Yes on Prop 19 Winning 52%-36%; Majority Supports Legalizing Marijuana

[Harry Dresden]

Let Teabaggers be Teabaggers.[/CENTER]

now how do you know that lady is a teabagger?.....there is a 50% chance she could be as far left as you are.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

I am not a Doctor, but I am a third year medical student, so at this point there is a high probability that I will be a doctor and that will be my attitude. I didn't go into medicine to become a pot dealer nor did I go into medicine to practice bad prescription practices and become someone's candyman and give patients everything they want.

I'd be glad to look at any peer-reviewed literature you have that supports MJ for the vast indications it's currently prescribed for.

Medicine should be evidence based. There isn't a lot of evidence supporting the indications for MJ for much of anything. So, unless someone has a terminal condition and there isn't the time/luxury to explore better options, then it's tough shit.

The people who think MJ is some sort of miracle drug are moronic. Of course getting stoned is going to keep you from being anxious. Is going through life stoned a better alternative?

No.

I used to support medicinal MJ, but after seeing what happened in California I am skeptical now.

Just legalize it so I can avoid the awkward "I am sorry, you aren't getting Marijuania for your ingrown toenail" conversations.

and you are absoulutly right about that Geau.....lots of abuse.....that needs to be addressed....my wife can qualify....she is an epilleptic who gets frequent migraines.....and Pot takes care of her condition better than anything her Neurologist gives her....and she told him this, he told her....you know i have been told this by other patients.....if you can get it .....you got my blessing......use what works.....

 

[2Parties]

the biggest two groups fighting against this type of legislation are:
1) drug cartels
2) big government politicians and their minions

does that tell you anything?

Real criminals don't like when they lose control?

Really though I don't care for this proposition. As soon as government taxes and regulates something they are by default endorsing it. See: state lotteries and liquor licensing.

 

[MikeK]

I understand some of you want to see it legalized. Honestly, I am not sure what my position is on it anymore.

If you are not sure of your position it means you harbor conflicting thoughts on the issue, so I have two questions for you:

What do you believe are good reasons to legalize marijuana.

What do you believe are good reasons to not legalize marijuana.

But it seems that focusing on this when there are so many other important issues out there, is kind of short sighted. What does it matter if marijuana is legalized if we are unemployed, have no control over our health care, have to pay $8 Gasoline, and have widespread corruption through the system?

This happens to be very important issue for a number of reasons, first of which is legalizing marijuana will be a significant step in the direction of eliminating a major waste of federal funds and calling public attention to one of the most immoral and destructive aspects of the contemporary federal government, the wholly counterproductive War On Drugs.

Also, if marijuana became as legally available as is beverage alcohol do you realize how many jobs would be created to facilitate its growth, processing and distribution? And do you know how much tax would be generated by its controlled sale? All of that money is presently being absorbed by criminal cartels and corrupt politicians and law enforcement agents -- and I'm talking about hundreds of billions of dollars.

As anyone who is well informed on the subject will tell you, there is absolutely no good teason to continue marijuana prohibition.

 

[MikeK]

I get the legalization part, and eagerly await the end of corruption associated with the wod. I don't get the enthusiasm from the same folks for regulation and taxation once it is legal. The stuff will grow wild with next to no effort and do you want the tax man in your back yard garden?

In the same way as there are laws against moonshining there will be laws against growing your own marijuana. But while that won't stop some of the same people who are growing it now the percentage of those who risk the consequences will be predictably small.

What is most significant is the availability of legal marijana will include the most exotic hydroponically produced strains at reasonable prices. This will discourage home-growing in the same way as legal availability of many fine liquors has discouraged moonshining.

Imagine going to your local pot shop or liquor store and buying an ounce of hydroponically grown, cleaned and processed indica sinsemilla bud for about $100. That would cost you $500 on the street today.

 

[MikeK]

Only dreamers think this will become law, and I am not a dreamer, despite being a libertarian who thinks that the feds do not have constitutional authority to even pass drug laws.

What you're saying is quite valid. But everything depends on how the public reacts to the fed demonstrating contempt for the will of the People. I'm sure the DEA bastards will assert themselves, but what happens next will tell the tale.

The fact that this Proposition appears to be strongly supported by the public means the people of California are fed up with the oppressive pot laws. So maybe a showdown will be a good thing in the end.

 

[Truthmatters]

If cali legalizes every state will clamour to do so after they see the revenue cali recieves.

