[California] OKs petition drive for pot legalization

[harry_pothead]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle (sfgate)

09-22) 15:41 PDT San Francisco -- Two prominent East Bay marijuana advocates got clearance from the state today to try to put a pot-legalization initiative on the November 2010 California ballot.

Richard Lee, executive director of the medical marijuana dispensary known as Oaksterdam, and Jeff Jones, former director of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, are the sponsors of a measure that would allow anyone over 21 to possess or grow marijuana for personal use. It would allow each local government to decide whether to tax and regulate marijuana sales.

The secretary of state's office approved the initiative for circulation along with a similar measure sponsored by John Donohue of Long Beach. Each needs at least 433,971 signatures of registered voters by Feb. 18 to qualify for the November ballot.

The Lee-Jones initiative would legalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana. Lee says it would generate billions of dollars in tax revenue.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/22/BACP19R095.DTL

---

I'm a member of the San Francisco Young Democrats. I'm going to talk to the chair next meeting to talk about getting an endorsement vote.

Prohibition didn't work in the 1920s, and it doesn't work today.

[Trajan]

1. I remember walking the streets of Downtown Long Beach ...

Promoting Proposition 19 ...

Damn that's a long time ago now ....

[defendandprotect]

53. This is enriching elites -- and if we let this go long enough we'll have war in the streets . . .

like Mexico -- !!!


Also corrupting government officials and police enforcement --

and banks involved in money laundering!!!

Tons of reasons to overturn this right wing nightmare!!

[truedelphi]

59. The things you cite in your post are the same things that will

Work to stop this initiative.

The police get money EVERY single time that someone goes down for a pot arrest. Even if it is only the change in the drug suspect's pockets.

Home seizures, car and boat seizures, etc.
All these seizures creates a slush fund that is given out to CERTAIN people and then they hand it over to people in the government.

In Marin County, a San Anselmo citizen who also serves as a police man in San Francisco, hands over large sums of money each year to the Marrin County Supervisers. The Supervisers then get to spend these "Discretionary" funds any way they want to.

But of course, should they give your organization several tens of thousands of dolalrs, you better believe they want and expect some of it back in terms of campaing finances!

And did you read the article that came out right after Mexico announced how it was leaglizing small amounts of most drugs. The article from the AP stated that our Border Police were appalled at this.

Why smoking marijuana could lead to heroin, or some such!

[defendandprotect]

67. Well, that wasn't exactly the corruption of law enforcement I was referring to --

but I'll take it --

Yes, that didn't happen to come to mind re what they can confiscate now --
Didn't the Supreme Court have something to do with letting that go on??
Outrageous!

I get mailings from one of the organizations working to legalize marijuana -
can't think of the name right now -- and read whatever I can here.

But, obviously, this is corrupting government at highest levels -- this Drug War
couldn't go on if it wasn't -- also police at highest levels -- banks at highest
levels!!

Congress, probably -- Swiss bank accounts???

Whatever the real or imagined problems with marijuana and drugs, they are far LESS
than the Drug War's potential for destroying completely our system of justice and
government -- democracy, itself!



:)

[truedelphi]

92. The Drug Cartels in Mexico clean up one of their family memebrs

And help that person come here to the USA and BUY a bank or two.

So the notion that the politicians are bought and paid for South of the border but have clean hands and consciences North of that border is only a myth.

One third of Mexican economy is tourism.
One third is the money sent home by migrant workers in the USA to parents and wives in their home country.
And one third is drug money (This is roughly it - It could be that one of these categories is 39% and the other category thus a bit smaller.)

But with Mexico making small amounts of almost all the party drugs a minor matter, this means that tourism will go up. Mexico will become the Amsterdam of the New World.

I thik that officaldom is Mexicon was quite wise in their de-criminalization. Bully for them. But it took several seasons of thousands being killed out on the streets in drug wars to come to this.

[harry_pothead]

72. And its well known that the police use or resell the pot they confiscate.

[truedelphi]

93. Yep, even way back in the late seventies,

I knew of a college dorm that had an entire hedge of marijuana.

The UPS driver ratted them out. The Madison WI cops came and looked it over and then seized it.

Before they left, they read the guys in charge of the dorm the riot act. They would be serving ten years in jail, charges would be "intent to sell large quantities," etc.

Everyone at that dorm waited in suspense. For weeks. Finally they had a friend who was an attorney go in and find out where the evidence against them was.

There wasn't any. The charges that the cops claimed they were pressing had never appeared on record at the station.

And not an ounce of the leafy material was in the evidence room...

[ProudDad]

99. Ah but without the phony "war on drugs", we can fire half of those cops

and save a butt-load of money!

