enough to take the other side. Good lord Jerry Brown might be the next Governor of California. He was the one that started the culture of waste, abuse and entitlement when he was Governor in the 1970s that California is mired in today. They have the highest income tax and the highest sales tax in the nation, and they still can’t write a budget that works?

  29. Duncan says:

    “Hemp has so many practical uses, it is a sure cash-crop capable of generating billions.”

    While true, it’s going to take money from the commerce in products on a dollar for dollar basis at least, if industrial hemp is cheaper than the products that replace it it may actually lower the GDP. The money that recreational cannabis is for the most part deducted from the system. A cotton producer here loses $x in sales while the hemp producer’s revenue is increased but the hemp is cheaper and the fertilizer company that makes the cotton fertilizer’s sales fall because cannabis doesn’t strip the nutrients from the soil, etc. The economy doesn’t care if we buy hemp or cotton, but it does care if we buy illegal products.

  30. Duncan says:

    BTW I was so impressed with Kate’s piece that I cross posted it on a pothead forum that I have frequented in the past, so we might see some new posters with opinions. I say in the past because unrelated events over there has me thinking of never clicking on their forum again.

  31. Duncan says:

    “That puts them in the same arena with Larry, Moe and Kerlie.”

    Oh that’s just too goddamn funny. My side is aching and my screen is covered with the coffee I had the misfortune of having in my mouth when I read it. Larry Moe and Kerlie, ROFLMFAO!

  32. Nz says:

    While true, it’s going to take money from the commerce in products on a dollar for dollar basis at least, if industrial hemp is cheaper than the products that replace it it may actually lower the GDP.

    No, what it can do is take profits away from big corporate pigs and wealthy landowners and give jobs and wealth to a whole new industry. There is no way to predict exactly what it will do to everyone, but pushing the idea that it will make the economy worse is just plain wrong. Right now, the economy can’t get much worse without everything going to hell.

    Both hemp and cannabis legalization could open up all kinds of new possibilities but you can bet damn sure that the competition won’t let it kill them. Oh, they may lose quite a lot of their profits, but maybe they need a taste of the same medicine they’ve been dishing out.

    By making hemp illegal to begin with, the greedy oil companies fixed it for themselves so that they were free to corner the market on all kinds of products. Now, they are polluting and destroying entire ecosystems while still turning huge profits.

    People need to stop validating their selfish excuses for continuing the greedy corporate domination of the world with economic theory and start supporting changes that have the ability to spread and share the wealth more equally.

  33. kitkat says:

    Hey, Duncan ~ you put out some interesting thoughts there, and also, thanks for cross-posting my tirade! Yeah, regarding the cannabis and cancer study, the 40-year long one by that pro-Prohibition scientist (who finally threw in the towel after getting the same results for 4 decades…talk about the definition of insanity!!) — I think the main upshot of his massive study was that cannabinoids definitely do NOT cause cancer, or even lung cancer. That doesn’t mean that chemicals in smoking paper does not cause it, or that other non-targeted environmental substances do not play a factor in cancer. Sorry, i don’t have the notes in front of me now (I’d have to dig a hole to China to find them). Love your comments. — kate w.

  34. kitkat says:

    Wow. Duncan, was just reading your first post, about the guy adamantly against Prop. 19, and who STILL was — even after he got raided, jack-booted, put in jail. That is the part that just spins me. Just an hour ago, i was in a phone discussion with my “boss” (we are a Union “collective of collectives” for med cannabis in the Calif. Bay Area, and give support to everyone involved in that endeavor) who is also screaming that the “mom and pop” growers will suffer over this if it passes, and, sorry to say, the Union’s official stance is No on Prop.19…. aggh. Our organization means well. But Lordy, how do you get it through their skulls? — that the status quo is unacceptable. That the alternative is still LOSING your property to asset forfeiture, jail time, court trial, bankruptcy…for cultivating a miracle WEED that’s been here billions of years before we, homo sapiens, crawled out of the primordial ooze??? Thanks Duncan, and to all who added to the discussion. — kate woods

