http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/24/BADI1CHAMR.DTL
QuoteCalifornia voters will decide this November whether to legalize and regulate adult recreational use of marijuana as the Secretary of State today certified that a Bay Area-based effort to put the issue on the ballot has collected enough signatures to do so.
If passed, California would have the most comprehensive laws on legal marijuana in the entire world, marijuana reform advocates say. Opponents are confident they will easily defeat the measure.
The vote will be the second time in nearly 40 years that people in the Golden State will decide the issue of legalization, though the legal framework and cultural attitudes surrounding marijuana have changed significantly the past four decades. If Californians pass the measure, it would be the first in the nation to do so as similar efforts in other states all have failed.
Backers needed to collect at least 433,971 valid signatures of registered voters and the Secretary of State said they met that threshold.
If voters approve the ballot measure, it will become legal for Californians 21 and older to grow and possess up to an ounce of marijuana under state law. Local jurisdictions could tax and regulate it, or decide not to participate. Marijuana would continue to be banned outright by federal law.
Current state law allows a person, with a doctor's approval, to possess an amount of marijuana that is reasonably related to the patient's current medical needs. People also can obtain cards identifying themselves as a patient, which helps in interactions with law enforcement.
"There is no state that currently allows adults to grow marijuana for personal (recreational) use, but what is totally different and will be a game-changer internationally is this would allow authorized sales to adults as determined by a local authority," said Stephen Gutwillig, California State Director of the Drug Policy Alliance Network, an organization advocating for changes in drug laws.
The major backers of the initiative - the founder of an Oakland-based marijuana trade school, a retired Orange County judge and various drug law reform organizations - are planning to oversee a $10 million campaign to push the measure.
Allen St. Pierre, the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said the organization will focus its efforts to pass the proposition and said the California effort is notable because it likely will be funded by the marijuana industry.
"This is being launched at a time not only of mass nationwide zeitgeist around marijuana, but acutely in California," he said. "Almost all other (marijuana) initiatives were poorly funded and what funding there has been ... was purely philanthropic."
But opponents, which likely will include a large coalition of public safety associations, said that once voters understand the implications of the measure it will be handily defeated.
"The overarching issue is given all the social problems caused by alcohol abuse, all the social and public safety problems caused by pharmaceutical abuse and the fact that tobacco kills - given all those realities, what on Earth is the social good that's going to be served by adding another mind-altering substance to the array," said John Lovell, a lobbyist for a number of statewide police and public safety associations.
Additionally, he said, employers and government entities receive federal money may not be able to meet federal standards for drug-free workplaces if the measure passes, putting billions of federal dollars in jeopardy.
"It's terrible drafting ... that will cause the state of California significant fiscal problems," he said, adding that when these issues are presented to voters the measure will "sink like a rock in the North Atlantic."
Attitudes of voters in California have increasingly moved in favor of full legalization of marijuana. Californians passed Prop. 215 in 1996 to legalize marijuana for medical use. A bill in the Legislature would also legalize adult recreational use and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said it is an idea that should be debated, though he personally opposes it.
A Field Poll taken last April found 56 percent of voters backed the idea of legalization and taxation of marijuana. The measure will add to an already crowded November ballot, with an expensive gubernatorial race looming along with other statewide offices.
Prominent candidates running for higher office, including Democratic Attorney General Jerry Brown who is seeking the governorship and San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, a Democrat who is running for attorney general, have said they oppose the initiative. Don Perata, former Senate President Pro Tem and candidate for Oakland mayor, supports the initiative.
The major Republican candidates oppose the measure.
Richard Lee, the founder of Oaksterdam University, has spearheaded the effort and said he is not concerned about prominent political opposition to the plan, noting the similar lack of support for Prop. 215.
"I think the voters lead the politicians on this issue and they realize that," Lee said.
Maybe we can sell California to Mexico? It would solve a whole lot of problems.
Quote from: Strix on March 24, 2010, 10:52:37 PM
Maybe we can sell California to Mexico? It would solve a whole lot of problems.
What an original idea.
I know nothing about the specific bill but support the idea in general.
Fucking potheads.
Quote from: Barrister on March 25, 2010, 01:13:04 AM
Fucking potheads.
Fail to see how wasting billions on attempting to quash relatively harmless intoxicant does anyone but some DEA officials and some drug lords any good.
BTW, when this starts spreading across North America, I fully expect you to pull an Elliot Ness.
Quote from: Queequeg on March 25, 2010, 03:38:45 AM
Fail to see how wasting billions on attempting to quash relatively harmless intoxicant does anyone but some DEA officials and some drug lords any good.
BTW, when this starts spreading across North America, I fully expect you to pull an Elliot Ness.
yeah, because we all know drug dealers only deal in one sort of drug. There are distinct dealers & supplier chains for marijuana, cocaine, pot, hash, acid, speeds, etc.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: viper37 on March 25, 2010, 07:58:46 AM
Quote from: Queequeg on March 25, 2010, 03:38:45 AM
Fail to see how wasting billions on attempting to quash relatively harmless intoxicant does anyone but some DEA officials and some drug lords any good.