[truedelphi]

113. I join you in waiting for that happy day!

:toast:

[tabasco]

79. Thanks for your work.

This West Virginian appreciates your work for justice.

[paulsby]

2. i agree

this makes sense on SO many levels.

i think we should tax it.

a law that would make possession of mj with a tax stamp legal, but possession w/o into a crime would create the right incentives.

[tridim]

44. Do I need a tax stamp if I grow just for myself?

I'm fine with taxing sales (of anything), but not personal cultivation.

[paulsby]

47. i don't think it's a huge issue either way

but i am not fundamentally opposed to taxing it, EVEN if it's personally cultivated for personal use.

iow, i think it's a matter of tradeoffs.

i don't think of it like a "normal" tax. i think of it more as a way to ensure that we make money off of people smoking mj, in exchange for legalizing it.

as long as the taxes are reasonable, i don't think that it is a wrongheaded approach.

[tridim]

48. Well I completely disagree with that.

I bet home brewers and home tomato gardeners would agree.

Tax the seeds, tax the fertilizer, tax the water and electricity, but you don't tax something that isn't bought or sold. Period.

[paulsby]

49. that;s kewl

i can agree to disagree. and fwiw, i think that govt. should be able to tax drugs even if they aren't bought or sold.

i draw a bright line between drugs and food.

if i was homebrewing, i would not be fundamentally opposed to paying a small tax for each bottle of beer i produced.

but i can understand the objections.

[Xithras]

85. The best proposal I've seen...

...is to require licensing and registration for personal cultivation. Imposing an annual fee for the license would act as a de facto tax on private cultivation without getting into a war over it. That licensing process would also provide an excellent opportunity to educate self-cultivators about the various laws that will inevitably come along with legalization (making it illegal to provide pot to minors, the legal penalties for selling your pot to others, etc). The fee for that license would, and should, be fairly high. On the order of a couple hundred a year. That's dirt cheap when compared to the amount of money that current pot smokers spend on an annual basis, but still high enough to offer a noticeable contribution to the tax base.

[tridim]

86. That sounds awful.

What's the precedent? Home brewers aren't currently taxed and Cannabis is far less dangerous than alcohol.

Again, taxes should be based on commerce -- Buying, trading and selling of a product or service. I don't ever want to be taxed for cooking a meal for myself or growing my own herbs.

[Xithras]

88. I'm not talking about taxing production. I'm talking about a fee for licensing.

You pay a "tax" on your drivers license every year when you renew it.

As for precedent: Pot is easy to grow, and if there are not fees attached to the privilege of doing so, everyone who smokes any decent amount will simply end up with a bunch of plants in their back yard, which will reduce commercial sales and the amount of taxes collected on them. I would suggest that you look up Wickard vs. Filburn. The Supreme Court ruled that the government can regulate the private production of commodities, even if no sales or transfers result from that production, if the commodity production has an impact on commercial sales. By not purchasing your pot, you're impacting legal commerce by reducing sales and tax revenue. If you look the case up, you'll see that Filburn's argument and situation were almost the same as the one you propose, except that Filburn was growing wheat and you want to grow pot. Filburn took it all the way to the Supreme Court, where he lost miserably. Even private production for private use can be regulated, if the value of the produced material is above zero and its production will reduce the sale of a commercial material.

Which is probably why home brewers aren't taxed. Pot has an inherent value in that there are a lot of potheads who will pay good money for it, so there is a documentable loss to the market when you grow your own. Home brewers, on the other hand, would be hard pressed to find anyone willing to pay money for the grog they produced in their backrooms.

But if it makes things fairer, they should probably be taxed too.

[tridim]

89. The same can be said for any crop.

All crops have value. Again, why is Cannabis special? It's as non-toxic as lettuce, and it's only expensive because it's illegal.

I also fail to see how some ditchweed in someone's back yard has anything to do with commercial Cannabis production. Much the same as keeping an orange tree or two doesn't affect Sunkist in the least.

Is your license proposal just to protect corporate profits? That's kind of what it sounds like.

[Xithras]

90. No, it's to enhance tax revenue.

As for food production, I am against taxing ANY foodstuffs. I believe that the bare necessities for survival (food, water, medical care) should NOT be taxed. Everything beyond that SHOULD be. Taxes pay for a civilized and liberal society.

You want to grow apples in your backyard without paying any fees? No problem. Beyond that, pay your taxes. California is broke. We need the money.

[tridim]

91. Ahh, but Cannabis is a foodstuff.

That kind of strengthens my argument.

We just disagree, states can make loads of revenue taxing Cannabis sales. Just leave the personal growers alone. Implement a plant limit or something similar to make certain it's for strictly personal use.

