petition- uk grow 4 plants legally at home

[distracted]

Another fucking petition?

Another badly written and fucking daft petition. Why don't people pause, read over it, maybe get a mate to check it over, work on it to build something that reads coherently, makes a strong and thought provoking point... and if they can't, just shut up, because dozens and dozens of lame half cock petitions just paints a picture to politicians that reinforces the stereotypes of "stoners"

As for the other petition Please Tax Us! Pretty Please!

[Joolz]

begging for crumbs from the masters table is never a good look

ask for 4 plants, even if miracles happened and they did agree they will say you can only have one, so you may as well aim high and give your self some negotiating room

[mustangbob]

i dont know about you but after years and years of recieving shitty well written template letter pointing to studies or research that they dont care to read about is pointless.

if i was a politician or mp i would resent the template non personal letters.... they come from a machine, mass produced and tweaked for effect.

hardly real opinions.

if you think that padding out you letter or adding factual links is better , good for you.

but they have had thousands of letters with same quotes ect.

when them shitty letters didnt work the first thousand times why did it not occur to be genuine.

tbh i have emailed my MP and he said that all template or organised letters as they recieved so many generally are skimmed over and binned!

this is because they are clones of a few peoples argument presented as mass opinion.

and designed for effect and persuasion to the aurthors view point and not an honest letter of the opinion of voters in his constituency and that letter that are not carbon copy cut and pastes tell a real story and real opinion of those that matter!

this flys in the face of what democracy is and dosent flow with the parliamentary system.

no pimped up organised letter has the effect you think!

it does the opposite and most mps feel you are wasting their and your own time by doing so all you are doing is satisfying your own ego!

and i can say most template letters or overworked are skimmed over and binned because they have no originality and make the same tired points without relating them to normal life.

average joe is not a business and we are not expected to act as drones/clones, originality goes along way!

the mps want to feel they are talking/listening to real people not admin at norml or clear!

tbh face to face meeting even better, it takes alot more effort and gets more respect then a quick mass cut and paste campaign.

dont get me wrong cut and paste campaigns have ther place but should not be the only tool at hand!

people should not see grammer and such as an obstical that prevents their opinions being heard.

afterall most mps claim to want to reduce the social divide between people and personal position should not get in the way of this!

its sad you really believe that they want what you think they do!

its only yourself and your ego you will be pleasing and to them remove credibility.

afterall if you recieve 100s of letters about the same thing all with the same facts and links and same info over and over.

its all about a group then than the individual.

lots of individual opinions holds more weight than a group with same opinion as the group has a bias towards it.

a group can easier convince more followers and seem more substantial even if based on shit.

lots of individuals that dont have a suspected group motive are more likely to be listened to.

a single man who fights for his only liberty for his own reasons is always respected more than a mob.

and tbh thats how its seen by mps.

mob tactics

stoners cutting and pasteing the best work over and over perpetuating 1 mans argument.

no originality.

and seem like an social experiment in bandwagonism

and i agree begging to the master for more crumbs is not a good look but be real.

they are the master and all crumbs will come from them!

respecting their position and asking for more liberty is the only way to get more!

we cannot take it.

face it while we have a government they are the masters, our masters and any liberty or freedoms requires us to ask/beg for it!

thats politics folks.

seem you dont understand the system you belong too!

sticking fingers up at them will achieve nothing more than we have now and im afraid lots want more.

so it needs a different approach than current.

some of us actually want to be on the right side of the law as some smokers are actually nice,good people and generally laws abiding.

sticking two fingers up hurts all our chances as does mob mentality.

we need to show we belong to a culture not a mob.

this allows us by our human rights- the right to a cultural life and a private and family life.

its just our government sees that the eu covenant supercedes the old human rights charter.

but our first legal defense and only apart from medical is to prove we are a culture and not a mob and should be given the rights that a culture requires.

sticking fingers up or acting behind a few well place names in activist circles will get us knowhere.

the government is here to stay sorry it is.

