Legalize Louisiana rallies for marijuana reform tomorrow

I give up. Your brain has been eaten away by years of abuse and neglect.

I need you to formulate a cohesive answer here and all you can do is give me scripture, ignore the fact that I'm for medicinal marijuana, and you continue to resort to religious nonsense.

People do indeed make homemade beer, but the knowledge and the wherewithal to go about such an undertaking is far more daunting than growing a plant.

I am asking you...point blank...you have a choice. Give me a straight answer.

1. You can buy the traditional dime bag for the going rate from your neighbor.

2. You can grow your own.

3. You can buy it from the corner store.

Which choice will you, Rick Simpson, pick?

Did you just contribute money by way of taxes to society? I highly doubt it. If you won't, will other potheads follow your example or will they go the commercial route? I think I've made my point.

I need you to prove to me that your plan will amount to an impressive cash lump sum to rescue local and federal budgets. Right now, I don't think you know your way out of a brown paper bag.

The business world cares nothing about your Faith. You can practice whatever the hell you like. I don't care. What I can't accept is when I ask you point blank to give me a straight answer, you come at me sideways and cross-eyed with Bible babble.

(Potheads. Go freakin' figure.)

I need something intelligent and well written. You are not capable of giving that to us. You are just one more stoner who can't answer my questions. Off with your head.

Sorry, I did need to invoke His Name for patience, and grace.

" Your plan is taxation and regulation, but what you want cannot be taxed or regulated."
You asked something about how was the law going to pay for itself, that is covered in the proposed OCTA 2012 law to which I linked for your edification, posts ago. An excerpt:

((1) The commission shall collect license fees which shall be calculated and continually appropriated to defray the commission’s administrative costs of issuing licenses under this chapter and the Attorney General’s costs (......)
(2) All money from the sale of cannabis shall be remitted to the State Treasurer (to) be continually appropriated:
(a) To reimburse the commission for the costs of purchasing, processing, testing, grading, shipping, and selling cannabis; of regulating, inspecting, and auditing licensees; and of research studies required by this chapter; and,
(b) To reimburse the Attorney General’s office (...)
(c) To reimburse OCC contractors (...)
(3) All money remaining in the cannabis account (...) shall be profits which the State Treasurer shall distribute quarterly as follows:
(a) Ninety percent... to the state’s general fund to finance state programs.
(b) Seven percent ... to the Department of Human Resources and shall be continually appropriated to fund various drug abuse treatment programs on demand.
(c) One percent ... to create and fund an agricultural state committee for the promotion of Oregon hemp fiber, protein and oil crops and associated industries. This new state committee shall be named the “Oregon Hemp Fiber and Food Committee.”)

(d) One percent ... to create and fund an agricultural state committee to develop and promote biodiesel fuel production from hemp seeds. This new state committee shall be named the “Oregon Hemp Biodiesel Committee.”
(e) One percent ... to the state’s school districts,... to fund a drug education program ...

ETC. ETC., Blah Blah blah.......

The law goes on, next point.

"Decriminalizing possession does not equate to a reduction of crime." See the percentage of incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses, esp cannabis possession, this was dramatized in the show "The Wire" when a cop let things go in his little district to lower his crime numbers.

So you seem to for some reason be concerned much with the logistics of nickel and diming in the proposed free market. In short, selling tomatoes without proper licensing is not permitted by regulations. But people still sell tomatoes; people also grow them at home and the FDA doesn't stop them (yet).

