Legalizing Recreational Marijuana in CA - Up for Vote

[Gamelord]

i have only read half way but im going to put my 2 sence into it im 19 i have been smoking weed since i was 12 its always easier to get when illegal cause thats where the $$krilla is at to the hustlers i live in north sacramento shit even our city is called "The city of Tree$"it says so on our water tower! its so easy for kids around here to get whatever they want i kno one of my young homegirls is only 14 and gets weed like its water. shit all we gotta do is walk to the end of the court n if the boy isnt there then we just have to walk a couple houses down id say about 85% of people in the area i live sell/smoke weed. so really legalizing it would actually make it alot harder for younger people to get trust me its harder for us to get alcohol than weed cause we'd have to go find a homeless guy n pay him a lil extra to do it or just jack a bottle n its more trouble than its worth... well for me its alot easier than that but thats pretty much how it goes. and to the driving around high thats not really shit iv been in a car fucking plenty of times when the driver was high n never got into 1 accident, but at the same time im not riding in a car with a drunk.

 

[Icewolf]

Uhh you don't think lighting up while driving is risky? No matter what when you take your eyes off the road it's a risk.

It's funny that a pothead is paranoid about being caught and uses that as a justification to legalize your bad habit. Maybe you should talk to a doctor about getting something to help you relax that way you wouldn't stress even more. Although I'm sure a majority of that stress is fear of you being caught or smelling like pot while at work so that stress is self-inflicted. So maybe you should kick the your need for pot, and that edge will go away.

It's really sad people think this way, hear it so many times from those who have never even tried smoking. I don't know if you read the thread but everyone listed many reasons that we feel it should be legalized, go back and read, or watch The Union. Also why do you say bad habit? If you're not going to educate yourself about something you're against, it just looks ignorant to post your opinion about it.

 

[Raesvelg]

i have only read half way but im going to put my 2 sence into it im 19 i have been smoking weed since i was 12 its always easier to get when illegal cause thats where the $$krilla is at to the hustlers i live in north sacramento shit even our city is called "The city of Tree$"it says so on our water tower! its so easy for kids around here to get whatever they want i kno one of my young homegirls is only 14 and gets weed like its water. shit all we gotta do is walk to the end of the court n if the boy isnt there then we just have to walk a couple houses down id say about 85% of people in the area i live sell/smoke weed. so really legalizing it would actually make it alot harder for younger people to get trust me its harder for us to get alcohol than weed cause we'd have to go find a homeless guy n pay him a lil extra to do it or just jack a bottle n its more trouble than its worth... well for me its alot easier than that but thats pretty much how it goes. and to the driving around high thats not really shit iv been in a car fucking plenty of times when the driver was high n never got into 1 accident, but at the same time im not riding in a car with a drunk.

It's the Enter key. Learn to use it.

Also why do you say bad habit?

Because chemical dependency, be it psychological or physical, isn't particularly good for you?

Let's be honest; you're still inhaling smoke (bad for you, even if some of the anti-cancer aspects of it hold true in further studies), marijuana is known to have detrimental effects on memory (bad for you), many studies show a markedly increased risk of developing a variety of psychological disorders, it is addictive, etc etc.

It's like drinking or smoking tobacco. A bad habit.

Which is to say that once in a while, you're probably not going to be hurting yourself too much, though the study on increased risk of schizophrenia was moderately disturbing in that even very limited use showed a marked increase over an extremely large sample size..

 

[Dowzer]

A majority of drugs including alcohol have an inherent risk of schizophrenia when they are abused, especially as a developing teenager. I'd also like to note, that risk is magnified for those with a predisposition to the illness.

I agree with marijuana being addictive and bad for your health. Even cooking it or using a vaporizer can be bad for your health, one way or the other.

These are simply more reasons to regulate the substance, to help keep it out of developing adolescents hands.

 

[Raesvelg]

A majority of drugs including alcohol have an inherent risk of schizophrenia when they are abused, especially as a developing teenager. I'd also like to note, that risk is magnified for those with a predisposition to the illness.