 

[MikeK]

Why support decriminalization and not legalization. I have never understood that stance as it seems a half assed way of doing things.[...]

You're not alone in questioning this curious discrepancy. But there is a reasonable justification for decriminalizing rather than legalizing marijuana.

Legalizing marijuana is a complicated and relatively indelible action. To recriminalize it would require more complicated, time-consuming legislation. But decriminalization requires little more than a formalized declaration by an attorney general which suspends or modifies prosecution for certain aspects of an illegal activity but leaves the laws intact.

For example, marijuana was somewhat decriminalized throughout the sixties and seventies in New York City. Possession of up to 55 grams (two ounces) was a summons offense for which the punishment was a $25 fine, but public "trafficking" or use was a misdemeanor for which one could be arrested and possibly serve some jail time.

Possession of large quantities or distribution to minors remained serious offenses and were really the only marijuana offenses that the police would bother with. The attitude in the ranks was the bosses didn't want to see anyone coming off post with some "bullshit marijuana collars."

There were certain areas in the City, such as Tompkins Square Park, where one could buy an ounce of pretty good weed for around $30, or a single "fatty" for a dollar, and the cops looked the other way provided the dealers remained respectfully discreet. Also, pot was grown in backyards, on brownstone rooftop gardens, on apartment terraces -- even in window boxes. E.J. Korvette's department stores carried bongs and pipe screens in their smoke shops and there were head shops all over the place.

All of that ended in 1981 when the corrupt and demented sonofabitch, Ronald Reagan, decided to escalate Nixon's war on drugs to accomodate his corporate sponsors. The decriminalized marijuana laws in New York City were recriminalized with a stroke of the District Attorney's pen and were made infinitely more severe as the contingency for receiving federal drug war money.

If Obama was on the level and if he had any balls he would turn the clock back on marijuana to 1980 for the entire United States. And a good reason for doing that is the fact that the decriminalized status of marijuana throughout the 60s and 70s produced absolutely no identifiable problems but did in fact save New York City a lot of money by eliminating wasteful law enforcement activites.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Only dreamers think this will become law, and I am not a dreamer, despite being a libertarian who thinks that the feds do not have constitutional authority to even pass drug laws.

What you're saying is quite valid. But everything depends on how the public reacts to the fed demonstrating contempt for the will of the People. I'm sure the DEA bastards will assert themselves, but what happens next will tell the tale.

The fact that this Proposition appears to be strongly supported by the public means the people of California are fed up with the oppressive pot laws. So maybe a showdown will be a good thing in the end.

Wouldn't that be something, the liberal potheads yelling about state's rights.

 

[MikeK]

Only dreamers think this will become law, and I am not a dreamer, despite being a libertarian who thinks that the feds do not have constitutional authority to even pass drug laws.

What you're saying is quite valid. But everything depends on how the public reacts to the fed demonstrating contempt for the will of the People. I'm sure the DEA bastards will assert themselves, but what happens next will tell the tale.

The fact that this Proposition appears to be strongly supported by the public means the people of California are fed up with the oppressive pot laws. So maybe a showdown will be a good thing in the end.

Wouldn't that be something, the liberal potheads yelling about state's rights.

Aren't you assuming that everyone who favors legalization of marijuana is a "pothead?" And what exactly is a "pothead," anyway?

Also, give some thought to the fact that there are several aspects to legalized marijuana that will benefit all citizens, not only those who enjoy using it.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why support decriminalization and not legalization. I have never understood that stance as it seems a half assed way of doing things.[...]

You're not alone in questioning this curious discrepancy. But there is a reasonable justification for decriminalizing rather than legalizing marijuana.

Legalizing marijuana is a complicated and relatively indelible action. To recriminalize it would require more complicated, time-consuming legislation. But decriminalization requires little more than a formalized declaration by an attorney general which suspends or modifies prosecution for certain aspects of an illegal activity but leaves the laws intact.

For example, marijuana was somewhat decriminalized throughout the sixties and seventies in New York City. Possession of up to 55 grams (two ounces) was a summons offense for which the punishment was a $25 fine, but public "trafficking" or use was a misdemeanor for which one could be arrested and possibly serve some jail time.

Possession of large quantities or distribution to minors remained serious offenses and were really the only marijuana offenses that the police would bother with. The attitude in the ranks was the bosses didn't want to see anyone coming off post with some "bullshit marijuana collars."

