Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CHP Revises Policy on Pot Seizures (Hands off medical marijuana)
LA Times ^ | August 28, 2005

Posted on 08/28/2005 9:29:35 AM PDT by Wolfie

CHP Revises Policy on Pot Seizures

Sacramento -- The California Highway Patrol has ordered its officers to stop confiscating medical marijuana during routine traffic stops, a victory for patients hoping to win broader acceptance of the controversial medicine from balky police departments around the state.

Highway Patrol officials sent out a bulletin last week to field commanders spelling out the policy shift, which would allow patients to travel on California's highways with up to 8 ounces of marijuana as long as they have a certified user identification card or documented physician's approval.

Patient advocates say the change will make the state's highways a "safe haven" for those who use marijuana with a physician's permission. They also hope the shift by the CHP sets an example for law enforcement agencies around California.

"This is going to send a very clear message: The constitutionality of patients needs to be protected," said Steph Sherer, executive director of Americans for Safe Access, a marijuana patients group that sued the CHP to force the policy change. "Our hope is this will ripple around the state."

Lt. Joe Whiteford, a CHP spokesman, called the policy shift "a revision" needed in part because of confusion among rank-and-file officers over a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling.

The high court declared in June that medical marijuana laws in a dozen states, including California, don't protect patients or suppliers from federal prosecution. But the ruling did not sweep away state medical marijuana laws and had no effect on local and state police such as the CHP.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: billofrights; bongbrigade; calif; california; chp; constitutionlist; donutwatch; govwatch; marijuana; medicalmarijuana; scotus; statesrights; thatsmrleroytoyou; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

1 posted on 08/28/2005 9:29:41 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Viva la states rights!
2 posted on 08/28/2005 9:47:32 AM PDT by winston2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: winston2

No matter what the issue, it is a good thing when states AND their LEAs come to realize the FedGov is their creation and servant, not their master.


3 posted on 08/28/2005 10:23:36 AM PDT by Spike Spiegel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Seems to me that if the state is not going to enforce the drug laws, then they certainly don't need the federal money that goes with it.

I wonder if the state is going to assist marijuana patients in paying for their "medicine" as they would any other medicine.

4 posted on 08/28/2005 10:47:55 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

A hurricane of common sense sweeps through Sacramento!


5 posted on 08/28/2005 10:48:13 AM PDT by headsonpikes (The Liberal Party of Canada are not b*stards - b*stards have mothers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Seems to me that if the state is not going to enforce the drug laws, then they certainly don't need the federal money that goes with it.

Then we could all pay less federal tax - Yes!

I wonder if the state is going to assist marijuana patients in paying for their "medicine" as they would any other medicine.

Even if that is the case - cannabis is one of the most cost efficient substances on earth. That is one of the reasons for it's legendary popularity. One little seed grows into several ounces of usable medicine or mild intoxicant - no complicated chemistry or risk of death.

6 posted on 08/28/2005 11:02:20 AM PDT by winston2 (I'm a real 1st amendment kind of guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Fine, And let the FedGov live without that state's tax money, too. Would you go for that deal?


7 posted on 08/28/2005 11:02:24 AM PDT by Spike Spiegel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: winston2
"cannabis is one of the most cost efficient substances on earth."

Then why are medical marijuana patients paying more for legal marijuana than for illegal marijuana?

"A buddy of mine in So. Cal saw an ad in the L.A. Weekly a few days ago for a doc that gives away marijuana buyers' licenses/cards like candy, so he went down to his office to check it out. The doc wasn't in -- just the receptionist. ....And she didn't ask him one question about any health condition, not surprisingly. Took his cash though -- $100 for a license. ...and made him sign an agreement that stated that he was under the direct care of the doc in question."

"Conveniently enough, right upstairs in the same building (in the mid-Wilshire district) was a marijuana buyers' club. (The receptionist informed him of this, of course). Highest quality bud imaginable, he tells me. ....from nearly every ganga-growning nation on earth. Young people with white lab coats behind the counters. Street prices -- $480/oz."
-- Mr. Mojo, www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1331981/posts?page=132#132

So much for California's "Compassionate" Use Program, huh?

8 posted on 08/28/2005 11:10:18 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Spike Spiegel

That's not the issue.


9 posted on 08/28/2005 11:22:21 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

Of course, in California all marijuana is is medical marijuana.


10 posted on 08/28/2005 11:25:49 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Federal creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Of course it is. The ridiculousness of your position is that there is no "federal money" - only money that comes from the citizens of states. So if the federal government subverts federalism by withholding money, so should the states.