I agree with marijuana being addictive and bad for your health. Even cooking it or using a vaporizer can be bad for your health, one way or the other.

These are simply more reasons to regulate the substance, to help keep it out of developing adolescents hands.

Certainly, though the study was a 15 year longitudinal study of over 45,000 people, and found that smoking marijuana as few as 5 times over the course of fifteen years raised the risk of schizophrenia by 1.5 times. Not a huge risk considering the relatively low possibility of developing it to begin with, but an interesting study nonetheless.

And yes, I'm a supporter of legalization and regulation of marijuana. On the grand scale of things, it's a distinctly minor evil, and minimal risk.

I do, however, draw the line at drugs with extremely high rates of physical addiction, and drugs with extremely negative effects. Those should remain illegal for general sale.

 

[Morcheeba]

I do, however, draw the line at drugs with extremely high rates of physical addiction, and drugs with extremely negative effects. Those should remain illegal for general sale.

Like so many pharmaceuticals?


I laugh at all this to be quite honest. I'd sooner smoke a joint to alleviate pain/discomfort than take some of the shit doctors will happily prescribe and in retardedly high doses.

Pot is bad to smoke because it is smoke in your lungs, of course there's going to be damage.

I'll tell ya what ladies and gentlemen, in order to remain as healthy as possible through-out life and not increase risks of multiple disorders/syndromes etc .. it's best not to buy majority of the foods available in your grocery stores. You should grow your own food, and of course try try try to avoid pesticides when growing your food.

There's risk with everything. Everything causes cancers. We're all going to die from some horrible disease!!! lol I'm being a bit melodramatic but it's important to get this through peoples heads... pot is not going to kill yOOuuu. There are some people who have tendencies towards psychotic behaviors that are triggered by pot, but it would be triggered by something and is just waiting to happen.

I am pro pot. But I still stand by 'everything in moderation'. If you cannot practice some self control/restraint and have an addictive personality it's going to be something if not pot.

 

[Raesvelg]

Like so many pharmaceuticals?

Yes, like drugs that you have to be under medical supervision to obtain and use.

This is the second time that this response has come up, actually, and it still puzzles me.

Yes, people abuse drugs on the controlled substances list. That is not reason to remove them from the controlled substances list.

 

[Morcheeba]

Yes, like drugs that you have to be under medical supervision to obtain and use.

This is the second time that this response has come up, actually, and it still puzzles me.

Yes, people abuse drugs on the controlled substances list. That is not reason to remove them from the controlled substances list.

That's the thing, you aren't required to be under medical supervision to use most prescribed and addictive pharmaceutical drugs. They're prescribed and you are EXPECTED to follow the 2-6 daily dose schedule they advise you of. Most pain killers have highly addictive properties but are given to patients to be used at home by their own methods. If they're abused they can severely harm a person and/or kill a person, but that doesn't stop doctors from prescribing them without just cause, really pen to paper if people are 1) willing to pay or 2) persistent/persuasive in their methods of complaint..

Something like pot that doesn't have nearly as many cons as a large number of these pharmaceuticals remains illegal, and compared (by the uneducated and our governments) to extremely damaging and terribly addictive drugs. Even to go as far as to call pot a 'gate-way drug' is ludicrous imo. It comes down to the individual.

It's a double standard for the government(s) to recognize marijuana medicinal properties and benefits but still talk smack and refer to it as some devil concoction. Especially as they've allowed marijuana to be prescribed for things such as MS or Cancer.. it's irritating.

 

[Strid]

Even if this gets passed (it won't), marijuana will still be illegal under federal law. The DEA could still show up whenever and wherever they want to make busts... it'll just be tried in federal court.

Would this happen every day? No, but they'd do it every so often just to prove a point.