  35. Cindy says:

    Well, wish I were as limber with the language as Miss Woods and as informed… banning marijuana is like banning rue, or basil or peppermint…or mulberry, (whose unripe fruit can be hallucinagenic). Worrying about being able to afford it is like worrying about the price of tomatoes, at least here in sunny CA.
    There is one aspect of the end to drug wars that has not been addressed, and although I KNOW prop19 will not eliminate it, I would like to hear someone, more knowledgeable than myself, speak to the issue of “NARCOTRAFFICKING” which has increased its dangers to people uninvolved in the drugwars because of the promise of huge profits for (not so savory)organizations willing to risk illegal export/import from other countries to the US of A. I include marijuana under this label. Legalizing “recreational” drugs would eliminate a lot of this violence that is slowly infringing on our borders. Legalization of marijuana is a good first step. And imperative. Get it in. Fix it later. But GEt it in!!!
    By the way, I love your picture, Kitkat! Send me one? As always , a beautiful, informative and entertainingly presented article.
    Your Fan Numero Uno.

  36. realist says:

    Nobodies stopping anyone from getting mj, just get a card, and the only people getting arrested for pot are retards, I personally know people who have gotten in trouble over mj and got a slap on the wrist, there not prosecuting very many mj cases unless you some ass hole growing on public land and in that case you should be dealt with. reading blogs like this are all the same stoners don’t want to admit there could possibly be any thing wrong with smoking mj and everyone else is stupid, drug cartels are just going to go back to making more speed and bringing in more heroin there not going to go away, and to think that the state is going to make a lot of money on taxes is funny when they already do, any legitimate grower already pays taxes, and so much of the mj goes out of state that that wont be taxed because that would be even more of a fed crime, so you already have most growers paying taxes thats fed and state, and there stimulating the local economy, you have at least two thirds of the mj going out of state that cant be taxes and you want to create a new governing body to deal with this, give me a break what money they do make will be burned up in there own red tape and pay checks, do any local or state run agencies make money, will take the money out of the economy and put it to use in another great state run agency that sounds terrific. nobodies seems to realize how many mom and pop ops will be out of busyness if the price goes down to much, that means more unemployment more food stamps and more foreclosures, not to mention the states responsibility for treating pot related problems, that sounds like a net loss of money and a state going deeper into a recession. I all so believe that the propionates of prop 19 know this and are just greedy, they see this as a way of control and more money in there bank accounts, its all a smoke screen, look whats going on in oakland already with the big ware houses there trying to start, that lee guy is in bed with the city its so plane to see, and he says he wants to help people, help the state, give me a break.
    Im not saying Its a perfect situation right now but its a better one than what I just described.

  37. Pete says:

    realist — Come back when you get a 6th grade education and learn how to actually write in English, preferably with sentences and paragraphs. Please learn the difference between “there,” “their,” and “they’re.” Learn the value of the apostrophe and the hyphen. Learn the difference between “plane” and “plain,” between “busyness” and “business,” between “ware houses” and “warehouses,” between “ass hole” and “asshole,” between “any thing” and “anything,” between “pay checks” and “paychecks,” between “to” and “too,” between “all so” and “also,” between “propionates” and “proponents.”

    It’s very hard to take anything you say seriously.

    You’ve vomited out a whole laundry list of objections that come from both sides of the drug war who are dependent on prohibition and all its destruction for their income. Whose income are you trying to protect?

    If the price goes down, then that’s a matter of competition. If the “mom and pop” operations can’t compete then they’re charging too much now, or not providing good enough product. Why should we subsidize them with bad laws? Legalize it and the mom and pop operations that provide good price, good service and/or good product will flourish, just like with any other product.

    It’s also extremely offensive to say that the only people getting arrested for pot are retards. This blog has readers from all over the country, and not all of them can get a medical marijuana card. But all of them are looking to California to provide leadership, not protect the illicit profits of dealers who are too damned lazy or stupid to handle a little competition.

  38. Robin S. says:


  39. will says:

    realist — You have only cemented the stereotype of an anti-prop.19 voter even more.


Comments are closed.