11 posted on 08/28/2005 11:42:20 AM PDT by Spike Spiegel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Assume this story is true. What California wants to do about it should be California's decision.


12 posted on 08/28/2005 12:24:30 PM PDT by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

$480/oz? - MUST BE GOOD S*IT - to quote George Carlin (that works out to like 25.00 a joint). It is pretty funny and ironic; if the stuff was legal, it'd probably cost more since it would need to be 'approved' on even more levels. Glad I gave it years ago - it would be an EXPENSIIVE legal habit...


13 posted on 08/28/2005 12:34:32 PM PDT by Amalie (FREEDOM had NEVER been another word for nothing left to lose...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Spike Spiegel
"So if the federal government subverts federalism by withholding money, so should the states."

Just the opposite.

If the states subvert the Supremacy Clause, the federal government has no obligation to send them money that won't be spent on the intended purpose.

You want to take this one specific incident and generalize it into a whole different topic. Fine. But you can do it without my participation.

14 posted on 08/28/2005 2:24:29 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona
"Assume this story is true. What California wants to do about it should be California's decision."

First of all, I posted that story to rebut the claim that marijuana is cheap.

Second, if California's decision doesn't conflict with federal law, of course it's their decision. That's the way the U.S. Constitution is written.

15 posted on 08/28/2005 2:30:07 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Both the money, and the federal government itself, originates in the states.

The supremacy clause exists independently of the money issue.

If federal drug laws were legitimate, they could rest on the supremacy clause itself, and need no threat of funding cuts. Do you think the governor of California should be clapped in irons for telling his staties to stand down? THAT would bring matters to a head.


16 posted on 08/28/2005 2:33:31 PM PDT by Spike Spiegel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Spike Spiegel
"Do you think the governor of California should be clapped in irons for telling his staties to stand down?"

Hmmmm. What did they do to George Wallace when he and his staties stood up for states rights in the schoolhouse door? Why I do believe the President of the United States called out the National Guard and was prepared to do just that.

So, to answer your question, yes. He and the other sworn California state officials should be arrested and tried for sedition, if not treason, for violating their oath of office to honor the U.S. Constitution.

In my opinion, of course.

17 posted on 08/28/2005 2:47:50 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
If the states subvert the Supremacy Clause, the federal government has no obligation to send them money that won't be spent on the intended purpose.

The federal government has no obligtion to send them money at all. Somewhere along the line the idea that it's the job of the federal government to re-distribute money became popular, along with the idea that popularity is sufficient authorization.

18 posted on 08/28/2005 2:59:05 PM PDT by tacticalogic (Say goodnight, Grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
So, to answer your question, yes. He and the other sworn California state officials should be arrested and tried for sedition, if not treason, for violating their oath of office to honor the U.S. Constitution.

Thank you. I have no further questions.

19 posted on 08/28/2005 3:09:16 PM PDT by Spike Spiegel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Somewhere along the line the idea that it's the job of the federal government to re-distribute money became popular, along with the idea that popularity is sufficient authorization.

I am no genius -but- I think you're correct!

I know the more educated are aware of this -but- they keep ramming the tax rate thru us. Are we anywhere near that unbearable point where the population has a right -rather- a duty to rebel? Uh- uh- I mean complain that we are being over taxed and poorly represented. /sarcasm

20 posted on 08/28/2005 6:23:50 PM PDT by winston2 (Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness! :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Young people with white lab coats behind the counters. Street prices -- $480/oz."

Time to call that guy with the pager or grow your own - $60. for 10 quality seed - 5 months later - 32 oz. of relief - $1.90 per oz.

Which raises the obvious question - Why does cultivation draw thousands of dollars in fines and jail time?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

21 posted on 08/28/2005 6:32:45 PM PDT by winston2 (Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness! :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PaxMacian; WindMinstrel; philman_36; headsonpikes; cryptical; vikzilla; libertyman; Quick1; ...

ping


22 posted on 08/29/2005 4:42:59 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Seems to me that if the state is not going to enforce the drug laws, then they certainly don't need the federal money that goes with it.

Excellent! You are starting to understand. If you don't take stolen money from thugs, you don't have to comply with their conditions. Now if we could just get the usually spineless states to tell the feds to shove the rest of their booty up their booty.

I wonder if the state is going to assist marijuana patients in paying for their "medicine" as they would any other medicine.

What a shame that would be, emulating the beloved welfare state on the local level as well as the federal level.

23 posted on 08/29/2005 7:10:05 AM PDT by Protagoras (My liberal neighbor is more dangerous to my freedom than Osama Bin Laden.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
You want to take this one specific incident and generalize it into a whole different topic. Fine. But you can do it without my participation.