If CA legalizes it, it would be a stepping stone with still many obstacles to pass. Over time there would have to be a reform on the federal level, but initially let's consider this, how would a judge try it? Federal law says no, state law says yes. The defendant was within his states rights to possess Pot, but outside of federal law. What to do? It would be interesting to see, though unfortunate for the defendant, because cases like that shape our ever evolving way of life in the U.S. I wouldn't be so quick to side federally on a case like this because it is quite a contradiction to the Supremacy Clause.

I think it would shape out somewhat like this; The DEA wouldn't go after your average person, but target the big sellers. From there I don't think they'd seek criminal charges. Criminal charges would cost them money where they could be making money. So with that in mind I'd see them adding some serious taxation (a given) and/or production fines (via market entry licenses, etc.). This could be a big cash cow for the government or a huge pain in their ass. The logical choice is easy in this situation but given our governments history when has logical ever been the way to go? So yeah, would be an interesting show of events.

I'm not a big fan of the Reefer, my time with it has long come and gone, but in all my years of play with it, I fail to see why it's any less stable of a recreation product than alcohol. I say good for CA and go get 'um.

 

[Dowzer]

Yes, like drugs that you have to be under medical supervision to obtain and use.

This is the second time that this response has come up, actually, and it still puzzles me.

Yes, people abuse drugs on the controlled substances list. That is not reason to remove them from the controlled substances list.

I have continued to mention pharmacutical drugs as an example of highly regulated substances. These are drugs with extremely high rates of physical addiction, and drugs with extremely negative effects. Yet they remain on our markets for medicinal use. It's sad when the feds will bust a medicinal marijuana dispensery, yet the corporate pill pushers stay in business. I will also add, the pharmacutical industry is the largest business in North America.

Here's a picture I clipped from the newspaper this morning. There is a huge black market for pharms.

You don't need a prescription, here is proof for that reason:

Abbotsford pharmacy manager Rob Dinglasan was robbed at gunpoint for the painkiller OxyContin twice in the space of two weeks.

Next month, a B.C. Pharmacy Association robbery task force hopes to offer solutions — in the wake of a spate of armed holdups aimed at the powerful narcotic.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Pharmacies+fight+back+against+drug+thieves/2781618/story.html

 

[Raesvelg]

So I reiterate, what is your argument here? That because people abuse dangerous, addictive narcotics, we should make them freely available to anyone who wants them?

 

[Jedigamer]

So I reiterate, what is your argument here? That because people abuse dangerous, addictive narcotics, we should make them freely available to anyone who wants them?

Dangerous addictive narcotics are already legal. You can buy them at your local liquor store or visit several doctors with stories about pain in your back. You're not calling marijuana dangerous are you?

 

[Raesvelg]

...

I swear to god.

Read my fucking posts.

Yes, marijuana should be legal. Prescription narcotics, however, should not be uncontrolled, nor should drugs with notably dangerous side effects.

There's my position in a nutshell.

I do not concur with the apparent assessment of some people that just because there are those who abuse the system for controlling prescription drugs, that we should dismantle said system and hand out fucking oxycontin to anyone who wants it.

I might add that my personal opinion on drug control meshes rather neatly with that of the notable hippie mecca of Amsterdam. Who, I might add, recently banned hallucinogenic mushrooms again. Take that you dirty hippies.

 

[Dowzer]

Prescription narcotics, however, should not be uncontrolled, nor should drugs with notably dangerous side effects.

There's my position in a nutshell.

I do not concur with the apparent assessment of some people that just because there are those who abuse the system for controlling prescription drugs, that we should dismantle said system and hand out fucking oxycontin to anyone who wants it.

Who said because controlled substances are abused, they should be handed out like candy? I didn't, surely there's no one else mentioning that either. It's quite the opposite, really.

I kept bringing up pharmacuticals because you continued to say other hard drugs should remain illegal. I agreed that hard drugs should remain illegal and I showed pharmacuticals as an example of why legalization wouldn't work, even if we attempted to under strict regulations.

Have you noticed me ranting about how relaxed regulations on alcohol, cigarettes and pharmacuticals actually are? How I've been ranting about keeping them out of our childrens hands?