[Xithras]

95. Hardly.

Cannibis is like tobacco and alcohol. Enjoyable to use, but of no biological value. Smoking pot won't save you from starvation.

And before you bring up the cancer bit...I would fully support waiving the fees for medical marijuana users to grow their own (though licensing should still be required). Recreational growers and users should have to pay the fees.

I can't see people complaining much anyway. Most recreational pot smokers spend thousands of dollars a year on marijuana. I'm sure they'd see the "$300 a year grow all you want" plan as a huge boon and savings.

If the argument for legalization is going to be its economic benefits, we need to make sure that the plan doesn't have loopholes for tax evaders. That means even the home growers get taxed.

[tridim]

96. Ever heard of hemp?

AKA Cannabis Sativa. What about Oregano?

MMJ users can already grow tax free where I live.

IMO legalization should be about personal freedom and harm reduction first and economics second.

[Xithras]

98. Hemp is not a foodstuff.

It's a product, and therefore taxable. Hemp growers wouldn't qualify for something like this anyway...they would be producing a commercial product and therefore be slapped with the same taxes as any other agricultural producer in the state.

In the state of California, it is illegal to fish without a license, even if you're fishing on your own land. Even if you're fishing in a private pond entirely surrounded by your own property. Even if you stocked the fish there in the first place. To get that license, you have to pay a fee. To catch your own fish from your own pond on your own land. Why? Because our liberal state generally tries to put the good of society ahead of the individual. That means your personal freedoms may get restricted a bit when doing so can benefit society at large. Since this isn't a big L liberarian board, that shouldn't be a problem to anyone here.

[Zhade]

106. That's complete horseshit. It has scientifically-proven medical benefits.

As a patient, I don't have to pay shit to grow.

And I won't.

Period.

[ProudDad]

100. I'm with Tridem

It should just be another plant...

If you grow it at home for your own use...no tax!

[Trillo]

3. Good.

Taking some lessons from recent history, I'm sure some conservative counties like San Diego will decide to flip their middle finger at it, should it get on the ballot and afterward pass into law.

[Webster Green]

4. I'll be out there getting signatures..

Just as I did for Prop. 215 and the Marin County initiative that preceded it. :hippie:

[comtec]

5. What I don't understand is why the legislature doesn't do this?

the governator has pretty much said he'll sign legislation legalizing pot.
lord KNOWS we need the tax revenue, and the savings from NOT raiding homes alone, would save the state millions if not more!

I don't care for teh war on drugs, but if they stop pestering stoners and go after the cocaine and heroin that would be a far more constructive use of their time and resources.

I wonder if this would also work retroactively? let the stoners out of jail, free up room for the real criminals that actually SHOULD be in jail.

[harry_pothead]

6. I don't either. Our state university system is desperate.

[defendandprotect]

54. Btw, when are you getting rid of your Nazi governor?

No recall on him?

[harry_pothead]

71. No recall it looks like. He's out in Nov 2010.

[goclark]

83. Oh happy day to say bye bye to Arnold -- 2010 nt

[saanderman]

12. neither do I :(

me too I do not understand why the governer did not sign this, even I had many Annuity clients, that were wondering the same thing, this could help the people and they should get that.

[slackmaster]

20. How long have you been paying attention to California politics, comtec?

The legislature has been consistently remiss in its most important duties for decades.

They haven't figured out how to balance the budget, and it's been many years since one was ready in time.

Every year they pass hundreds of feel-good bills that do little to improve the real quality of life here.

They don't have the guts to do the real work. That's why I am very happy about the resistricting reform measure we passed in 2008. That gives me SOME hope that the culture of incumbency and heirs apparent can be crushed. The current system ensures that only the most partisan ideological extremes of both parties get represented in most areas. Republicans won't vote to legalize weed because it would make them look soft on crime. Democrats won't do it because they are afraid it would offend too many of the "do it for the Children" puritans in our own party.

[comtec]

21. im not sure what you're referring to

in the last 10 years, they have tried to pass universal auto insurance TWICE - they sent it to the ballot because governor wilson wouldn't sign it, they tried balancing the budget a dozen times in the last 2 years, but ahnold kept vetoing it because it raised taxes on the rich an mega corps -boo-fucking-hoo!
They have tried to pass universal health care, is it TWO or THREE times, PAID, but with ahnold vetoing it EVERY TIME, they Don't have enough to over turn a veto, and the gop in CA is deathly afraid to do anything USEFUL!