ROTFLMAO

That translates into, "Oh my goodness, my imbecilic position has been exposed"!

24 posted on 08/29/2005 7:13:05 AM PDT by Protagoras (My liberal neighbor is more dangerous to my freedom than Osama Bin Laden.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Hmmmm. What did they do to George Wallace when he and his staties stood up for states rights in the schoolhouse door? Why I do believe the President of the United States called out the National Guard and was prepared to do just that.

States are never allowed to assert their powers in violation of individual rights. THAT is what the constitution says. Hence the troops. So your apples to oranges NONcomparison is fallacious.

So, to answer your question, yes. He and the other sworn California state officials should be arrested and tried for sedition, if not treason, for violating their oath of office to honor the U.S. Constitution. In my opinion, of course.

Your opinion is of course noted, and discarded. Any federal offical who exerts power not properly delegated to the federal government by the constitution to them has violated their oath, and should be removed from office. See the tenth amendment for further clarification.

25 posted on 08/29/2005 7:19:14 AM PDT by Protagoras (My liberal neighbor is more dangerous to my freedom than Osama Bin Laden.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
So, to answer your question, yes. He and the other sworn California state officials should be arrested and tried for sedition, if not treason, for violating their oath of office to honor the U.S. Constitution.

Would you support such charges against President Bush with regards to his signing the Campaign Finance Reform bill?

26 posted on 08/29/2005 9:27:59 AM PDT by jmc813 ("Small-government conservative" is a redundancy, and "compassionate conservative" is an oxymoron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

"He [Arnold Schwarzenegger] and the other sworn California state officials should be arrested and tried for sedition, if not treason, for violating their oath of office to honor the U.S. Constitution."

Wouldn't that be something to watch? I agree with you wholeheartedly. Nothing would happen to these guys of course, but it would sure kick the whole debate up a notch. It would be a definite plus for those of us who believe marijuana should be legal.


27 posted on 08/29/2005 11:03:36 AM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Allosaurs_r_us; Abram; AlexandriaDuke; Annie03; Baby Bear; bassmaner; Bernard; BJClinton; ...
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
28 posted on 08/29/2005 11:41:03 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (Deep within every dilemma is a solution that involves explosives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
"States are never allowed to assert their powers in violation of individual rights."

Your position is ludicrous -- the states define the rights they will protect and to what extent by their state constitutions.

At least, that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created federalism. And THAT'S what was in the U.S. Constitution.

29 posted on 08/29/2005 9:11:01 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
"Would you support such charges against President Bush with regards to his signing the Campaign Finance Reform bill?"

No, why would I? There's nothing unconstitutional about CFR, so say the courts.

And rather than wringing our hands about how helpless we are with this liberal court, I suggest we elect those who will rewrite the CFR laws.

30 posted on 08/29/2005 9:16:46 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
"It would be a definite plus for those of us who believe marijuana should be legal."

I highly doubt it's an issue upon which the Governor and others wish to hang their political careers.

31 posted on 08/29/2005 9:20:29 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: winston2
"Why does cultivation draw thousands of dollars in fines and jail time?"

Because it defines them as a drug dealer/drug trafficker -- someone we don't like.

32 posted on 08/29/2005 10:04:28 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

I bet standing up to the federal government on this issue is good for their political careers. If your wish came true and they were arrested for what they are doing, that would probably be good for their careers too. They wouldn't be prosecuted and put in prison over this. Voters wouldn't stand for that, especially considering that most voters in this country support medical marijuana. Any move like that against these people by the feds is just going to propel the issue into the spotlight and make the feds look like bullies who don't care about the democratic process or states rights.


This is a silly thing to argue about though because it isn't going to happen. If Arnold Schwarzenegger is arrested over this by the feds I will eat my hat.


33 posted on 08/29/2005 10:32:05 PM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

"Seems to me that if the state is not going to enforce the drug laws, then they certainly don't need the federal money that goes with it."

Yep, I agree, the DEA should pull out of California and stop spending any more money there.


34 posted on 08/30/2005 1:54:49 AM PDT by LibertarianInExile (Kelo, Grutter, Raich and Roe-all them gotta go. Will Roberts change things? We all should know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Amalie

$480/oz?

Wow, looks like pot would have been a better investment opportunity than the stock market, gold and platinum all combined. I remember $10.00 lids. Of course, that was Mexican 'dirt weed' and waaaay back in the late 60's. Also glad I gave it up........30 years ago.


35 posted on 08/30/2005 2:27:15 AM PDT by panaxanax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; Protagoras; jmc813
What did they do to George Wallace when he and his staties stood up for states rights in the schoolhouse door?