and if we want anything from masters table it requires begging or you just simply dont know the system you are apart of or want legalization to suit your own twisted agenda rather than liberation of human rights, and truly thats what this is about!

and i would be on this side even if it was salt,sugar or pepper that was banned!!

its what it represents, its about our rights not specifically about being a stoner.

for so many of you think along orwellian lines and can relate to huxleys brave new world but then narrow down your options and move the real goals and then use the same orwellian principle to say than change is bad as where it may lead

what a joke!

so its bad now and could be bad in the future is things change, so lets stick with the badness we know rather than try for change!

thats a grand plan!

hats off too you!

lets see how far you well written and read friends send you when you truly happy to be in stalemate out of fear of venturing into the maze.

like a lab rat you will run out of cheese and then you will have no choice but to enter the maze!

enter alone.

moving forward and finding new cheese is the only option!

the masters make the maze and supply the cheese... you need them.

now all you can do is figure out the maze infront of you!

sit and your cheese will run out.

im going into the maze... i want my stilton god damn it

and i will keep searching even if all i get is a crumb of red leicester round every 10th right turn......

Edited September 11, 2015 by mustangbob

[stummer]

Since when do mps listen to the people they work for? Most of the uk wants weed legal and still lifes are being ruined over it. Its sad were expected to beg them to allow us to grow 4 plants or any number of plants. What difference and what harm does it make? Dont know anything where mps are concerned where they dont wind up ruining and profiting from whatever they are involved in. Dont need no laws around cannabis tbh grow your weed smoke your weed and live your life. Morally i do nothing wrong and i would say those who would point the finger at me for my choices have alot worse on their hands than sticky resin.

[blankSteve]

The current home office guidelines say that nine plants is considered a personal grow. Reducing it to four is a bad idea.

I would only be interested in increasing the personal count to 12 or more.

Perhaps we should only count the plants in flower. Not mums clones and seedlings.

Blank

[distracted]

@@mustangbob

Not really mate, I wasn't talking about templates or cut and pastes, I was talking about writing something that can change someone else's opinion. Just claiming it is your human right isn't making a persuasive case. Your reply has a lot more passion than your petition. I couldn't write a piece I don't think that could make a difference, so I don't add my own scrap of nonsense to the pile of nonsense that has gone before. If I was to make an argument, I would cite how real life examples of a fairer approach to cannabis has worked, educate people to change opinions. Like for example citing the situation in Spain, showing how that has worked and stayed stable

Anyway good luck with your endeavours

Edited September 11, 2015 by distracted

[mustangbob]

@@mustangbob

Not really mate, I wasn't talking about templates or cut and pastes, I was talking about writing something that can change someone else's opinion. Just claiming it is your human right isn't making a persuasive case. Your reply has a lot more passion than your petition. I couldn't write a piece I don't think that could make a difference, so I don't add my own scrap of nonsense to the pile of nonsense that has gone before. If I was to make an argument, I would cite how real life examples of a fairer approach to cannabis has worked, educate people to change opinions. Like for example citing the situation in Spain, showing how that has worked and stayed stable

Anyway good luck with your endeavours

i agree with all of you!

but the government have all this info already and pointing the too it again does nothing.

The current home office guidelines say that nine plants is considered a personal grow. Reducing it to four is a bad idea.

I would only be interested in increasing the personal count to 12 or more.

Perhaps we should only count the plants in flower. Not mums clones and seedlings.

Blank

yes nine total.

4 flowering and however many in veg and mothers suits me fine.

better than no legal plants.

with 2 in a house thats 8 plants- easy 2-3 oz a plant - so 16- 24 oz every 12 weeksish sound good to me... as its 16-24oz legal bud

then fight for more as the evidence says appropriate!

and to allow for medical grow scenarios

Edited September 11, 2015 by mustangbob

[Joolz]

4 plants all sounds a bit too CLEAR for me

[distracted]

CLEAR would have you buy a licence from the state and agree to cannabis inspectors visiting quarterly to check that you aren't growing anything too strong for derek to smoke....