Under GREY, California was on the road to recovery from the SHIT HOLE wilson dug us into, he was demanding our FAIR share of taxes from Congress (*co), He SUED enron for raping California, as well as planning to take OWNERSHIP of the ENTIRE POWER GRID, as to prevent another raping of California as what happened by enron with the *co blessings....

that got him falsely recalled from office and this brain deal, ball-less, asshole in the office who has done nothing to actually HELP the state. anytime the legislature has tried to balance the budget on the *sniff* "poor backs" of the rich and mega-corps it has been blocked by arnold.

pretty much the reason why California is so FUCKED is because of the rethuglican't governors that keep getting elected!! - MOSTLY from the south, as the North generally votes sensibly!

THAT Democratic legislature? or do you have some fresh bit of bullshit you pulled straight from your ass?!

[slackmaster]

23. The point went hurtling over your head at near supersonic speed

The two main sides work hard to defeat each other because they are both caught in the seige mentality of ideological extremism. Nothing gets done because real diplomacy and true compromise are viewed by each side as selling out to the other. The legislature is so polarized the two sides don't even talk to each other most of the time.

...They have tried to pass universal health care, is it TWO or THREE times, PAID, but with ahnold vetoing it EVERY TIME, they Don't have enough to over turn a veto...

Please ask yourself why that is the case. Let me offer you a hint:

Democrats amount to just shy of 2/3 of both houses of the legislature, but well under 50% of registered voters. Except for a slight increase over the last few years for Democrats which IMO can be attributed as a backlash to the Bush administration, both parties have been bleeding voters to "Declined to state" for a long time. Most of the DTS voters must be voting for Democrats most of the time because they are seen as the lesser of two evils. If they were really in agreement with the policies and direction of the state Democratic Party, they'd join it. People don't quit their parties without reasons.

44.6% Democrats as of May 4, 2009. 27 counties with Democratic majorities, 31 with Republican majorities. We are a very diverse state in terms of politics. Failure to acknowledge, accept, and work within that reality is the reason our legislature continues to fail to perform. Our Democratic representatives have not learned the lesson that led to the voter revolt in the 1970s that gave them the burdunsome supermajority requirements for passing a budget or raising taxes. The Republicans have entrenched themselves in their far-right ideological corner. The way districts are laid out now guarantees that only incumbents and those who have shown themselves to be idealogues need apply.

Brute-force attempts to ram major reforms like universal health care down the throats of those who aren't ready for it ensures continues polarization.

The numbers are all there for you to examine at http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/15day-stwdsp-09/ror-050409.htm

[comtec]

31. what do you suggest then?

you said they have not done anything meaningful and that isn't true.
they have been hindered, and flat out stopped.

so what is your suggestion?

[slackmaster]

35. Let redistricting reform take effect and see what happens in the 2012 election

I want to see an end to the proliferation of "safe" districts on both sides. The way the districts were laid out to favor Democrats has the predictable unintended consequence of creating safe Republican districts with just enough clout to stop almost any legislation they don't like.

you said they have not done anything meaningful and that isn't true.

They've done a fine job of pooching up the budget.

they have been hindered, and flat out stopped.

I want to see the legislature come up with ideas that can pass because they are clearly in everyones' best interests.

[defendandprotect]

55. You mean . . . compromise with the GOP?

[slackmaster]

60. No, consider the opinions, needs, and interests of everyone equally on a level field

It's a hard concept for some authoritarians to grasp.

[defendandprotect]

66. You mean in the best interests of citizens . . . OK --

[slackmaster]

77. Yes, the interests of citizens and not of professional politicians

The present system, which is about to be replaced, heavily favors incumbent politicians. Most of them start running for re-election the moment they take office.

Public service should be just that - A temporary diversion in a person's life, a break from one's regular occupation. People who wish to run for public office should do so without the intention of making a career out of it. Just look at the ones who change parties so they can hold onto power.

Call me a dreamer if you wish. That's what I believe the people who started this country had in mind.

[quakerboy]

84. There is no such thing

"Ideas that can pass because they are clearly in everyones best interests" are a thing of the past. In the year 2009, there is no idea so good that a party(normally but not always the republicans) will not unite to defeat it if it helps the other party.

What remains is politics, and I think you have your head in utopia if you think that some redistricting is going to fix that. Politics rule our system, and the money is behind keeping things as divided and gridlocked as possible. As long as everyone is unpopular, the money can do what it wants in the background.

[harry_pothead]

73. The legislature can't balance the budget because in CA it takes 2/3 of the legislature to pass one.

CA is one of the few states to have this stupid rule, and it allows the 37% or so Republicans in the legislature to hold up the budget. This has been happening for almost 2 years now. A talk radio host in the LA area last year held up effigies of some GOP state legislators' heads on spikes after it looked like they might be willing to make a budget deal with the Dems.

[slackmaster]

78. Understanding why the people voted in that rule is essential to understanding what's wrong with CA

It was and still is supported by a strong majority of the people.