(con'd)

It'd be extremely helpful for you to skim the attached proposed law at cannabistacact.org , as it fleshes out what you, unbelievably, still, maintain is an impossibility: the taxing and regulating something and cannabis fiber was used for most clothing and paper production until the invention of the cotton gin;

) Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who spoke at the U.S. Constitutional Convention in 1787 more than any other delegate and of whom James Madison said,“the style and finish of the Constitution properly belongs to the pen of Gouverneur Morris,” wrote a paper he sent to Thomas Jefferson called,“Notes Respecting Tobacco” that compared cannabis and tobacco and concluded that cannabis “is to be preferred”; and,
Whereas the people find that cannabis is Oregon’s largest cash crop, indicating that cannabis prohibition has failed; and,
Whereas the people find that, despite misinformation concocted to justify cannabis prohibition, the courts of Alaska, Hawaii and Michigan have noted presidential commission findings, scientific studies, and learned treatises which:
(a) Characterize cannabis as a relatively nonaddictive and comparatively harmless euphoriant used and cultivated for more than 10,000 years without a single lethal overdose;

ETC.ETC.

in the proposed law you'll also see among the many supporting findings of the Citizens of Oregon:

"Whereas the people find that federal and corporate misinformation campaigns that economically benefit small groups of people have suppressed the information above and the fact that:
(a) George Washington grew cannabis for more than 30 years and, while he was President, said,“the artificial preparation of hemp is really a curiosity” and told his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, that he was,“suggesting the policy of encouraging the growth of Hemp”;

(b) Thomas Jefferson invented a device to process cannabis, and cannabis fiber was used for most clothing and paper production until the invention of the cotton gin;

) Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who spoke at the U.S. Constitutional Convention in 1787 more than any other delegate and of whom James Madison said,“the style and finish of the Constitution properly belongs to the pen of Gouverneur Morris,” wrote a paper he sent to Thomas Jefferson called,“Notes Respecting Tobacco” that compared cannabis and tobacco and concluded that cannabis “is to be preferred”; and,
Whereas the people find that cannabis is Oregon’s largest cash crop, indicating that cannabis prohibition has failed; and,
Whereas the people find that, despite misinformation concocted to justify cannabis prohibition, the courts of Alaska, Hawaii and Michigan have noted presidential commission findings, scientific studies, and learned treatises which:
(a) Characterize cannabis as a relatively nonaddictive and comparatively harmless euphoriant used and cultivated for more than 10,000 years without a single lethal overdose;

ETC.ETC.

"I need you to prove to me that your plan will amount to an impressive cash lump sum to rescue local and federal budgets."

I don't think that should be a necessary component to creating justice.

It's the biggest cash crop, and its prohibition budget is akin to the defense budget, eliminate the waste and suffering, and tax what you can (why do you insist that this is hard to understand?)

Since you asked, I'd grow my own, and maybe I'd sell and/or donate my surplus to the local medicine bank...in relation to patients in need, how much do I give a sh#t about money.

also, you will know what's at the corner store is a regulated, standardized product. you know what u have when u grow your own. if you question your neighbor's goods, maybe use the ones you know about, instead.

and if the neighbor is selling without paying tax its called tax evasion. and if he's selling better stuff i hope he does it legit.

It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled dangerous substance classified in Schedule I unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner or as provided in R.S. 40:978, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this Part
http://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2009/rs...
PART X-E. THERAPEUTIC USE OF MARIJUANA
§1046. Prescription of marijuana for therapeutic use; rules and regulations; secretary of health and hospitals
A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Part, a physician licensed to practice medicine in this state and who is also registered to prescribe Schedule I substances with the Drug Enforcement Administration may prescribe marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinols, or a chemical derivative of tetrahydrocannabinols for therapeutic use by patients clinically diagnosed as suffering from glaucoma, symptoms resulting from the administration of chemotherapy cancer treatment, and spastic quadriplegia in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by the secretary of health and hospitals and in accordance with FDA and DEA administrative guidelines for procurement of the controlled substance from the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
B. The secretary of health and hospitals, by January 1, 1992, shall promulgate rules and regulations, authorizing physicians licensed to practice in this state to prescribe marijuana for therapeutic use by patients as described in Subsection A of this Section.
Acts 1991, No. 874,§1; Acts 2006, No. 676,§3, eff. July 1, 2006.
http://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2009/rs...
Controlled dangerous substances in Schedules I and II shall be distributed only pursuant to an order form.
http://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2009/rs...
§991. Prescription for controlled dangerous substances; proof of valid prescription; time period for raising defense; notice to prosecution
http://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2009/rs...
(31) "Practitioner" means a physician, dentist, veterinarian, scientific investigator, pharmacy, hospital, or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, or administer a controlled dangerous substance in the course of professional practice or research in this state.
(32) "Prescribe" means to issue a written request or order for a controlled dangerous substance by a person licensed under this Part for a legitimate medical purpose. The act of prescribing must be in good faith and in the usual course of the licensee's professional practice.
(33) "Prescription" means a written request for a drug or therapeutic aid issued by a licensed physician, dentist, veterinarian, osteopath, or podiatrist for a legitimate medical purpose, for the purpose of correcting a physical, mental, or bodily ailment, and acting in good faith in the usual course of his professional practice.
http://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2009/rs...
Licensing Requirements
http://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2009/rs...
Authority to Control "Dangerous Substances"
http://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2009/rs...