[spankydemonkey]

not signing it myself, not for 4 plants anyway.

[mustangbob]

yeah 4 plants is shit but its about getting the foot in the door so to speak...

and its about giving them something they will talk about rather than fully dismiss.

the petition is not really to legalize 4 plants but what is does represent is the fact thats there is good people who want legalization for the right reasons.

most of the sigs on the previous running petition will just be seen as stoners who just want a free for all. simply thats what they will see.

where as a vote for 4 plants under the above conditions would seem more like a move in the right direction.

giving more personal freedoms while tackling the harm in a more efficient manner.

win win situation

the want to see people who want to work to reduce harm from the present situation and work together to achieve it.

they fear you all will vote and then get it legal and then not continue to work with them.

so using the system for our own ends rather than for human rights.

and they see a bigger problem with all these voters then growing on mass and sticking the finger up at the government after such a deal!

they want a different kind of voter.

another big problem is they see that their system is working as the reduction of use and more leaving the habit on their stats.

what is wrong with this is that is it tacitly implies that cannabis use is wrong and they are doing a good thing!

what needs to change is ...

they need to know that the public dont believe cannabis use is wrong and so them figures dont prove a thing!

all it shows is the government effort has an effect.

but that effect is unwarranted and un supported and only suits their ends.

and that it really should not be about stopping everyone, its about allowing adults to use but protecting youth and also removing crime here and abroads association with the cannabis industry.

they claim its because of this or that harm but thing swing back to their own belief systems and say basically we like what we are doing and for us and our agenda its working!

the problem is they cling to the fact that what they are doing is working.

but its only working to their agenda and not to the publics.

this is wrong.

the harm is not the cannabis, it is the way we have to go about getting it that most harm stems.

this is what they need to see.

even if its not perfect we need to make them realise that cannabis is not going anywhere and is now a culture and that it deserves protection and rights like any other culture!

and the real issue is reducing harm from within this culture not stopping it altogether.

just like with alcohol some people act stupid or do stupid things but it should not mean a blanket ban for all of us because of a minority.

some people cant even have too much caffeine as it triggers psychosis but we dont ban tea and coffee!

even tho they have a clear and demonstrable effect/link with deteriorating mental health if pre-disposed .

the very same as cannabis can for some- again if pre-disposed to such effects.

and alcohol kills all living things if used in excess- not harms kills.

and has a much higher abuse potential and harm to self and others.

with a real system the stupid ones can be weeded out( pardon the pun) and the good allowed to thrive.

until this happens me, you any of us just belong to the group of dreaming stoners that break the law.

on another point, they are listening or someone is for it to have got this far!

the petition has merit in their eyes or would not make stage 3

then they must have agreed that enough member will turn out to warrant debate.

they to must have proved their is new ground to talk over.

and to even make to stage 3 an mp has to go out of their own way to bring the proposal e-petition to the table for concideration.

just to get a debate is very hard as it must meet the critea at all 5 stages or gets put back to stage 2 and an MP MUST FIGHT the case and the reason it has merit and the rest need to agree that they can input enough and not just backtrack over old debates.

only when this criteria is met will parliament release 'days' for debate on back bench business.

so they have reasons and criteria met.

and least the debate is being led by pro side.

again this petition is not for what it says...

its about opening thought in parliament and giving us more room to move in future.

both extremes of what could be available.

in the end government will pick what they want to do but least if we create minimum and maximum expectations and prove enough support we may be able to find a mid ground.

all and any pressure it good for the cause.

imo this petition with a 200000 vote will make more impression with them than 200000 asking for blanket legalization.

its about being realistic and getting them to agree to something and not just we will look into it or outright no.

something gets us in the door.

no gets us knowhere.

and we all know they are not ever going to fully legalise straight away. dreaming if you think so.

the next campaign should begin now so in 6 month we have a new debate.

but they wont debate unless you add to the last response.

and they clearly say this current petition does not address harm to communitys.