We adopted it because we decided that the entrenched career politicians of both parties could not be trusted to keep our taxes fair and our budget reasonably well balanced.

It hasn't always worked out the way it was intended.

...it allows the 37% or so Republicans in the legislature to hold up the budget. This has been happening for almost 2 years now.

It's been going on for a lot longer than two years. Blaming it all on the GOP side of the aisle is a facile way of dismissing the responsibility of the Democratic members. Why do they keep throwing out ideas that they know are going to be automatically rejected by enough members to prevent them from passing?

[Gormy Cuss]

80. +1

You described CA state level politics the same way I see it too. I've lived in states where legislatures actually do work. Ours seems to prefer Props as a way to effect change because then the blame is on the voters.

[ProudDad]

101. The legislature is ham-strung

by that fucking prop 13 nonsense...

2/3 required to pass a budget or a tax...

That means the bat-shit crazy Cali-puke party is in charge -- no matter who's the governor...

[Left coast liberal]

37. Agreed. Leave stoners alone and bust the meth labs! Nt

[ProudDad]

102. Bust the real killers

The BART cop shop...

And the Oakland P.D.

Among others...

[NecklyTyler]

7. It is about time

[NecklyTyler]

8. K&R

[jeff30997]

9. K&R

"Prohibition didn't work in the 1920s, and it doesn't work today."
Absolutely !

[BJ10]

10. I'm leaving on a jet plane...

headed to sunny Californi-Aaaa....K&R

[Fearless]

11. Hmm... such timing...

What with prison populations and all. :eyes:

[eShirl]

13. what do you mean

[Fearless]

50. This motion gets traction the moment that California has a overpopulation in the prison system.

A vast majority of those in prison are on drug crimes. It's all about the money.

[crikkett]

61. that 'moment' has been here for several years

I don't think your argument is valid

[Fearless]

62. California is in the process of releasing some 40,000 inmates because of the overcrowding...

That is why now is that moment.

[crikkett]

63. they were ordered to do so last year by the state supreme court

IIRC.

Which is why I say the moment goes from then to now, and while Yeah, I see money in legalizing/taxing pot, what I don't see is your cynical claim that there's a direct tie between the state not having to pay for housing prisoners (now) and the state earning money from legalized pot (at the end of next year, at the earliest).

Would you care to spell it out for me? I'm curious.

[Fearless]

65. There is a direct tie in the amount of clout the issue appears to be getting...

In legislative circles. Had CA not been in such an economic bind, I doubt it would give pot a second thought.

[NikRik]

14. I hope its approved first X around !

I've been hoping and praying for some kind of common sense in our legal system . This will not make everything right ,however its a step in the right direction. The simple idea that you can buy liquor and cigs which are very harfull to those who use these products and yet the harmless weed is still putting people in jail is beyond ridiculous ! I use to smoke weed however I stopped several years ago however I always said that it was the least harmless substance I ever used and drinknig was by far a more harfull product. I believe all drugs should be leagal and its a persons right to chose what they injest. This is hard to concieve things like crack or heroin being legal and for the more harfull drugs such as these I believe more in making it a problem to be handled thru education and regulation not by locking up thousands in a now for profit prison system ,a type of slavery mentality. Those caught in the self inflicted throws of addiction need help not prison! I hope to see this kind of compassionate approach to substance abuse and dependance in my life time ! At 52 I'm not to sure I will, however some day in history our people will look back at these wasted years of locking up our youth and those with a substance abuse problem as dark days in our leagal system. At least with this initiative we are off to a good start at making things right !
IMHO , Nick

[PJPhreak]

15. Just remember...

[Le Taz Hot]

16. There's going to be formidable opposition to this.

Big pharma will be throwing large duckets against this effort. I'm sure they'll join up with the same religious fanatics that brought us the lovely Prop. H8. Throw in San Diego, Fresno and now Madera counties and any other counties that have recently put bans on dispensaries or threatening landlords and we're looking at some really powerful opposition. Those of you who are serious about eliminating the prohibition against pot would not be ill-served by contributing whatever money/time/effort you can spare.

[Kolesar]

19. And the prison-industrial-complex, also, eom

[BREMPRO]

24. The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of

of the worlds prisoners. HEY, WE ARE NUMBER ONE!!! We have 6 TIMES the number of prisoners per capita than the medium of all other countries.

I ask, WHY?! Drug related mostly. WHY?

"Efforts to combat illegal drugs play a major role in explaining long prison sentences in the United States as well. In 1980, there were about 40,000 people in American jails and prisons for drug crimes. These days, there are almost 500,000.

