Pot measure qualifies for Nov. ballot

[MadImmortalMan]

It's still all a waste of time unless the feds deregulate it too.

[DGuller]

Isn't there a slight difference between activities that can harm innocent bystanders, and activities that can only harm those who engage in them?

So, we should repel any and all law targetting smokers.  I suppose that by your silly definition, they are affecting only themselves.  Let kids smoke, let anyone smoke anywhere they want to. 
Stop enforcing silly laws on age limit for alcohol, let the 10 year old drink whiskey if they want to.
And let's all pay for their healthcare and long term treatment they need later on in their life.

The danger from second hand smoking is real, and AFAIK, all the laws prohibiting it use that as the reason.

[DGuller]

Nor do I think that driving 140km/h on an highway is dangerous.

Driving 140 km/h on a highway isn't dangerous.  Crashing at 140 km/h is, to yourself and to others.

[grumbler]

Yeah, because we know that all sellers of legal products also sell all illegal products. 

look at tobacco companies.  Many were sued by the Government of Canada for participating in contraband and illegal import of US tobacco products.

Stricken as non-responsive.

[grumbler]

• pot is a dangerous drugs known to cause mental illness on regular smokers, later on in their life.  I have an entire family to prove this, if medical evidences aren't enough   Best case scenario, heavy pot users become lawyer.  I don't wich is worst

Your "known" is not known to non-you.

• pot is as dangerous as tobacco when it comes to lung, throat, tongue and other types of cancer

Possibly.  Not proven.

• if you legalize it, you make it as normal as tobacco, while we are trying to reduce the consumption of this drug too.

And that approach has been proven successful for tobacco, so this is an argument for legalization.

• Once legalized, its content will be controlled.  THC content will be limited to X%, just like alcohol needs to be limited&controlled.

There is no limit on liquor in terms of alcohol content, so point rejected.

• Some people won't like it that their pot doesn't stone them as much as before.  They will either turn to black market pot (stronger for the same price) or other, stronger drugs (something many of them already do once the initinal "wow" of pot is gone)

laughably inept argument.

• If you tax it, you will make it more expansive than illegal pot, and many consumers will turn to black market.  There's already a lot of contraband with cigarettes and alcohol going on, where we can get stronger cigarettes and stronger alcohol for cheaper than it costs in stores

Totally imaginary argument.

[grumbler]

Not really.  Speed limits are the poster children for the puritan nanny state on par with the 0,05 limit on alcohol for driving.

Stricken as non-responsive.

[grumbler]

It's still all a waste of time unless the feds deregulate it too.

Not really.  Ann Arbor had legal pot in the 1970s, and the Feds hadn't legalized it.  California is a more complete economy and should suffer even less than the zero suffering Ann Arbor endured.