Well the fight is on - CA and Pot.

that's a tough one because if it does go to court the feds will probably back the town


anyways it is kind of cool how the advertising and acceptedness of the industry makes it look like it is silly that the drug is still illegal at all, and probably won't be in a matter or a few years or so (at least if the rest of the country was like California)

Nah if you want a state pick Oregon or Colorado. CA's law is a fucking joke, I said it while we were in the room drafting it and it still is. It is too damn vague, does not provide for distribution - aside from saying the state was supposed to come up with something, 13 years ago. Within the law there is nadda about clubs, co ops, etc. Barely covered is home grows.

There are more crack downs coming. People have took the inch and a few miles to boot so to speak.

I know what you mean about the "few miles"... the ads are pretty cool, 1/8ths on sale cheap, cool names for the different bud strains, etc...

What you have really is a bunch of dealers just opening public shop and thinking all goes. Some are claiming self regulation but few actually are. Even fewer are using the actual state issued prescription cards and are still taking written referrals and scripts, hell many of them have doctors on the premises writing them for any reason you can give them or they can hint to you for 50 to 80 bucks a pop.

I am all for decriminalization of all drugs actually. I just do not want to see this one fucked up by well, drug users and profiteers. Which is has been, and being done quickly. People see it like a gold rush almost.

So that's the situation in LA, eh? Personally I'm against pot, unless it's for medicinal purposes.

No that is the situation in some small funky ass town with a stick up its ass, a sheriff who thinks he is above the law, and councilmen who are still more good ole boys than politicians. Well that and a few so old that they couldnt stay awake during the emergency meeting they called.

LA is just considering the ban option.


Then again I know you did not read what was posted nor the link.

It's tough in Colorado once you are outside of Denver. In Denver city limits you have up to an ounce I think. I'd have to agree with Oregon.

Surprisingly a lot of people think Nevada would adopt it, yet they are one on the strictest states.

Let California collapse into chaos. It is already bankrupt and if they can not see that they must take DRASTIC measures to make some money, then fuck 'em.

This has very little to do with the budget. Not so oddly, most far northern CA counties and cities are not near bankrupt and or are fiscally responsible. It gets tough when the state yanks promised funds out from underneath them at a whim but they still are doing mostly OK. Some just have to perform some cuts or layoffs to keep the budget in line. Most did not spur rapid spending during the boom period, like some southern counties did. It still and for a long time will always act like two separate states even though they are not. At worse typically northern CA counties end up getting anally raped with their shares of anything when it comes to state spending, cuts, price gouging, etc.

So to be fair most of these northern counties do not need the money and we already know any money collected would just end up down south.

Oddly though the new water bill passed is not to bad and will help some. I do not see or imagine any real support for the new canal - expect that one to be held up by the counties up here.

Anyways this is about State law versus City Law, and possibly County law soon. Then will quickly beg the question since I5 goes right smack through Red bluff and north of them is one of the biggest producing regions in the state. Will there be legal ramifications about restricting commerce in other parts of the state.