Those figures have drawn contempt from European critics. "The U.S. pursues the war on drugs with an ignorant fanaticism," said Stern of King's College."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html

[ProudDad]

103. #1 in prisoners...#1 in war spending...#37 in Health Care

what does that tell ya'?

[Le Taz Hot]

28. It doesn't apply so much in this case.

CA decriminalized pot in 1978 so there's not a whole lot of people in prison for pot here. In California, as is true in the rest of the country, most busts have to do with methamphetamine use/sale/manufacture.

[ProudDad]

104. 25% of California PRISON inmates are in the joint

for "drug offenses"...

TWENTY FIVE PERCENT...or over 31,000 persons...

The phony "war on drugs" at work...

Decriminalize all drugs...they are PUBLIC HEALTH problems, NOT police problems...

It's only the phony "war on drugs" driving up prices that causes the "police" problems...

[Le Taz Hot]

109. But most of those drug offenses

are for methamphetamines and not for pot. It's just a fine point I wanted to make because a poster posited that one of the forces that will be lining up against this effort would be the prison industry. I was just pointing out that, since CA decriminalized pot in 1978, that particular industry would not be affected by this proposition.

We very much agree on the "war on drugs."

[Kolesar]

110. NPR did an excellent segment on the California budget

..and the huge prison population that was caused by the "get tough on crime" trend from past decades.

Laws like the "three strikes, you're out" have caused it. I don't recall to what degree marijuana sentencing caused it. Your comments make me want to look into the matter further.

I recall that the CA prison budget is $9 billion.

I had meant to write to NPR to compliment them on the segment.

[Auggie]

26. Beer, wine and distilled spirits too

[AlphaCentauri]

29. Should people use welfare money to buy pot?

[shanti]

30. what's stopping them now?

:shrug:

[Le Taz Hot]

39. OK, I have no idea where this

question is coming from. The OP is about leglizing pot in California.

[AlphaCentauri]

69. Legalizing pot should not be a free ride for those who wants to use recreational drugs

I'm Ok if it has any medical use. But always there will be those who want to play sick and to get their dose and even if it becomes legal for recreational use I would like to know the specifics like how old has to be someone to buy or use it, what about those adults who buy it for minors?

[harry_pothead]

74. Pot leaglization will come with 18+ to buy and no driving while stoned. Duh.

[Le Taz Hot]

75. You seem to be confused

as to how the system works. Rarely does the government give out actual cash benefits. Instead, benefits are given via vouchers or debit cards in the case of food stamps. One is limited to the types of products one can "charge" on that food stamp debit card. Since alcohol is prohibited, I'm sure pot would be as well.

As for medical marijuana, if a patient has been certified by a medical doctor, why shouldn't people on state/federal aid be able to purchase it with MediCal or MedicAid? That will never happen, of course, because of ignorance and politics, but that does not negate the need for the medication.

As for recreational use of pot, so what? What possible business is it of yours or anyone else's for that matter? If someone on state/federal aid wants to, say, enjoy a beer in the evening, who is it hurting? Now, substitute the beer for a joint, I ask again, who is it hurting?

And to address your final straw man argument, is there some rash of adults purchasing pot for minors of which I am unaware?

Really, hon, you're grasping at straws here. If you don't want to smoke pot, don't smoke it, but if you're going to object to it's use at least posit logical objections and back them up with facts.

[AlphaCentauri]

82. Here are some roll models for pot users

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32999954/ns/today-today_people/

[Le Taz Hot]

87. You know what?

You are one sick puppy! That woman is a victim of child abuse and neglect and you hold her up as the "typical" pot smoker? You don't want information on this subject, you just have some sort of jihad against pot. You're wasting my time.

[Zhade]

107. You're a lying fucking asshole.

NT!

[AlphaCentauri]

111. keep your fumes inside your place, I don't want my kids to smell it n/t

[Starbucks Anarchist]

114. If you got high, you would realize it's spelled "role model."

But I guess pot smokers never accomplish anything, like this guy:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

115. What medical use does alcohol have?

And pot would be treated like cigarettes or alcohol re: minimum age.

[berni_mccoy]

17. If it passes, you can expect a large increase in the CA population LOL!

[2Design]

18. Good for tax revenue too and will help crime drop off a cliff n/t

[BREMPRO]

22. long overdue- this make sense.

I don't smoke it, but i don't care if anyone else does- their choice as long as it's regulated so minors won't have easy access (of course they do now anyway, but pay more of their allowance for it) and you can be fined for driving under the influence just like alchohol. Crime will drop if they pass this. The amount of resources, time, money etc.. spend on policing pot could be used to focus on real crimes. Prisons would be filled with real criminals. Also they could tax it and control sale like cigarettes and make a decent revenue stream for the state. Win/Win.

