WAR ROOM LOUNGE V23: November Sixth LOOMS

[Captain Davis]

My thoughts on prop one and maybe some of you guys whos states are further along will be of some help

The wording in prop one says you can grow up to 12 plants , 2.5 zips can be out. You can possess up to 10 but has to be properly stored ...... Anyone knows a thing or 2 about cultivation should see the problem right away .... Where to the other 14 pounds or so of flowers go ?

You sound high

 

[Gutter Chris]

And they claim it isn't addictive....

Ask a person that smokes recreationally every day to quit cold turkey and watch them freak the fuck out like an alcoholic who can't find their vodka stash. There may be no addictive chemicals in it but you for sure can get hooked on the way it makes you feel.

I smoke daily and I would not be happy to give it up at all I agree with you on that ..... But it has its ups and downs and it is better than burning through percocets. Judge if ya want but walk a mile or so they say . Also ask your friends who drink coffee or a lot of caffine to give it up and see what happens ? In a classic sense those people are addicts but they will get over it in a short span and it isnt going to be the same as kicking dope or booze at all which hook into a person in way worse ways.

I think those peoples enthusiasm is mostly harmless most folks arent burn a half a day smokers and no one seems to bat an eye at the beer wine whiskey enthusiasts etc . Let people enjoy themselves.




Personal liberty is always a good thing and the more the better. Folks should be free to decide if they wish to compete in 3 gun on saturday night or get high and giggle at the ceiling on the couch and as Rogan would tell you you can get addicted to anything including cheese burgers.


Im extremely pro pot but I will be honest and say that my entire life revolves around the plant as I am a heavy smoker and work in that industry just so you know where i am coming from. Its given me a real life and allowed me to get myself out of the hood so it is very hard for me to see the negatives as anywhere close to the positives

 

[Gutter Chris]

You sound high

Mainlining that shit for years bro

 

[Ruprecht]

My thoughts on prop one and maybe some of you guys whos states are further along will be of some help

The wording in prop one says you can grow up to 12 plants , 2.5 zips can be out. You can possess up to 10 but has to be properly stored ...... Anyone knows a thing or 2 about cultivation should see the problem right away .... Where to the other 14 pounds or so of flowers go ?

Maybe the weight limit is supposed to determine growing methods and maybe even varieties I guess?
Indoors. No tipping. Short grow cycle. Small indicas.

 

[Gregolian]

I smoke daily and I would not be happy to give it up at all I agree with you on that ..... But it has its ups and downs and it is better than burning through percocets. Judge if ya want but walk a mile or so they say . Also ask your friends who drink coffee or a lot of caffine to give it up and see what happens ? In a classic sense those people are addicts but they will get over it in a short span and it isnt going to be the same as kicking dope or booze at all which hook into a person in way worse ways.

I think those peoples enthusiasm is mostly harmless most folks arent burn a half a day smokers and no one seems to bat an eye at the beer wine whiskey enthusiasts etc . Let people enjoy themselves.




Personal liberty is always a good thing and the more the better. Folks should be free to decide if they wish to compete in 3 gun on saturday night or get high and giggle at the ceiling on the couch and as Rogan would tell you you can get addicted to anything including cheese burgers.


Im extremely pro pot but I will be honest and say that my entire life revolves around the plant as I am a heavy smoker and work in that industry just so you know where i am coming from. Its given me a real life and allowed me to get myself out of the hood so it is very hard for me to see the negatives as anywhere close to the positives

I have ZERO issue with guys taking it for nagging pain and other medical things.

My neighbor at my last place was a Ranger and had an entire Bradley wheel fall out of a Deuce and a Half and on top of him in Kuwait and lives in constant pain every day.

I'm talking strictly recreational use.

 

[Quipling]

Heya @Whippy McGee , I thought you were gonna start that thread on the issues you alluded to in the California Senate and lt. Governor races. Instead you made a thread on a national monument in Kentucky. Can you explain the California thing you mentioned? I can't figure out what you were talking about.

 

[Gutter Chris]

I'm talking strictly recreational use.

Im talking about both and they are divided by a real thin line. example if you smoke a fat hoot then watch southpark and go to bed ... did you not just get high for the hell of it but enjoy one of its medical perks just the same ?

I just dont see it as a big deal and I also see it as a better alternative to worse things. some stoners are annoying but most are just normal people and im pretty sure the negatives will be minimal/ we are already used to them . I dont think anything is worse than booze on people who cant control themselves lives and no one freaks about its recreational use ya know ?