so the next attack needs to seem to come from the point of reason and virtue and soley based around harm reduction!

it the sense they relate to it.

then they cant refuse debate next time because they have covered it already.

if you then build on their response and re word and change the basis of the asking then they have to respond in kind.

this over time is where we get our advantage, they lose grounds slowly.

but if the next petition is just the same it will not even have merit and wont get debated.

paliament wont give days to back bench business to talk the same talk.

if its a new angle then they then have no choice but to debate and then respond to the new information.

the response is key.

without response we only have the same arguments that they will not comment on again.

response- the back and forth it what we need no matter how negative.

the government know this so hate to be put in situations where they have to say something!

as they cant predict what event in future may come back to haunt them, so they say little as possible and full of ambiguity for self preservation.

even they know the more they say and the more debates the thinner the argument becomes.

another point is they have all the info on the pros of cannabis.

what they hope and try to do is keep this info from the public.

but soon as its common knowledge they will be their explaining they was aware of the facts but behind the scenes have been putting a progressive action plan of how to evolve with the changing paradigms of society.

and this 'consideration' is enough to protect them from EU human rights legislation on the grounds of culture,family and private life

once again covering their backs.

if we are to win we must play the game.

and now im sure most of you dont know the game, never mind the rules to such a game and this really is what is holding us back.

Edited September 11, 2015 by mustangbob

[Guest]

A petition that forces the government to debate its flimsy position regarding drugs in general and cannabis in particular would be more useful IMHO

Personally I think the only limits should be what a person can safely produce in their own particular circumstance. For example some people might think it is ok to produce 500 skunk#1 plants in a multiple occupancy dwelling situation without using a carbon filter.

A matter for the fire brigade safety officer at most.

The trouble is the government reads out the same old tired statement then there is no opportunity to deconstruct or question what they say.

I might go along the path of financial waste and keeping up with the Jones.

'Should the UK government re consider its position vis a vie Cannabis prohibition in light of the success of prohibition initiatives undertaken all over the world.'

They still won't listen but I'd rather be debating the governments position on cannabis than listening to them say no again and again and again without a hint of debate.

The fact is people like them (the government) cannot stand the idea that people like us (cannabis consumers) would enjoy and profit from something they do in any way whatsoever. They want to punish us at every opportunity because such people hate cannabis and the people who consume it because they themselves don't like it or the ideas it puts in their brains. Ideas that do not gel well with their own belief structures, support structures or conditioning.

[mustangbob]

i agree and we have secured that debate.

now lets work for the next one...

the government will have the same tired respone as long as we ask the same tired questions.

this debate means nothing but what we can glean from it maybe useful...

but our goal now should be forcing the next debate as we not going to win this one.

start early and get the next 1 sooner.

the closer together each debate the quicker the ground moves.

its a game plan.

its not the individual moves its the game plan that will secure the future

we can secure the next and while waiting for that go over this debate regroup and re arm and go again.

then contiue always 1 move ahead of their response.

like in babminton or tennis make them run and tire while you stand and just bat it back.

so they are flustered and have to keep up with us and not the other way around!

then they will always be scared of the next move and also watching over the back at the last... very easy to forget your present is such circumstances.

how can 1 protect themselves in this situation?

they cant tell the future so know they in big trouble when they are on unpredictable ground...

thats what we need to create...

so they dont even know who or what argument is the real one!

then we have a chance at them falling into a well place trap !

they can aunt sally with the best of them but if we show it a logical fallacy everytime we win

Edited September 11, 2015 by mustangbob

[mustangbob]

Another badly written and fucking daft petition. Why don't people pause, read over it, maybe get a mate to check it over, work on it to build something that reads coherently, makes a strong and thought provoking point... and if they can't, just shut up, because dozens and dozens of lame half cock petitions just paints a picture to politicians that reinforces the stereotypes of "stoners"

As for the other petition Please Tax Us! Pretty Please!

have you ever seen how little characters you can use when making the petition?