I understand that if marijuana were legalized, there may be concern over hard drugs. Let's please drop it at that.





I'd like to ask a few questions if I may lead this discussion in the direction I've been attempting.

Why has the snowball effect of prolonged prohibition created more crime than it has stopped?

Why will those who make a living through marijuana vote against legalization?

How powerful the pharmacutical industry really is, are they paying to keep prohibition running? (IE: Marinol)

Does anyone have questions? This is a discussion, not an arguement.

 

[Zoolander]

After thinking about it, I am left wondering if I really like the idea of pot being sold to me by the man. Will it just end up being like cigarettes v2? I wouldn't be surprised if cig companies put other shit it in and ruin weed. I kind of like the underground status of it, although obviously I do dislike the fear of being caught with it and fucking up my life. I want it to be legal without being commercialized, however I think it is inevitable that it will be.

 

[Raesvelg]

After thinking about it, I am left wondering if I really like the idea of pot being sold to me by the man. Will it just end up being like cigarettes v2? I wouldn't be surprised if cig companies put other shit it in and ruin weed. I kind of like the underground status of it, although obviously I do dislike the fear of being caught with it and fucking up my life. I want it to be legal without being commercialized, however I think it is inevitable that it will be.

True, but you're also less likely to have someone slipping lead into your weed to make it heavier. And yes, that actually happened in Germany, and a decent handful of people were poisoned as a result.

The commercialization of any product is basically inevitable. Technically it's already begun; different specially bred varieties of cannabis with varying levels of THC concentration, different means by which cannabis plants can be process to provide the drug, etc.

Why has the snowball effect of prolonged prohibition created more crime than it has stopped?

Why will those who make a living through marijuana vote against legalization?

How powerful the pharmacutical industry really is, are they paying to keep prohibition running? (IE: Marinol)

First off, understand my confusion on your stance here. I say "don't legalize dangerous drugs", and 3-4 people, yourself among them, repeatedly bring up the concept of dangerous medications that are legal with a prescription, which in context comes off in a very odd light. I say "most drugs should remain illegal", and you and others say "but you can get them anyway", which infers that their controlled status is questionable or that you are arguing for revocation of said status.

Next, to address your points individually.

Any level of prohibition enables the growth of a criminal element. Indeed, sufficient taxation enables the growth of a criminal element, thus undermining the position of people who argue to legalize marijuana then tax the hell out of it. Something like 7% of the cigarettes sold in 1996 were illegally smuggled to avoid various taxes.

But.

That is not to say that removing prohibited status from all such items is a good thing. I could point out the Netherlands again, where they made psychoactive mushrooms legal, then sufficient incidents piled up that the general populace requested them to be made illegal again. There are drugs that are sufficiently dangerous or addictive or both that making them freely available could potentially cause greater problems than are experienced in enforcing prohibition of said drugs.

Why would those making a living off of the sale of marijuana oppose its legalization? Technically that depends, in fact, on the precise method of legalization, and the specific provisions of whatever law is eventually enacted.

For example, in most states in the US it's legal to brew your own beer for personal use, up to 100 gallons per annum. Given that the average per-capita consumption of beer in the US is less than a quarter of that... There's really no reason to buy beer if you have any talent for making it.

If you enacted a similar law regarding the growing/consumption of marijuana, for example, then just about everyone out there would register a protest in all likelihood. Those who would grow it would complain about lost revenue, those who would sell it would do the same. It all boils down to money, of course, like most things ultimately do.

Which segues nicely to the last point...

Are pharmaceutical companies paying to keep marijuana illegal?

Probably.

I certainly would if I were in their position.

See earlier Raes posts about the need for fucking campaign finance reform.

It's probably not as big a concern on their radar, however, as a lot of the conspiracy theorists would like to believe. If marijuana were to magically replace all analgesics overnight (it wouldn't), it would definitely take a significant bite out of the pharmaceutical industry's profits, to the tune of maybe as much as 10% of their business. Which is obviously significant, but lets be honest; it wouldn't happen. Pot won't replace any painkiller that would ordinarily be taken in circumstances that require alertness, so it would basically be relegated to the same market segment that opiates are limited to, and simply is not as effective as opiates are.