BTW, when this starts spreading across North America, I fully expect you to pull an Elliot Ness.
yeah, because we all know drug dealers only deal in one sort of drug. There are distinct dealers & supplier chains for marijuana, cocaine, pot, hash, acid, speeds, etc.
:rolleyes:
It will reduce their benefits and bring some tax money in. I don't quite see the downside. It's not like people are not using it already.
Quote from: viper37 on March 25, 2010, 07:58:46 AM
yeah, because we all know drug dealers only deal in one sort of drug. There are distinct dealers & supplier chains for marijuana, cocaine, pot, hash, acid, speeds, etc.
:rolleyes:
Yeah, because we know that all sellers of legal products also sell all illegal products. :rolleyes:
Good move.
Keeps people out of reach of the sort of dodgy characters which could lead them into harder stuff too.
Quote from: viper37 on March 25, 2010, 07:58:46 AM
yeah, because we all know drug dealers only deal in one sort of drug. There are distinct dealers & supplier chains for marijuana, cocaine, pot, hash, acid, speeds, etc.
:rolleyes:
And yet there are distinct dealers & supplier chains for alcohol as opposed to "marijuana, cocaine, pot, hash, acid, speeds, etc." Why might that be?
Quote from: ulmont on March 25, 2010, 09:14:38 AM
Quote from: viper37 on March 25, 2010, 07:58:46 AM
yeah, because we all know drug dealers only deal in one sort of drug. There are distinct dealers & supplier chains for marijuana, cocaine, pot, hash, acid, speeds, etc.
:rolleyes:
And yet there are distinct dealers & supplier chains for alcohol as opposed to "marijuana, cocaine, pot, hash, acid, speeds, etc." Why might that be?
Didn't used to be that way - in the Prohibition era, it was Mob all the way.
lots of Canadians made cash that way. :D
My great-uncle (the one the family doesn't talk about much) was in the Jewish Mafia, booze-running. He wasn't very good at it, or was unlucky - some rivals shot him so many times, they had to sweep up what was left and bury him in a bag.
I wonder when the tide will turn, and the puritans will have to justify government interference in people's lives, rather than the liberals (old-school anti-authoritarian, that is) having to justify why government should not be interfering in peoples' lives.
Pot laws are practically the poster children for the puritan nanny state.
Quote from: Iormlund on March 25, 2010, 08:19:41 AM
It will reduce their benefits and bring some tax money in. I don't quite see the downside. It's not like people are not using it already.
tobacco companies are so poor :(
Look at the reality:
- 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 :P
- pot is as dangerous as tobacco when it comes to lung, throat, tongue and other types of cancer
- if you legalize it, you make it as normal as tobacco, while we are trying to reduce the consumption of this drug too.
- Once legalized, its content will be controlled. THC content will be limited to X%, just like alcohol needs to be limited&controlled.
- 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)
- 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
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2010, 08:34:38 AM
Yeah, because we know that all sellers of legal products also sell all illegal products. :rolleyes:
look at tobacco companies. Many were sued by the Government of Canada for participating in contraband and illegal import of US tobacco products.
Quote from: ulmont on March 25, 2010, 09:14:38 AM
And yet there are distinct dealers & supplier chains for alcohol as opposed to "marijuana, cocaine, pot, hash, acid, speeds, etc." Why might that be?
I can buy beer&cheap wine at every corner store or grocery if I want to.
Only stronger alcohol is regulated here, and that's already too much, it should be sold anywhere.
Quote from: viper37 on March 25, 2010, 09:36:48 AM
- 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)
- 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
So your point is that pot legalization would actually decrease the share of the pot sold legally?
Quote from: Malthus on March 25, 2010, 09:24:01 AM
Didn't used to be that way - in the Prohibition era, it was Mob all the way.
lots of Canadians made cash that way. :D
My great-uncle (the one the family doesn't talk about much) was in the Jewish Mafia, booze-running. He wasn't very good at it, or was unlucky - some rivals shot him so many times, they had to sweep up what was left and bury him in a bag.
Well, there's no longer a Jewish Mafia as active as it was in the past here, since they all moved to the US after making tons of money selling legal alcohol ;)
But there is still a black market, an important one, mostly coming out of the indian reservations for tobacco&alcohol, as well as drugs&weapons.
Many people in Quebec still buy their cigarettes from black market dealers or indians. If you live in Montreal, all you have to do is go to Kanesatake (near Oka, on the south shore, you use the Mercier bridge) and immediatly once you got out of the bridge you start seeing signs for cigarettes to sale, way below the normal price. Technically, it should be sold only to indians not whites, but we all know its a joke.
I recently learnt that my father has a criminal file after getting caught (twice) with illegal cigarettes. As I said, fairly easy to get it.
As for alcohol... well, it's fairly easy to get black market stuff, if you're feeling courageous.
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2010, 09:44:34 AM
So your point is that pot legalization would actually decrease the share of the pot sold legally?
my point is that it won't change anything, there will be more pot users and more problems.
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2010, 09:34:00 AM
Pot laws are practically the poster children for the puritan nanny state.