you get like 80 character for the proposal

300 characters to then explain all your points and background

500 characters additional details 880 no more and ever return key is a character as is a space

so every new line or word loses you a character from the total.

half of the bloody characters are taken with spaces and return keys

so lets say you really have 440 to work with!

now 3/4 of them are small insignificant words( a,at,and ect) so that leave 110 character for words of influence or power.

most of these words will average 5-6 characters. so lets say around twenty words you have to make your point, prove it, gain voters and please the government! its a big ask

so even spacing your petition into seperate sentences eats away at you total, as does every a,an, at, how,what ect all these small words that say so little quickly eat you total till you have no character left to say anything important

trying yourself!

its very hard to get your point across in so few characters and at the same time it has to be attractive to them!

its very limiting.

i thought that petition was on point.

it address the concerns the government have(harm reduction) and showed how it was of benefit.

its called brevity and yes it may not be the best example of laconism but not bad by any stretch of the mind.

try to say alot with so little and make your point and also appeal to the government is so few words!!

i beg you try it!

its not as easy as you think!

and as a response to the governments response was on target.

it addresses their concerns unlike other said petition that really is a laugh and a statement being made rather that true diplomacy.

all that did was show how we could profit.

the government want harm reduction.

that petition does no such thing and the government have said as such.

no this petition addresses directly the issues needed and put the point home quickly.

simple and effective at directing the fact they will have better control and harm reduction this way.

and thats what they want to discuss!

and if made it to debate would go a lot further than debating blanket legalization would, simply because of the ones who are debating it!!

so i urge you to try and write yourself with the above restrictions and also to appeal to voters and at the same time to garnish higher support.

its not just voters need to be convinced!

the above dosent allow for detail or long winded views.

it has to short concise and meet lots of expectations!

sorry for double post but wouldnt let me edit above post

EDIT

just out of curiosity you guys oppose the 4 plant limit but not the premise of zero tolerance?

so you would be law abiding if the amount was right and justifiable??

so would you agree if it was only a restriction on lighting power for flowering room and not numbers of plants?

i.e 600w or 1000w max to cover 1m2 floor space any more being commercial intent? and have zero tolerance on those who are caught with more?

this would allow more room for different grow styles and amounts and the only restricting feature would be the amount of available light and thus limit production maximums.

or is selling cannabis an important feature that is overlooked?

and should profit be the basis for any change in law?cannabis or otherwise

i agree profit is good but plays or should play a secondary role imo and come later first personal freedoms need to be fully stretch out.

maybe we would be better petition for mushrooms as even the government knows and admitts that they are none abusive and hurt knowone except the taker in extremes.

safest drug mushrooms.

if we got that then maybe cannabis would be easier to follow.

i dont think the last petition got 100 votes tbh

Edited September 11, 2015 by mustangbob

[Joolz]

just out of curiosity you guys oppose the 4 plant limit but not the premise of zero tolerance?

so you would be law abiding if the amount was right and justifiable??

so would you agree if it was only a restriction on lighting power for flowering room and not numbers of plants?

i.e 600w or 1000w max to cover 1m2 floor space any more being commercial intent? and have zero tolerance on those who are caught with more?

this would allow more room for different grow styles and amounts and the only restricting feature would be the amount of available light and thus limit production maximums.

or is selling cannabis an important feature that is overlooked?

and should profit be the basis for any change in law?cannabis or otherwise

i agree profit is good but plays or should play a secondary role imo and come later first personal freedoms need to be fully stretch out.

maybe we would be better petition for mushrooms as even the government knows and admitts that they are none abusive and hurt knowone except the taker in extremes.

safest drug mushrooms.

if we got that then maybe cannabis would be easier to follow.

i dont think the last petition got 100 votes tbh

its just a plant, and as such limiting humans on how many plants they can grow is just absurd, those asking for limits even more so imho

and why are some people so focussed on commercial intent and profit ? "ahhm, you want to grow more than 4 plants so you must be dealer"

completely blinkered and and ignorant outlook !!

Edited September 11, 2015 by Joolz