[AlphaCentauri]

25. If those billions are going to take care of the addiction problem I'm OK but

if legalizing it will just be an incentive for laziness, or to promote addictions to drugs and all the side effects will be pay by the tax payers when those addicts request SSI for self inflicted mental problems or medical treatment against lung cancer I'll think about it a second time.

It should include a clause where people receiving government aid can't buy drugs with government money, unless is strictly supervised by a doctor.

[Le Taz Hot]

40. Woah! When you're wrong, you're REALLY wrong.

1. Pot has no physically addictive properties.

2. Pot does not make you lazy -- for many people, it's quite the opposite. And if one is using for medicinal purposes, it very well can make the difference between being able to get out of bed and not.

3. Pot does not lead to other drugs use(proven time and again).

4. They no longer give SSI for drug addiction and haven't for many years.

5. Pot does not cause lung cancer and is actually an anti-carcinogen.

6. If people receiving government aid need it for medicinal purposes then yes, by all means, they should get it.

Here, here's a place to start reading: http://www.scientificfactsofpot.com/studies.htm

Now, stop embarrassing yourself.

[AlphaCentauri]

70. I may be wrong but I have not seen any benefits of it consumption in poor neighborhoods

1. May not have physical addictive properties but what about psychological effect of codependency.

2. Oh! boy this is a good one, most people that I have known that smoke pot during their work hours don't last they feel to much pressure at work.

3. We just have to ask all those crack, ecstasies, cocaine and heroine users what was the first drug they did use?

4. SSI is not given for drug addictions of course is for the secondary effects drugs cause, like mental disabilities.

5. I can't believe that people breathing smoke will not get a lung disease, just check the components ot it: http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info3.shtml

6. Agree.



Now what about second hand pot smoke? should children be exposed to it?

[Le Taz Hot]

76. I'm pretty sure it has the same benefits in poor

neighborhoods as it does in other neighborhoods. Do the inherent properties of the THC change depending upon demographics? :shrug:

1. The psychological effect of CO-dependency? (huh?) So, people who are around the pot smoker are automatically co-dependent to a non-addiction. Yeah, that makes sense. :wtf: And I'm sure you have scientific evidence for that.

2. Well, it IS a good one because I managed to earn TWO college degrees while studying and taking tests under the influence. I graduated with a 4.0. Oh, and btw, I worked up to THREE jobs WHILE putting myself through college. Most of my fellow students also smoked pot and also worked 1 or 2 jobs and went to school full time. All are successful and most still smoke pot so there goes that theory.

3. Yes, please, ask those crack/ecstasy/cocaine and heroin uses what their first drug of choice is. You know what they'll tell you? Alcohol and THAT'S legal.

4. I challenge you to find ANY legitimate, scientific evidence that marijuana CAUSES mental disabilities.

5. You are aware that there is more than one way to ingest pot; such as using a vaporizer or eating foods with pot in them. The point being, if one is afraid of lung damage, one does have alternatives.

And no, just as in cigarette smoke, children or non-smokers or anyone not wanting to breath any kind of smoke should not have to do so. Most of us potheads congregate away from the pain-in-the-ass prohibitionists anyway so it's not usually an issue.

[AlphaCentauri]

81. I guest many here think pot doesn't alter any chemicals in the brain

and living with a brain under the influence is normal, I'm amazed.

My challenge would be to prove that pot smoking help people in poverty which is obvious it doesn't.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

105. It helps them forget that they're poor.

Alcohol does far more damage to poor (and not poor) people alike.

[AlphaCentauri]

112. I can't agree more, bread and circus for the people n/t

[Uncle Joe]

97. The first drug they all used was milk, probably a good percentage from their mama's breast,

the calcium in milk was a natural sedative giving them a mellow feeling of relaxation and putting a fair amount to them sleep for long periods throughout the day.

As a result when they grew older, they tried to find other ways of altering their consciousness, eating lots of high fructose corn syrup and sugar; (even during the most important meal of the day) long before 5 pm when most decent people looked for their means of elevation or relaxation. Of course the pattern of pushing this drug like so many that would follow came from the corporate media; the primary difference being at that stage of our lives, lots of cartoons were involved.

From their sugared cereals, pop tarts and ketchup, they graduated to caffeine for their fix via coffee, tea and "soft" drinks; (which I heard there is enough acid in Coke to dissolve a nail if you leave it in there along enough.)