There's a reason we haven't been able to significantly improve upon morphine in two hundred years.

 

[Morcheeba]

After thinking about it, I am left wondering if I really like the idea of pot being sold to me by the man. Will it just end up being like cigarettes v2? I wouldn't be surprised if cig companies put other shit it in and ruin weed. I kind of like the underground status of it, although obviously I do dislike the fear of being caught with it and fucking up my life. I want it to be legal without being commercialized, however I think it is inevitable that it will be.

These are exactly my thoughts on what would happen.

The quality would get destroyed while the prices would double if not triple what the actual street value is because the government would then employee corps to produce the goods and pay them for their labour while also taxing the shit out of pot for their profit.

yep

That being said.. I STILL hate the double standards.

BTW - Dowzer... EXACTLY. Some pills prescribed are a hell of a lot more dangerous while they remain legal because they medicate and are only prescribed by medical 'professionals', they recognize pot as a medical pain reliever in SOME cases but otherwise it's a bad bad bad gate-way drug that will eventually drive your kids to move up to heroin/crack abuse!!!

 

[Dowzer]

First off, understand my confusion on your stance here. I say "don't legalize dangerous drugs", and 3-4 people, yourself among them, repeatedly bring up the concept of dangerous medications that are legal with a prescription, which in context comes off in a very odd light. I say "most drugs should remain illegal", and you and others say "but you can get them anyway", which infers that their controlled status is questionable or that you are arguing for revocation of said status.

Their controlled status is questionable, there's no doubt it's a problem. That's why I posted the article about a drug store robbery.

I was pretty confused about our stances as well, about why legalizing hard drugs was being mentioned in a thread about legalizing marijuana. No harm done.

Any level of prohibition enables the growth of a criminal element. Indeed, sufficient taxation enables the growth of a criminal element, thus undermining the position of people who argue to legalize marijuana then tax the hell out of it. Something like 7% of the cigarettes sold in 1996 were illegally smuggled to avoid various taxes.

But.

That is not to say that removing prohibited status from all such items is a good thing. I could point out the Netherlands again, where they made psychoactive mushrooms legal, then sufficient incidents piled up that the general populace requested them to be made illegal again. There are drugs that are sufficiently dangerous or addictive or both that making them freely available could potentially cause greater problems than are experienced in enforcing prohibition of said drugs.

That's a great point to bring up, I've been offered smuggled cigarettes and they are much cheaper than store bought.

Prohibition creates violence, theft and murder among a multitude of problems. However, it also creates jobs. Police to enforce them, lawyers to argue them, judges to sentence them and jails to hold them.

Do these benefits outweigh the evil that surrounds prohibiting marijuana? They don't, even those enforcing these laws will agree that marijuana prohibition is "archaic" like Hali mentioned.

Why would those making a living off of the sale of marijuana oppose its legalization? Technically that depends, in fact, on the precise method of legalization, and the specific provisions of whatever law is eventually enacted.

For example, in most states in the US it's legal to brew your own beer for personal use, up to 100 gallons per annum. Given that the average per-capita consumption of beer in the US is less than a quarter of that... There's really no reason to buy beer if you have any talent for making it.

If you enacted a similar law regarding the growing/consumption of marijuana, for example, then just about everyone out there would register a protest in all likelihood. Those who would grow it would complain about lost revenue, those who would sell it would do the same. It all boils down to money, of course, like most things ultimately do.

I have no idea what the specific provisions would entail, I'm not certain about methods of legalization. If it were similar to alcohol, that would be an example I'd like to see. I'm not positive about alcohol's regulations myself.

There is a talent in brewery and a green thumb for a garden. How would this register a protest? Would people be growing their own instead of buying? I'm not sure what you're getting at about lost revenue.

