Castanet

-fluffy- wrote:Did the states that have legalized it also give a green light for small scale, personal-use production ? Like a few plants in the garden or greenhouse?

They have a year to structure and put in place a system. At this point it seems unclear.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/0 ... 49238.html

I'm not going to go through all the responses one by one, but let me be very clear on an important factor.

There is no holier than thou revolutionary pioneer luminary spirit behind the growing or consumption of marijuana, and anyone thinking that they are indeed a historic trendsetter who should illuminate the world with the pure light of their satori enlightenment is purely deluded.

Again, you want to change the law, more power to you. You want to violate the law, you're a criminal.

The law in this province today is that it is illegal. I don't care if it's legal in WA or CO or Amsterdam or Mars. You're in BC, obey the law or go to jail.

And, yes, that is not open to argument, at least by any upstanding citizen who is not a criminal.

Argue away, you're wasting your time.

Spot on. The law may be unjust, out of date, or just plain stupid but it is the law none the less. There is a process in place to change the law and if one were to read the writing on the wall it's likely that we will soon see marijuana laws relaxed, but for the time being it's still illegal. As for the deep thinker in the video, does he actually think a judge is going to go for the "natural" explanation with 7000 plants involved?

jennylives wrote:Two states have already legalized and more are expected to follow suit in the next few years. The US is more progressive than Canada currently on this issue. That is going to put a dent in our export market and reduce that problem significantly.

I looked at the link whatthe put up on the legalizing of MJ in Washington. Hardly seems that progressive or problem solving to me.
You can have a very small quantity only and its still technically against the law to smoke it in public!!!!

The following is an snip from the article:

Washington and Colorado became the first states to vote to decriminalize and regulate the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana by adults over 21. Both measures call for setting up state licensing schemes for pot growers, processors and retail stores. Colorado's law is set to take effect by Jan. 5.

Technically, Washington's new marijuana law still forbids smoking pot in public, which remains punishable by a fine, like drinking in public. But pot fans wanted a party, and Seattle police weren't about to write them any tickets.

dodgerdodge wrote:I looked at the link whatthe put up on the legalizing of MJ in Washington. Hardly seems that progressive or problem solving to me.
You can have a very small quantity only and its still technically against the law to smoke it in public!!!![/b]

It's a major step on the way to recreational use in your own home. Public use is a long way off if even on the radar at all as it would impinge on the rights of those nearby, just like public tobacco use has been under fire for years now.

I don't personally approve of recreational use, I'm of the mind that we have far too many legal vices as it is, but it's a personal decision for anyone. I do think that the laws and penalties currently on the books for simple possession are way out of proportion with the severity of the offense, and also see the benefits in reducing the attraction to organized crime.

I haven't seen anyone say they approve of smoking anything in public.

But recreational use in your own home isn't really the issue here. How many adults have ever been busted for smoking MJ in their own home? The original post was directed at the illegal grow ops and i am not convinced that even after relaxing the laws as they have in US that we will see an end to these kind of operations.

I agree that the current laws are probably due to be reviewed and changed but doubt that any change will have the major impact some seem to hope for.

Spocky wrote:.

The law in this province today is that it is illegal. I don't care if it's legal in WA or CO or Amsterdam or Mars. You're in BC, obey the law or go to jail.

So... a couple thousand kilometers, some lines in the sand and suddenly something is terrible, god awful, and anyone associated with it deserves to be thrown in a 10x6 cell for years? How completely logical!

Well, as usual, the point is completely missed. Just because the authority of the time classifies one as "criminal" does not necessarily make it as such. Law is not black and white and always up for revision; with a stroke of a pen one can be criminal one day and the next a patient. While we argue that point another troubled kid took his or her first step towards self destruction. Assigning an absolute to extremely complex and not always understood bredth and scope of an issue speaks of narrowness and ego.

Arguing the ethics of obeying the law while tens of thousands of people and their families are destroyed by that very law is disingenuous and arrogant. The very opposite effect the laws were written for. We know that we can assign a death sentence to this issue but it won't change anything, there will be those that still engage in addictive behaviour. Why is that? What possible rational reason would someone risk their life in the pursuit of drug use? Answer that question first because that is in the end where all of this starts, then we can come back to the ethics of law obeyment.

But, as someone already mentioned, I'm wasting my time arguing.

WhatThe wrote:Well, as usual, the point is completely missed. Just because the authority of the time classifies one as "criminal" does not necessarily make it as such. Law is not black and white and always up for revision; with a stroke of a pen one can be criminal one day and the next a patient. While we argue that point another troubled kid took his or her first step towards self destruction. Assigning an absolute to extremely complex and not always understood bredth and scope of an issue speaks of narrowness and ego.

Arguing the ethics of obeying the law while tens of thousands of people and their families are destroyed by that very law is disingenuous and arrogant. The very opposite effect the laws were written for. We know that we can assign a death sentence to this issue but it won't change anything, there will be those that still engage in addictive behaviour. Why is that? What possible rational reason would someone risk their life in the pursuit of drug use? Answer that question first because that is in the end where all of this starts, then we can come back to the ethics of law obeyment.

But, as someone already mentioned, I'm wasting my time arguing.

And what ethics of law obeyment ? If its the law you"must" obey it or face the music pretty straight forward !!!!

And what ethics of law obeyment ? If its the law you"must" obey it or face the music pretty straight forward !!!!

Just where did you get that handle.They only way to accelerate the changing unjust laws.is through civil disobedience.Where would we be If Gandhi did not make sacrifices for what he believed.

Spocky wrote:There's a huge diff between the legal and illegal grow ops. Illegal grow ops affect their communities very negatively.

1) They leech off Hydro bypassing meters and forcing the rest of us to subsidize them
2) They destroy rental homes which often require tens of thousands of dollars to return them to livable conditions
3) They attract criminal elements to our neighborhoods as that becomes where the supply is

BC may legalize pot tomorrow, next year, or next century. The bottom line is that today it's illegal and anyone violating the law should have the book thrown at them.

kibbs wrote:Just where did you get that handle.They only way to accelerate the changing unjust laws.is through civil disobedience.Where would we be If Gandhi did not make sacrifices for what he believed.

Gandhi had WHAT to do with CANADIAN law?

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The son of a senior government official, Gandhi was born and raised in a Hindu Bania community in coastal Gujarat, and trained in law in London. Gandhi became famous by fighting for the civil rights of Muslim and Hindu Indians in South Africa, using new techniques of non-violent civil disobedience that he developed. Returning to India in 1915, he set about organising peasants to protest excessive land-taxes.

\

Where does it/he EVER mention DOPE as a civil right?

Gandhi had WHAT to do with CANADIAN law?

Racist laws are unjust as are pot laws ,Civil disobedience although non violent means you must break unjust laws.Its unfortunate that the guy representing in the media is always 'Mr.7000 thousand plants isn't a lot'

BC may legalize pot tomorrow, next year, or next century. The bottom line is that today it's illegal and anyone violating the law should have the book thrown at them.
I dislike this way.