All this caffeine, sugar and such led to a bunch of hyperactive kids in school, in the old days the teachers would say "sit down and shut up", stand them in a corner or hallway, send them to the principle's office, send a note or make a phone call to the parents, and the parents would tell their kids "sit down and shut up", "I brought you in to this world, I can damn take you out" or "go outside and play." But today after years of becoming accustomed to instant everything from grits to microwave ovens and constant coordinated bombardment during the prime-time "news" hour regarding the miracles that legal drugs; can perform ie; curing depression, heartburn, women that have lost their ability to have woodies after watching Tom Delay dance, men wanting permanent woodies, etc. etc. parents turned to Big Pharma for help in mellowing out their kids. Legal drugs became the answer for everything, of course some people abuse that and some people never needed to be on them in the first place, but I digress.

By the time they became teenagers or in some cases pre-teens many kids followed their parents or friends examples and turned to alcohol for relief, sometimes with disastrous results particularly when mixed with those legal drugs; I spoke of in the previous paragraph. Marijuana usually comes in to play about this time as well usually as a means of altering consciousness because of boredom, peer pressure, depression, dysfunctional family lives, etc.

All those other drugs; that you mentioned are tried as well crack, Ecstasy, cocaine, heroine etc. etc. but it all begins with that first gateway drug; the calcium in milk.

"3. We just have to ask all those crack, ecstasies, cocaine and heroine users what was the first drug they did use?"

[sasquatch]

27. Snack food sales will skyrocket in Cali

:D

[marlakay]

32. Wouldn't the folks up north fight it too?

That is where most the pot in CA is grown and it seems to me they wouldn't want it regulated and taxed.

And I wonder if it was regulated and taxed wouldn't big corps try to take it over, add stuff to it and it would end up being either poisonous like cigs or watered down. I have no trust for any big company selling it.

If it was ever made legal in my state I would be more tempted to grow a plant or two.

[Bennyboy]

33. Well I tried to participate in this a month or so ago...

And they are idiots there at Oaksterdam. the field reps at festivals are idiots too..

They told me there was no way to get petitions unless I went to Oakland. And even then they didn't know anything about it. So this guy is the "go to" guy on pot but is he really that together?

My expereince tells me NO.

[BabbaTam]

34. prohibition history

Here's an excellent book on the history of this herb. "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" You can get most of the content of this book for free online at;
http://www.jackherer.com/chapters.html

Let's try sanity for a change!

[Bennyboy]

36. I SMOKE WEED, am from CA, and am against legalization...

There are way too many people that sell weed now that will be totally cut out of the deal when WalMart and Walgreens starts sellling it. Right now weed is the only way to make money for millions of people in CA, and if legal the Corporations will move into the biz. And out goes the grower. Out goes the guys you have been dealing with for ever. The personal thing.

[dysfunctional press]

41. i'd rather have it legal, and not have to worry about risking jailtime.

my dealer has a regular full-time job, anyway.

[mitchtv]

42. You need to be busted , and spend some time locked up

how utterly ridiculous

[PJPhreak]

43. There will always be a market for top quailty weed...

Schwag-Mart will then REALLY live up to its nickname,lol

[tridim]

45. Small breweries succeed in spite of Budweiser.

Usually because they make a better product.

The best pot in the world is likely growing in your neighbor's basement. The top genetics were created by these same growers. Legalization will not change either of these facts.

[jberryhill]

51. Reading is fundamental

Would you care to explain how legalization of possession of an ounce for personal use has anything to do with Wal-Mart?

[Bennyboy]

58. Small steps lead to bigger steps....

and trtust me on this, there are many corporations that are planning right now to do exactly this. I am paid by one of them. The BEVMO of Pot they tell me everyday.

They don't care about anything other than controlling the market as soon as it is legal.

[crikkett]

64. I'll see your BEVMO of pot and raise you PINKDOT of pot:

midnight delivery.

And your small growers already have a market. The fear you describe is like the fear of for-profit Health Ins. Companies about public option.

[defendandprotect]

56. Boycott WalMart and Walgreens . . . ???

[Vidar]

38. K&R

[pleah]

46. K&R

[defendandprotect]

52. k i c k

[bemildred]

57. Criminal process is a STUPID solution to drug "abuse" problems.

This ought to be obvious by now,

[XemaSab]

68. I am 100% in favor

This would cut down on the prison population, cut down on the state deficit through increased tax revenue, cut down on border crime, cut down on police waste such as CAMP, cut down on the number of patients on hard drugs such as oxycontin, cut down on degradation of the national forests, and take money out of the pockets of sleazy dealers who are also selling crack and meth.

I really cannot see a "lose" on this.

[Uncle Joe]

94. This is good for freedom, liberty, justice, common sense, logic, privacy, compassion and

good economics.

Thanks for the thread, harry_pothead.:thumbsup:

On edit, Kicked but too late to recommend.

[Corey_Baker08]

108. Great News!!! All States Should Consider Following This Historic Piece of Legislation...