Assuming you're smoking all of it, it's very expensive to grow quality marijuana. Initial investments are insignificant compared to the costs of years of electrical, water, nutrients and soil mediums, especially for hydroponic systems. The time invested maintaining lights, their ballast, fans, pumps and not to mention the garden itself. Clipping is especially painful, literally.

I believe most people would buy it, just like alcohol.

Are pharmaceutical companies paying to keep marijuana illegal?

Probably.

I certainly would if I were in their position.

See earlier Raes posts about the need for fucking campaign finance reform.

It's probably not as big a concern on their radar, however, as a lot of the conspiracy theorists would like to believe. If marijuana were to magically replace all analgesics overnight (it wouldn't), it would definitely take a significant bite out of the pharmaceutical industry's profits, to the tune of maybe as much as 10% of their business. Which is obviously significant, but lets be honest; it wouldn't happen. Pot won't replace any painkiller that would ordinarily be taken in circumstances that require alertness, so it would basically be relegated to the same market segment that opiates are limited to, and simply is not as effective as opiates are.

There's a reason we haven't been able to significantly improve upon morphine in two hundred years.

I definitely agree with that. It won't replace any painkillers, but they are definitely taking precaution to avoid losing any profit. I have always thought using marijuana medicinally was laughable, but there really are people who would rather use it than take their prescribed medicine.

 

[Raesvelg]

Do these benefits outweigh the evil that surrounds prohibiting marijuana? They don't, even those enforcing these laws will agree that marijuana prohibition is "archaic" like Hali mentioned.

Aye, cannabis prohibition protects vanishingly few people and costs enormous amounts of money; it's an utter waste and those resources would be considerably better spend elsewhere.

There is a talent in brewery and a green thumb for a garden. How would this register a protest? Would people be growing their own instead of buying? I'm not sure what you're getting at about lost revenue.
<snip>
I believe most people would buy it, just like alcohol.

Quite possibly, but there is a different mentality on the level of difficulty involved, in my experience.

We sell quite a few books on hydroponics, and vanishingly few on brewing. (I work in a bookstore)

If I had to wager, I'd bet you'd see an overnight industry spring up around teaching people to grow their own, and a significant fraction of those inclined to use on a significant level would do so, whether or not it was more cost-effective. It may well on average be relatively low-grade cannabis, but it would be done as cheaply as possible, and given the government's tendency to tax intoxicants, that might well be enough to sway most people.

Edit: To put things in perspective; the 100 gallons per annum allowance for brewing your own beer equates to brewing enough beer to have about 3 12-oz cans a day, every day, all year. It's a pretty respectable amount of beer. Or there are similar laws, with similar quantities involved iirc, covering wine (and mead), if that's your preference.

I definitely agree with that. It won't replace any painkillers, but they are definitely taking precaution to avoid losing any profit. I have always thought using marijuana medicinally was laughable, but there really are people who would rather use it than take their prescribed medicine.

Again, I'd be rather surprised if it was considered a really significant issue by them. They probably contribute less to the maintenance of the prohibition laws than temperance types still freaked out by the piano player in Reefer Madness.

Medical marijuana does have some notable uses though; aside from the glaucoma thing, there is a distinct advantage in pain management for a variety of cancers, and a small handful of other uses.

 

[Morcheeba]

There is a talent in brewery and a green thumb for a garden. How would this register a protest? Would people be growing their own instead of buying? I'm not sure what you're getting at about lost revenue.

Assuming you're smoking all of it, it's very expensive to grow quality marijuana. Initial investments are insignificant compared to the costs of years of electrical, water, nutrients and soil mediums, especially for hydroponic systems. The time invested maintaining lights, their ballast, fans, pumps and not to mention the garden itself. Clipping is especially painful, literally.

I believe most people would buy it, just like alcohol.

Not to mention the chances of success and good quality of your own homegrown after all that effort. Like you said, there is some talent involved.

Most would buy from those who knew what they were doing.

E- just realized this post may have well taken Raes points...

way to pay attention preggo!