2009 Louisiana Code TITLE 40 Public health and safety :: RS 40:1024 Exceptions; defenses
Share |

§1024. Exceptions; defenses

A. Any provision of law to the contrary herein notwithstanding, the provisions of this Part shall not apply to the manufacture, sale, distribution, or advertisement of any product or object designed and sold primarily for scientific research, industrial, veterinary, or agricultural purposes, or for bona fide medical or clinical use.

B. It shall be an affirmative defense that the person to whom the drug related object or advertisement or notice was distributed had a prescription from a licensed medical practitioner or psychiatrist for marijuana or the controlled substance for which the object is primarily intended to be used. It is also an affirmative defense that the drug related object was designed or marketed as useful primarily for veterinary or agricultural purposes.

Added by Acts 1980, No. 669,§1; Acts 2006, No. 676,§3, eff. July 1, 2006.

Those are LA's MMJ laws.

Anyway, as I mentioned, if you are asking about money, look into industrial hemp. what if you could sell cardboard/plastic packaging/containers, etc. all natural and programmed to biodegrade in 150 days, ETC. There are thousands of applications just like this for industrial hemp. Big Oil engineers would simply swap for THE SUPERIOR biomaterial and all become hemp engineers, if it were legal. Probably wouldn't even need to be subsidized or incetivized, it'd be a freer market.

any louisiana farmers interested in selling local gasoline if it were easy, there were no AHole middle men, you the farmer brings gasoline straight to market sold for market price? fuel by pyrolysis, made on your property overnight, 2 days after harvest, CLEAN LOCAL GASOLINE

That is a disorganized mess and copy/pasting sections of some law does not tell me you fully understand this issue. What's the point of posting laws on here? It's someone else's words, not your own. I've asked you once to use your own words and you have chosen to ignore my request.

Now, you have not proven to me that stoners won't just grow the shit in their basements. I don't see how we can earn any tax revenue if all Joe Shmoe has to do is set up a hydroponic system in his basement or grow it in his back yard, unless Joe Shmoe pays a fee for a permit/license to do so.

What's the point of a corner store if you are growing it? You're skipping the middle man and depriving the state its share of tax revenue. Permits. Permits. Permits. The ONLY way you're going to get recreational weed is via a commercially taxed product. Growing your own will be a criminal offense.

The reason why I insist that this is difficult to understand is, your side claims marijuana will be taxed and regulated. Your strongest argument for legalization has been tax revenue. Even Bill Maher pushes that point on the national stage. When you say you will grown your own, you are in direct conflict with the idea that marijuana can generate tax revenue.

You need to align yourself with the motives of your pot smoking brethren. Growing your own weed will require a permit whether you like it or not. Selling it will require a permit, whether you like it or not. You won't have a choice in the matter. The corporate world is going to chew you up and spit you out.

Your concept of legalization is fairy dust magic. It's not realistic. It's a pipe dream some hippie conjured up in the 60's. You know better than to put hemp up against Big Oil. You know better than that, man.

