BURNERS SAY NO TO MEXICAN DRUGS

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:57 pm

Does it matter?

And shouldn't such questions warrant their own thread?

I mean, this WAS a specific thread re. a particular issue.

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 8:56 pm

Well, it may be somewhat related. Prop 21 is the measure to levy a vehicle tax on Californians to pay for needed services at state parks. I suppose monitoring state parks for drug cartel growers could be thought of as an area of concern in this proposition, but I don't think it is. I value and love the state park system and work to protect it in many ways, but creating more taxes is not the way to fund this one. Californian workers are financially stressed as it is. We are sick and tired of new taxes. Much of the use problems in Cal state parks is generated by the new craze in mountain biking. Errant bikers are chopping down trees and building new trails all over our state park system and offering up their injured bodies to expensive rescues that the taxpayer funds. I've had my life threatened numerous times for exposing and fighting them within the system. Prop 21 would be helping to finance their use of the state park system. The illegal growers make more use of Marin Municipal Water District and Fed lands in Marin than in the state park system anyway.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sat Oct 30, 2010 10:04 pm

That makes as much sense as making the pot tax pay for potholes.

Post by **Elderberry** » Sun Oct 31, 2010 8:41 am

cowboyangel wrote:Well, it may be somewhat related. Prop 21 is the measure to levy a vehicle tax on Californians to pay for needed services at state parks. I suppose monitoring state parks for drug cartel growers could be thought of as an area of concern in this proposition, but I don't think it is. I value and love the state park system and work to protect it in many ways, but creating more taxes is not the way to fund this one. Californian workers are financially stressed as it is. We are sick and tired of new taxes. Much of the use problems in Cal state parks is generated by the new craze in mountain biking. Errant bikers are chopping down trees and building new trails all over our state park system and offering up their injured bodies to expensive rescues that the taxpayer funds. I've had my life threatened numerous times for exposing and fighting them within the system. Prop 21 would be helping to finance their use of the state park system. The illegal growers make more use of Marin Municipal Water District and Fed lands in Marin than in the state park system anyway.

I don't know why, but your response sort of reminds me of "Talk is cheap. Put your money where your mouth is. "

Crying about how much you want the parks to be saved out of one side of your mouth and saying you don't want to spend the money necessary to do it...well, it rings hollow at best.

JK

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sun Oct 31, 2010 8:45 am

jkisha wrote:
cowboyangel wrote:Well, it may be somewhat related. Prop 21 is the measure to levy a vehicle tax on Californians to pay for needed services at state parks. I suppose monitoring state parks for drug cartel growers could be thought of as an area of concern in this proposition, but I don't think it is. I value and love the state park system and work to protect it in many ways, but creating more taxes is not the way to fund this one. Californian workers are financially stressed as it is. We are sick and tired of new taxes. Much of the use problems in Cal state parks is generated by the new craze in mountain biking. Errant bikers are chopping down trees and building new trails all over our state park system and offering up their injured bodies to expensive rescues that the taxpayer funds. I've had my life threatened numerous times for exposing and fighting them within the system. Prop 21 would be helping to finance their use of the state park system. The illegal growers make more use of Marin Municipal Water District and Fed lands in Marin than in the state park system anyway.
I don't know why, but your response sort of reminds me of "Talk is cheap. Put your money where your mouth is. "

Crying about how much you want the parks to be saved out of one side of your mouth and saying you don't want to spend the money necessary to do it...well, it rings hollow at best.

JK

yeah, but, maybe I don't want to contribute to that.
and, a new tax, takes that decision away from me.
Taxes are forced charity, for the most part, and, used to garner more power for the "elite" in gov.
You want to do something?
do it.
But, don't make me do it, if I don't wanna.

I say this, related to "cursory" things.........not things necessary for basic societal operation.

Post by **Elderberry** » Sun Oct 31, 2010 9:04 am

ygmir wrote:
jkisha wrote:
cowboyangel wrote:Well, it may be somewhat related. Prop 21 is the measure to levy a vehicle tax on Californians to pay for needed services at state parks. I suppose monitoring state parks for drug cartel growers could be thought of as an area of concern in this proposition, but I don't think it is. I value and love the state park system and work to protect it in many ways, but creating more taxes is not the way to fund this one. Californian workers are financially stressed as it is. We are sick and tired of new taxes. Much of the use problems in Cal state parks is generated by the new craze in mountain biking. Errant bikers are chopping down trees and building new trails all over our state park system and offering up their injured bodies to expensive rescues that the taxpayer funds. I've had my life threatened numerous times for exposing and fighting them within the system. Prop 21 would be helping to finance their use of the state park system. The illegal growers make more use of Marin Municipal Water District and Fed lands in Marin than in the state park system anyway.
I don't know why, but your response sort of reminds me of "Talk is cheap. Put your money where your mouth is. "

Crying about how much you want the parks to be saved out of one side of your mouth and saying you don't want to spend the money necessary to do it...well, it rings hollow at best.

JK
yeah, but, maybe I don't want to contribute to that.
and, a new tax, takes that decision away from me.
Taxes are forced charity, for the most part, and, used to garner more power for the "elite" in gov.
You want to do something?
do it.
But, don't make me do it, if I don't wanna.

I say this, related to "cursory" things.........not things necessary for basic societal operation.

Is everyone aware that, in California, you have to pay a fee to enter the parks? The $18.00 per vehicle fee that would be assessed in prop 21 would then allow all CA residents/drivers to enter the parks for free?

Just wondering...

JK

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:22 pm

You did what Iso said you'd do...thread drift. This is about The Mexican drug wars and getting Burning Man to take a stand condemning it. Drug war related stuff is ok.

Post by **Elderberry** » Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:36 pm

cowboyangel wrote:You did what Iso said you'd do...thread drift. This is about The Mexican drug wars and getting Burning Man to take a stand condemning it. Drug war related stuff is ok.

Sorry, but how was this thread drift? You brought up the point that illegal growing was hurting the land. So, I wanted to see where you stood on an issue that was designed to protect those lands. All seems related to me.

JK

ygmir · Post by **ygmir** » Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:38 pm

you drifted the thread............"YOU BASTARD"

Post by **Elderberry** » Sun Oct 31, 2010 4:45 pm

JK

Kinetik V · Post by **Kinetik V** » Sun Oct 31, 2010 9:06 pm

Skimming the thread again Burning Man is many things to many people but using it as a platform against the Mexican cartels seems to be an energy suck / time waster / and not in their sphere of influence anyway, IMHO.

I hope the ORG continues to support issues in the Bay Area and in Northern Nevada and leaves this issue to other groups to take on.

I also think that the discussion of the environmental impacts of marijuana production deserves more attention. Here in Colorado we've had our National Forest problems with grow ops...here's a KUSA - 9 News story from a double bust back in Sept that talks about the problem: http://www.9news.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=152007

In short I want to be able to hike or go 4 wheeling in the National Forest and not worry about stumbling onto someone's grow ops and get shot at in the process...among many other concerns. Grow the pot in a warehouse in controlled, secured conditions and be done with it.