 

[Gutter Chris]

Congrats! Aren't you in that line of work with medical or did I imagine that?

Yea theres a lot of uncertainty right now but everyone is optimistic that this will be great. Overall I am too but I am skeptical of the wording. on top of this we already have medical and growers licenses and all that and im just not sure how its going to all come together yet.

Change man

It almost always works out but its stressful to go through.

 

[Gutter Chris]

What's the difference between that and habit-forming? Is daily exercise and addiction or just a good habit?

Good point

I have got myself hooked on the pool now and stress and fiend to get back in it when im not

Even worse I double it up with edibles and love the feeling of swimming around once they kick in

Im a mega addict lol

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

You understand that the roads themselves cost money to build, maintain, and expand.. and that money comes from the state, right?

Just because you drive to work doesn't mean your transportation cost to the state is neutral. In fact, the amount of drivers on the road contribute more to the problem of building and maintaining infrastructure like roads and bridges.

If you guys didn't have a gas tax how would your roads be funded?

We already have crazy high state tax. We cant have our roads fixed without a separate gas tax? Bull fucking shit

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

What do you think can be done to fix the transit problem?

We have a decent network of buses and of course the famous streetcars, but Jesus it takes forever to get anywhere on the streetcars since tourists ride them for fun.

Ca is too big and spread our for public transportation to be viable.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Yea theres a lot of uncertainty right now but everyone is optimistic that this will be great. Overall I am too but I am skeptical of the wording. on top of this we already have medical and growers licenses and all that and im just not sure how its going to all come together yet.

Change man

It almost always works out but its stressful to go through.

Yeah, change. The devil you know...

Still gonna be awhile before new laws are implemented and such? Here in HI we got dispensaries approved like 3-4 years ago and they were supposed to open up fairly immediately. The slated for Big Island are nowhere to be seen.

 

[Rational Poster]

We already have crazy high state tax. We cant have our roads fixed without a separate gas tax? Bull fucking shit

Cali actually a pretty fair progressive rate.

Don't you think it's more fair to tax the people that use the road the most directly via a gas tax? You're literally paying based on your road usage.

 

[SurferH2O]

Heya @Whippy McGee , I thought you were gonna start that thread on the issues you alluded to in the California Senate and lt. Governor races. Instead you made a thread on a national monument in Kentucky. Can you explain the California thing you mentioned? I can't figure out what you were talking about.

California had only Democrats to choose from in our U.S. Senate election and our Lt. Governor election, due to new campaign laws put up by the Democratic Party Super Majority. They ran some "Republicans" in the primaries to dilute the vote from the actual Republicans to ensure no opposition.

Who else only has one party to choose from in their elections? Soviet Russia, Cuba, North Korea, etc....

 

[BEAST]

Grats to Michigan.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Cali actually a pretty fair progressive rate.

Don't you think it's more fair to tax the people that use the road the most directly via a gas tax? You're literally paying based on your road usage.

Our gas is already taxed in the sales tax and then taxed again by our stupid gas tax. Our fucking taxes are taxed lmfao!!!

 

[Quipling]

California had only Democrats to choose from in our U.S. Senate election and our Lt. Governor election, due to new campaign laws put up by the Democratic Party Super Majority. They ran some "Republicans" in the primaries to dilute the vote from the actual Republicans to ensure no opposition.

Who else only has one party to choose from in their elections? Soviet Russia, Cuba, North Korea, etc....

Oh, I thought you were bringing up a criminal violation like there was in my thread. Instead it's about California's runoff election and how you think it's the same as countries that have literally banned every other party.

Incidentally, it looks like the Dems had 10 candidates (who got a collective 62% of the vote), the Republicans had 11 (who got a collective 34% of the vote), and there were 11 Indy candidates (who grabbed the remaining 4%). So I'm not sold on the existence of a conspiracy to dilute, unless they also tried the same thing on the Dems. Looks like the votes just weren't there.

Nevertheless, thanks for your answer.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Cali actually a pretty fair progressive rate.

 

[Higus]

California had only Democrats to choose from in our U.S. Senate election and our Lt. Governor election, due to new campaign laws put up by the Democratic Party Super Majority. They ran some "Republicans" in the primaries to dilute the vote from the actual Republicans to ensure no opposition.

Who else only has one party to choose from in their elections? Soviet Russia, Cuba, North Korea, etc....

When you say "they", do you mean that State Democrats were actually responsible for adding more candidates to the other party? If so, how?

 

[Falsedawn]

QAnon can hold this L

Spoiler

Praise OBAᗺO