Instead Of Capitalist, Why Not naturalist?

Discussion in 'Marijuana Legalization' started by PFTC_united, Jun 22, 2014.

  1. Howdy and greetings on the second day of summer. 
     
    So here's a thought I haven't seen before, and it's been on my mind lately. 
     
    Instead of legalizing sales/use/commercial cultivation/etc., why not legalize an individual's right to grow their own?
     
    I know this is a capitalist world, revolving around the almighty dollar and seeking the highest profit, but just hear me out.
     
    If people could just grow their own pot to use for themselves, so many problems would be solved.  No illegal/legal market, no need to dance around state/national laws and regulations, no need to establish whether it's 'medical' or 'recreational' and face the opinions and debates from either viewpoint.  Just a simple solution for a simple plant.
     
    People grow their own vegetables, why not allow them to grow their own pot? 
     
    Here's the thought:  Laws would be written itemizing maximum amount, full disclosure for protection under the law, no need to figure out pricing, taxation, etc.  Just a max # of plants per household, disclosed to law enforcement to protect citizen's rights, and simply return punishment to the concept of 'don't take what doesn't belong to you or face the penalty.'
     
    For example:  Household 1 wishes to cultivate 2 plants for personal usage.  Due to the size of the plant and subsequent odor associated with growing, household 1 discloses their intention to build a greenhouse on their property to house these plants.  Household 1 links this greenhouse to the home security system, which is in essence linked to law enforcement just like any house with a security system, and they sign several waivers (No intent to sell, No intent to distribute, Personal use only, etc.) that entitles them to police intervention in the event that someone breaks into their private property - just like a home security system response network.  It's easy to get seeds if you smoke, and exchange of seeds would be permissible under the caveat that the legal disclosure be updated to include where the seeds came from, how many plants will be added to the household, and disclaimer that no profit will be made from sale of personal use marijuana. 
     
    Yes, it sounds ludicrous, but think of it this way.  If it were legal to grow your own plant, no one would need to buy or sell or even steal, since it would be easier to grow a plant than risk arrest for breaking and entering and theft of personal property.  And if anyone were stupid enough to try to steal someone else's plant, laws would already be in place enabling full prosecution for B&E, Theft, Trespassing, etc.  No need to rewrite the books...personal property under the law is personal property under the law.  Like the idiots who get caught stealing someone else's tomatoes out of their yard.  And yes, some idiots do get caught. 
     
    Maybe I'm the idiot for thinking this might work, but really...it would be the simplest solution across the board.  Grow your own, stop buying, stop worrying about someone from Colorado taking legally bought pot to Kansas to give to a friend for their birthday or whatever.  If they want to stay capitalist about it, then provide SEEDS ONLY from police auctions or something.  That way you kill 2 birds with one stone.  Regulation of distribution and immediate access to full disclosure signage so that you're not in the soup for growing your own. 
     
    If people could just grow their own legally, this entire mess about how to legalize (medical/recreational/etc.) would be moot.  Get arrested for B&E and leave it at that.  Link your greenhouse to the home security system, complete with CCTV to catch any would-be crooks in action, and constant resupply of your own seeds from your own product.  Want something new and fancy but only legally allowed to have 2 plants in your household?  Full disclosure under the law.  "Yes, I will be acquiring seeds for 'fancy pot name 432G' and it will replace my current plant 'mama's mix'.  Seeds acquired via birthday gift from Joe Schmoe (include Joe Schmoe's signature and disclosure ID # for verification).   Please update my file accordingly, and note the attached destruction image for 'mama's mix'.  (Attached pic of a burning/dug up/brown and dead plant). * Or * Please schedule a time for Regulation Officer Spivey to inspect acquisition of new seeds and distruction of old plant.  My household disclosure ID # is 'blah blah blah'."   
     
    Granted - apartment dwellers might have a problem, but there could be ways around that too - maybe provision to allow for small greenhouses for personal use on public or police regulated land, equally protected under the law, like community gardens the world over. 
     
    Yeah, I guess I live in a fantasy world and want to bring the rest of you with me, but it seems like such a simple solution, doesn't it?  No sales, no cartels, no seedy exchanges in the back alley's of the world.  Just "Hey, we harvested the Green Giant this weekend!  Come over and try some."  Personal growth and use would be protected under the law, and you only get screwed if you steal it or try to buy/sell it. 
     
    Meh...one can dream.
     
    -Pause For The Cause United

     
  2. you are talking about identifying seeds. cannabis seeds all look alike and you do not know what they are until they sprout up and grow. regulating to that point would probably mean ir radiation only, that is what they have to offer.
     
    why a natural product needs regulating is the big question. cannabis was here before humans so humans need regulating imo!
     
    plus people who are regulatory crazy only want to regulate the single parts in the whole not the whole in general which then degrades the whole into a single part vastly missing the whole aspect which is the natural part that needs no regulation. see how it works? this plant just sprouts up--  go regulate now before it sprouts everywhere!!!!!
     
  3. While I see your point, I wasn't really talking about identifying seeds.  Heck, I don't know one plant from another...people mention names to me and I pull the 'duh, ain't it all pot' face.  I'm just saying if you can throw the seeds in the ground and get a plant, why not be allowed to throw the seeds in your own ground, grow your own plant, and leave the money out of it. 
     
    Been without for a week now...that's probably why I've been thinking about it.  Wah!  :unsure:  Wouldn't be on the waiting train if I had my own harvest to rely on.  But unlike some who grow it anyway (y'all have guts!), I'm too paranoid. 
     
  4. I have been entertaining that thought since 1972.
     
  5. That's still limiting it though.
     
    It's like tomatoes. You can grow your own sure, but you can also go to the store and buy them.
     
    That's how it should be. I don't see a reason to limit it one way or the other.
     
  6. True...there's bound to be a limit, but in this instance the limit would probably be more positive.  Imagine people being allowed to grow their own with no cap on how much...the temptation of others to just steal would be higher, the crime rate would remain due to protecting ones own crop, and the 'system' wouldn't be as eager to protect the rights of private citizens because they'd be setting themselves up for their own problems.  This way, at least, they could agree to a measure of protection without saying "hey, you're the one who covered your backyard in/filled your house to overflowing with pot plants.  if someone stole your stuff that's not our problem. And what do you need so much for anyway if it's just for you?"
     
    I still wish I could just go in my basement and pluck off a bud rather than waiting for the phone to ring or be answered.  I wouldn't need an orchard.  Just a couple for my own use. 
     
    But you're right.  People don't like limits, most don't even set them for themselves.  Lack of self-control, eh?  :huh: 
     
  7. the laws somewhat are based around the dumb asses who want to sell to everybody walking and are pushing their product from here to the moon. you see em with the big hats turned sideways and talking funny like with a blunt. funny thing is most pushers only see the end product and do not know how to grow jack
     
  8. I will invoke the "why not both?" clause.
     
    stores for convenience and state/gov't revenue
     
    personal grows for people who just prefer that
     
    no ridiculous license fees, but require a license for any "trade" beyond a "small" amount.
     
  9. naturalist:
    [​IMG]
     
    capitalist:
    [​IMG]
     
     
     
    whats that?...why not the best of both worlds you say?
    well, so be it...this is a job for Middleman! ♫♪ da da da ♪♫ :smoking:   
    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page