There were certain areas in the City, such as Tompkins Square Park, where one could buy an ounce of pretty good weed for around $30, or a single "fatty" for a dollar, and the cops looked the other way provided the dealers remained respectfully discreet. Also, pot was grown in backyards, on brownstone rooftop gardens, on apartment terraces -- even in window boxes. E.J. Korvette's department stores carried bongs and pipe screens in their smoke shops and there were head shops all over the place.

All of that ended in 1981 when the corrupt and demented sonofabitch, Ronald Reagan, decided to escalate Nixon's war on drugs to accomodate his corporate sponsors. The decriminalized marijuana laws in New York City were recriminalized with a stroke of the District Attorney's pen and were made infinitely more severe as the contingency for receiving federal drug war money.

If Obama was on the level and if he had any balls he would turn the clock back on marijuana to 1980 for the entire United States. And a good reason for doing that is the fact that the decriminalized status of marijuana throughout the 60s and 70s produced absolutely no identifiable problems but did in fact save New York City a lot of money by eliminating wasteful law enforcement activites.

That is not much of a benefit if you ask me. It has been shown several times and places that the probation of MJ is not good or even effective and the legalization would be a good thing. I do not believe that we need a reset option and actually see the fact that you can't recriminalize a substance that you already legalized easily as a reason to support legalization. That way there is little chance of a zealot overturning the law. I have a problem with a drug that is not regulated for the simple safety issue. I spoke of that in my last post. Keeping the sale and distribution of pot illegal keeps all the major problems that illegal substances carry and gives us little more than reducing the cost of enforcement by a small margin. Legalizing it reduces enforcement to virtually zero, more than recovers that in taxes and allows the product to be safely regulated and standardized. Just look at the model that Holland has given us, it works very well there.

 

[FA_Q2]

What you're saying is quite valid. But everything depends on how the public reacts to the fed demonstrating contempt for the will of the People. I'm sure the DEA bastards will assert themselves, but what happens next will tell the tale.

The fact that this Proposition appears to be strongly supported by the public means the people of California are fed up with the oppressive pot laws. So maybe a showdown will be a good thing in the end.

Wouldn't that be something, the liberal potheads yelling about state's rights.

Aren't you assuming that everyone who favors legalization of marijuana is a "pothead?" And what exactly is a "pothead," anyway?

Also, give some thought to the fact that there are several aspects to legalized marijuana that will benefit all citizens, not only those who enjoy using it.

Ditto, I am not a pot head and never even liked pot and yet I am a strong proponent of legalization. Then again, I want to legalize almost everything.

 

[MikeK]

That is not much of a benefit if you ask me. It has been shown several times and places that the probation of MJ is not good or even effective and the legalization would be a good thing. I do not believe that we need a reset option and actually see the fact that you can't recriminalize a substance that you already legalized easily as a reason to support legalization. That way there is little chance of a zealot overturning the law. I have a problem with a drug that is not regulated for the simple safety issue. I spoke of that in my last post. Keeping the sale and distribution of pot illegal keeps all the major problems that illegal substances carry and gives us little more than reducing the cost of enforcement by a small margin. Legalizing it reduces enforcement to virtually zero, more than recovers that in taxes and allows the product to be safely regulated and standardized. Just look at the model that Holland has given us, it works very well there.

I agree with you -- and pardon me if I conveyed the wrong impression.

I certainly do not favor decriminalization over legalization but I'm afraid I left out the critically important factor of what the public attitude was back in the 60s and 70s. Back then the general public had not been exposed to the enlightening information and truth about marijuana that is available to them today, so the tendency was to reject out of hand any suggestion to "legalize" pot. In an era when the "gateway drug" myth was still credible the word "legalization" had a rather intimidating effect. But there was no preconceived response to the word or the concept of "decriminalization" and when it was explained as being an experimental project which was subject to review and cancellation the public attitude was significantly more accepting -- as was the case in New York City.

So essentially I believe that decriminalization is a kind of lubricated means of getting the idea of allowing legal pot past the innate public inhibition. New York's Liberal mayors could not have gotten approval from the City Council to legalize pot, but they managed to get approval for a decriminalization project. And were it not for the sonofabitch Ronald Reagan being elected President marijuana would be legal in New York City today -- and possibly throughout the Nation.