There's a fictional character you remind me of. Have you seen the movie Dazed and Confused? You sound like Rory Cochrane (Slater). The dollar bill is green, man. Green. Martha Washington prepared George a big fat bowl.

For fuck's sake, dude...stop it with the stereotypical hippie BS.

The reason I linked to those laws, is because they are real and not fairy tale, and show that cannabis revenues can be taxed and regulated. If you disagree with that, you are being unrealistic. Also, under the law I showed you, no licences or permits are required, so, what?

"Your strongest argument for legalization has been tax revenue. "

The basic Constitutional freedom arguements are way stronger than your annoying insistence upon me laying out some proprietary business plan for you. It is a weed.

"Deprive the state of its tax revenue" if it were legal, by growing your own medicine? Ridiculous non sequitor. Does the state have a chance of taxing commercial sales with the current laws? Who exactly is taxing cannabis, at present?
And what is the compelling argument for continuing to arrest recreational users, let alone medical patients. Even if there were some immorality associated with cannabis use (and I think I've shown it's use to be very moral), should we use our police forces to round up herb users as if they are criminals?

"When you say you will grown your own, you are in direct conflict with the idea that marijuana can generate tax revenue. " As I have said already lots of times, industrial hemp will be more lucrative than the medicine, in dollars. MUST THERE BE A PROFIT MOTIVE TO FIX LAWS, OR CAN WE JUST DO THE RIGHT THING, DUDE?

And my name's not Rick Simpson, but you should google him.

Is Joe Schmoe hurting anybody by growing whatever plant he has in his basement?

I'm going to repeat myself again.

People who want to legalize marijuana rely heavily on the argument that legalization will bring about massive tax revenues for states, fixing many of the budget problems we face.

I'm not saying this. Your side says this. I challenge its viability.

What part of that did you miss?

If it's going to be taxed and regulated, you cannot grow it on your own unless you can give me a plan that allows me to charge you for growing it. Otherwise, what's the point in taxing it at all?

If we can't add a tax onto your weed, then I'm afraid I cannot support legalization for any reason, other than medicinal purposes, and even then, I will require that a licensed physician write you a prescription for it.

That's the other problem with you. You're mixing recreational use and medicinal use, or rather, you keep lapsing back into this notion of medicinal uses for marijuana when I am not at all challenging its use as a medicine.

That said, I'd just love to hear what ailment you personally suffer from that requires the use of weed to fix. Don't BS us, man. You just want to get stoned out of your mind, and that, I cannot call medicinal. That's recreational use. I draw a distinction between the two. I don't think you do.

Rick Simpson wrote:

Is Joe Schmoe hurting anybody by growing whatever plant he has in his basement?

He is hurting the economy and the government budget. He is not paying taxes or getting a permit to grow it. No money is transferred to the state. No revenue is earned. He should pay a penalty.

If taxation and regulation is part of the pro-legalization movement, then you must allow the state to tax and regulate growing this plant. Cities and states all across this nation are faced with budget constraints and your fellow potheads gather at these rallies with signs that push weed as the savior to these budget problems.

Well? That can't happen unless we tax you for growing the plant. Otherwise, there's no point in taxing the commercial offerings since every Tom, Dick, and Harry can grow it without paying a fee or a tax.

You cannot have it both ways.

Suddenly everyone conveniently develops a case of glaucoma.

Your argument amounts to this: "If the government cannot tax the home garden, they should be banned. Homegrown tomatoes are "hurting the economy and the government budget."

Who subscribes to that?

"Let food be thy medicine, and medicine be thy food."

"That akin to Essential Fatty Acids and Essential Amino Acids, there needs to be Minimum Daily Requirements established to guide worldwide adoption of raw cannabis as the single most important dietary element." - Dr. William Courtney, Cannabis International

"The city has raised taxes on marijuana dispensaries several times in the past few years, and last year it collected $1.4 million in taxes from them — nearly 3 percent of all the business taxes it collected. Now Oakland plans to double the number of dispensaries it licenses, to eight from the current four, in the hopes that it can collect even more revenue.