Not really. Speed limits are the poster children for the puritan nanny state on par with the 0,05 limit on alcohol for driving.
Quote from: viper37 on March 25, 2010, 09:50:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2010, 09:44:34 AM
So your point is that pot legalization would actually decrease the share of the pot sold legally?
my point is that it won't change anything, there will be more pot users and more problems.
I'm not sure you've made a convincing case. Just because pot users will be tempted to still buy the pot illegally is not proving any compelling point that I can see.
Quote from: viper37 on March 25, 2010, 09:51:57 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2010, 09:34:00 AM
Pot laws are practically the poster children for the puritan nanny state.
Not really. Speed limits are the poster children for the puritan nanny state on par with the 0,05 limit on alcohol for driving.
Isn't there a slight difference between activities that can harm innocent bystanders, and activities that can only harm those who engage in them?
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2010, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: viper37 on March 25, 2010, 09:51:57 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2010, 09:34:00 AM
Pot laws are practically the poster children for the puritan nanny state.
Not really. Speed limits are the poster children for the puritan nanny state on par with the 0,05 limit on alcohol for driving.
Isn't there a slight difference between activities that can harm innocent bystanders, and activities that can only harm those who engage in them?
yes, the difference is that Viper likes to speed and drink lol
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2010, 10:00:14 AM
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.
yes, the difference is that Viper likes to speed and drink lol
yes I do.
But I don't think 0,05 is dangerous. AFAIK, no studies prove any significant change in the number of accidents between states that enforce 0,05 instead of 0,08.
Nor do I think that driving 140km/h on an highway is dangerous. I was driving about 55km/h Tuesday and I got a very close call. In fact, 2 very close call, just one worst than any other. Speed had nothing to do with it, since I was already stopped for the 1st one.
Quote from: viper37 on March 25, 2010, 09:50:39 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2010, 09:44:34 AM
So your point is that pot legalization would actually decrease the share of the pot sold legally?
my point is that it won't change anything, there will be more pot users and more problems.
It'll save a fortune in law enforcement and raise tax revenues.
On the other hand ther's no evidence that there will be more pot users and more "problems" whatever those might be. The limited evidence that there is (massive increase in cannabis use sinceits prohibition, lower levels of use in the Netherlands since decriminalisation) indicates the opposite, but it is limited.
Quote from: viper37 on March 25, 2010, 09:49:52 AM
Well, there's no longer a Jewish Mafia as active as it was in the past here, since they all moved to the US after making tons of money selling legal alcohol ;)
There is truth in that ... at least, the ones who lived.
QuoteBut there is still a black market, an important one, mostly coming out of the indian reservations for tobacco&alcohol, as well as drugs&weapons.
Many people in Quebec still buy their cigarettes from black market dealers or indians. If you live in Montreal, all you have to do is go to Kanesatake (near Oka, on the south shore, you use the Mercier bridge) and immediatly once you got out of the bridge you start seeing signs for cigarettes to sale, way below the normal price. Technically, it should be sold only to indians not whites, but we all know its a joke.
I recently learnt that my father has a criminal file after getting caught (twice) with illegal cigarettes. As I said, fairly easy to get it.
As for alcohol... well, it's fairly easy to get black market stuff, if you're feeling courageous.
Yeah, but that is mainly an artifact of peculiar local conditions: namely, the wierd tax treatment of Indians and the fact that Indians as "nations" that straddle the border can easily smuggle stuff over, plus the close proximity in Montreal of Indian reserves to a major urban centre.
The vast majority of Canadians do not really have easy access to black market ciggies and booze. Both can be obtained, of course, if you really want, but the volume of legal sales in Toronto far, far outstrips the illegal - probably by a factor of a thousand or so.
Quote from: viper37 on March 25, 2010, 10:16:22 AM
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.
Many people smoke pot in their homes. Who else is being harmed? I doubt the idea is to allow pot users smoke in places where cigarettes aren't allowed to be smoked. :huh:
Quote from: viper37 on March 25, 2010, 10:16:22 AM
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.
In the ballot initiative in question, you would be allowed to have pot once you were 21. Also, is it just me or are you making the arguments about how alcohol is a problem?
It's still all a waste of time unless the feds deregulate it too.
Quote from: viper37 on March 25, 2010, 10:16:22 AM
Quote from: DGuller on March 25, 2010, 10:00:14 AM
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.
Quote from: viper37 on March 25, 2010, 10:18:34 AM
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.
Quote from: viper37 on March 25, 2010, 09:38:28 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 25, 2010, 08:34:38 AM
Yeah, because we know that all sellers of legal products also sell all illegal products. :rolleyes:
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.
Quote from: viper37 on March 25, 2010, 09:36:48 AM
- 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 :P
Your "known" is not known to non-you.
Quote- pot is as dangerous as tobacco when it comes to lung, throat, tongue and other types of cancer
Possibly. Not proven.
Quote- 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.
Quote- 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.
Quote- 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.
Quote- 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.
Quote from: viper37 on March 25, 2010, 09:51:57 AM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on March 25, 2010, 11:13:21 AM
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.