 

[geauxtohell]

and you are absoulutly right about that Geau.....lots of abuse.....that needs to be addressed....my wife can qualify....she is an epilleptic who gets frequent migraines.....and Pot takes care of her condition better than anything her Neurologist gives her....and she told him this, he told her....you know i have been told this by other patients.....if you can get it .....you got my blessing......use what works.....

That makes sense. Especially considering that there aren't a lot of good options for migraines. I don't know if I would be so quick to give out MJ for migraines to a regular patient as it's a purely clinical diagnosis (to the best of my knowledge), but for someone that has another neurological pathology like epilepsy, I wouldn't hesitate to do it.

I personally think, if I were a physician, my decision point would be if the person has a serious, life-threatening condition to contend with. In reality, MJ is a fraction as dangerous as drugs that are routinely given out (i.e. vicoden) by doctors. My issue with it is that it's just not well studied and it's indications shouldn't be overstated.

 

[geauxtohell]

What do you believe are good reasons to legalize marijuana.

1.) To disrupt drug cartels' major source of revenue.
2.) It's relatively harmless and, relative to alcohol and cigarettes, there is little logical argument to keep in illegal.

What do you believe are good reasons to not legalize marijuana.

The major barrier I can see is that there is no good test to tell if someone is acutely intoxicated on MJ and if they are impaired while operating a motor vehicle. I am not even sure if urinalysis can tell you that (I don't know enough about how THC is metabolized). However, suppose that a blood test or urinalysis can tell you that. It means everytime a cop thinks a driver is stoned behind the wheel, they are going to have to go down to the station and submit to a blood draw or piss test or refuse and lose their license.

Something for people to think about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What you're saying is quite valid. But everything depends on how the public reacts to the fed demonstrating contempt for the will of the People. I'm sure the DEA bastards will assert themselves, but what happens next will tell the tale.

The fact that this Proposition appears to be strongly supported by the public means the people of California are fed up with the oppressive pot laws. So maybe a showdown will be a good thing in the end.

Wouldn't that be something, the liberal potheads yelling about state's rights.

Aren't you assuming that everyone who favors legalization of marijuana is a "pothead?" And what exactly is a "pothead," anyway?

Also, give some thought to the fact that there are several aspects to legalized marijuana that will benefit all citizens, not only those who enjoy using it.

If you read my posts you would see I support the legalization of pot, and all other drugs. Maybe you should lighten up and laugh at the jokes that are right in front of you instead of assuming you are the only person with a brain.

 

[MikeK]

If you read my posts you would see I support the legalization of pot, and all other drugs. Maybe you should lighten up and laugh at the jokes that are right in front of you instead of assuming you are the only person with a brain.

Jokes? What jokes?

Wouldn't that be something, the liberal potheads yelling about state's rights.

If that's what you think of as a joke I don't get it. So, again, I'd like to know what the term, "pothead," means. I hear it enough that it's become rather annoying so I thought I'd ask. And if I didn't think you have a brain, too, I wouldn't bother.

 

[Tom Clancy]

Now... Where are the Funyuns.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

If you read my posts you would see I support the legalization of pot, and all other drugs. Maybe you should lighten up and laugh at the jokes that are right in front of you instead of assuming you are the only person with a brain.

Jokes? What jokes?

Wouldn't that be something, the liberal potheads yelling about state's rights.

If that's what you think of as a joke I don't get it. So, again, I'd like to know what the term, "pothead," means. I hear it enough that it's become rather annoying so I thought I'd ask. And if I didn't think you have a brain, too, I wouldn't bother.

Pothead: Someone who smokes pot.

Did this really require explaining? Proof positive you should stop with the drug use.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you read my posts you would see I support the legalization of pot, and all other drugs. Maybe you should lighten up and laugh at the jokes that are right in front of you instead of assuming you are the only person with a brain.

Jokes? What jokes?

Wouldn't that be something, the liberal potheads yelling about state's rights.

If that's what you think of as a joke I don't get it. So, again, I'd like to know what the term, "pothead," means. I hear it enough that it's become rather annoying so I thought I'd ask. And if I didn't think you have a brain, too, I wouldn't bother.

Pothead belongs to a different generation, and sometimes those cultural memes do not translate well. A bit like my grandmother trying to explain why her generation called bankers longhairs.

The potheads of my generation are the same people who now demonize drugs, and want to prevent others from making the same mistakes they did. Remember that all politicians are hypocrites and liars and you might get where I am coming from, which is why I snorted when Clinton claimed he never inhaled. At least Bush was honest about it.