“This is general fund revenue — it all goes into the melting pot,” said David McPherson, the city’s tax and revenue administrator.“When you’re making decisions about what to continue keeping or not, it goes into that decision process. If you don’t have that money, then you’re making other decisions about ‘Are we going to close the libraries on Monday?’‘Are you going to end up cutting a cop?’‘Are you not giving funds to our arts and things that help our kids?’”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/cities-t...

I think CNBC covers business news.

"Legalization Will Reduce Crime, Free Up Police Resources"

http://www.cnbc.com/id/36201668/Legalization_...

you don't need my medical records to see my point, either. I might assume, though, that you suffer from some kind of blinding psychosis: Due to Narcissism? An Inferiority/Superiority complex? Hypnosis? For it is indicated, my friend, by an apparent lack of empathy; what's with this fiscal imperative you try to wield over other free human beings?

Rick Simpson wrote:

Your argument amounts to this: "If the government cannot tax the home garden, they should be banned. Homegrown tomatoes are "hurting the economy and the government budget."

No. My argument is this. Read it carefully. Absorb it. The pot you've smoked over the years has killed off what attention span you have. Focus.

The drug is currently not legal. Those who wish it to become legal try to persuade naysayers that it will become a cash crop and produce earnings for state governments by way of taxes. People who grow their own, without proper permits, will not fall under the same jurisdiction as commercial marijuana, whether via dispensary or corner store. If you are allowed to grow weed without any legal ramifications or taxes, why go to the dispensary? Why go to the corner store?

If it grows in your back yard, no tax. If it grows in your basement, no tax. No tax? No revenue.

Growing your own essentially competes directly with the current situation where there are set locations and stores where, if you are eligible, you may purchase marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Legalization would make way for recreational users and medicinal users alike being able to grow their own marijuana without any need for a centralized form of distribution. It would completely negate the need for commercial businesses...and it would be cheaper (no cost at all) for the consumer.

Lay off the tomatoes crap. I'm not an herbal hippie at one with Mother Earth. When tomatoes can give you a mind altering high, then you can compare weed to vegetables. Until then, no more veggie crap.

I'm going in circles now. Read this post over and over again until you understand that you will not be allowed to grow your own weed for your own personal use.

Rick Simpson wrote:

I think CNBC covers business news.
"Legalization Will Reduce Crime, Free Up Police Resources"
http://www.cnbc.com/id/36201668/Legalization_...

That is an opinion piece written by a former police chief. For every police chief you find that endorses legalization, I can find one to match him who is in favor of keeping it illegal.

Legalization will decriminalize possession, but as the Netherlands has shown, tourists coming to their country to partake in the indulgence of weed have triggered organized crime.

Sure, possession won't send you to the slammer, but what about possession while driving? Public intoxication? Operating under the influence? All prosecutable offenses. Still crimes. Still not legal.

All legalization will do is shift the criminal element into other facets of society.

I'd also argue that growing your own weed will remain a prosecutable offense. You may disagree with that outcome, but that's how it's going to be.

Do you think property values will rise in neighborhoods where people are growing weed in their yards? No. Do you think crime will suddenly disappear from neighborhoods where potheads grow weed in their yards? No.

Your run of the mill street corner dealer will still exist in that world and with him, crime. The only thing that will change is that possession will be decriminalized. Nothing more. People don't change. Lowlifes are lowlifes. Potheads are still potheads.

And you're forgetting that one little tidbit of info. Potheads are not suffering from glaucoma. They're lying about being sick just so they can get weed to get high. Getting fucked up, whether it's alcohol or weed, is just not something the law finds acceptable in any society. Again, you are blurring the lines between recreational and medical uses for weed and that, sir, is what makes you a less than reputable source on legalization.

At least I know the difference between a stoner and someone who has cancer and needs to improve their appetite. You don't have cancer. You don't have glaucoma. You aren't sick. You're just a pothead. Mental escapism is not a reason to legalize weed.