Bit of a difference. The Supreme Court did not strike down California's medical marijuana law. The State law stands. The ruling allows Federal authorities to enforce Federal law. There is no Federal law against a State Governor upholding the laws he is sworn to uphold, namely State laws. Of course, with Republicans in charge, that could change.

36 posted on 08/30/2005 3:31:54 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
"Yep, I agree, the DEA should pull out of California and stop spending any more money there."

Then you don't agree 'cause that's not what I said.

37 posted on 08/30/2005 4:54:12 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz; jmc813
"I bet standing up to the federal government on this issue is good for their political careers."

Over the issue of smoking pot? Puh-leeze.

"This is a silly thing to argue about though because it isn't going to happen."

I agree. Sonner or later the federal government will appeal to the USSC to strike down these state medical marijuana laws, using the various scandals as proof that their existence is a joke and a scam.

38 posted on 08/30/2005 4:59:43 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"Over the issue of smoking pot? Puh-leeze."

Is that the issue or is the issue the right of Californians to pass their own internal laws without the federal government butting in? California is a state with around 30,000,000 people and those people have voted to allow medical marijuana. Whether a state leader supports medical marijuana or not is not particularly relevant. The people there have spoken. The question now is do leaders in California stand up for the people in California or do they roll over for the feds? I imagine they would roll over if things got to hot for them, but how much egg will the federal government get on their faces pushing them to that point? It's all good as far as I'm concerned. If the feds want to push the issue, they're just going to crank the debate up several notches, and they're going to piss a lot of people off, which will only be good for those of us who believe in states rights and those of us who in the broader marijuana debate believe marijuana should be legal and regulated like alcohol.
39 posted on 08/30/2005 7:03:14 AM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I agree. Sonner or later the federal government will appeal to the USSC to strike down these state medical marijuana laws, using the various scandals as proof that their existence is a joke and a scam.

Do you think you will be at odds with Justice Thomas in this eventual case?

40 posted on 08/30/2005 10:08:01 AM PDT by jmc813 ("Small-government conservative" is a redundancy, and "compassionate conservative" is an oxymoron.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Hey Robert! Actually $480/oz. for the really good stuff is the same as the street price. That works out to about $5 per joint. It doesn't surprise me that people are abusing this Cal. law. I'm for legalizing, but most of these people saying they need it for pain are full of it and are lying just to be 'legal'. The BS doctors and so-called 'legal' suppliers are making a fortune off these scammers. The 'clinic' near me seems to have a lot of very healthy people going in and out. Like kids doing near bone-breaking stunts on skateboards. The abuse is laughable.


41 posted on 08/30/2005 1:38:03 PM PDT by GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos (I've been tortured by a voice on the news for 24 days now! - C$%& S&)#)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Amalie

re: "$480/oz. = $25/joint." You must've rolled real big ones back in the day! $25 worth would = 1.5 grams and the joint would be bigger than my middle finger. The expensive new stuff is lighter and fluffier, so one would get more joints per ounce than with the old Mexican stuff. Plus, there's no seeds and very little stems to throw away. Nowadays a third or a fourth of a gram is enough to make a joint. So $480/oz. works out to about $5 per joint.


42 posted on 08/30/2005 1:52:18 PM PDT by GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos (Yeoww! I'm in SOOO much pain! Get me a joint from my aspirin bottle. LOL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jmc813
"Do you think you will be at odds with Justice Thomas in this eventual case?"

I prefer to say that I will be in concurrence with Justice Scalia.

43 posted on 08/30/2005 6:54:05 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
"Is that the issue or is the issue the right of Californians to pass their own internal laws without the federal government butting in?"

That is the issue -- a very narrow one -- legal medical marijuana in a state after the USSC has spoken on the subject. If you wish to generalize the issue into one of "passing internal laws", then I'll simply bring up my Governor George Wallace example again.

"California is a state with around 30,000,000 people and those people have voted to allow medical marijuana."

1996 General Election Returns for
Proposition 215 - Medical Marijuana
The number in each county indicates the percentage
of the vote cast as indicated by the color.

Yes, by an overall narrow margin, and carried mainly by the San Francisco Bay area.

I believe a vote today would be very different for two reasons: 1) The USSC decision, and 2) Nine years of actually exposing this program (and its patients) for the scam and fraud that it is.

"... which will only be good for those of us who believe in states rights ..."

Whoa!

I'm a big believer in states rights. I'm also a believer in the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause.

So let's be careful here.

44 posted on 08/30/2005 7:20:48 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos

Thank you for your first-hand, factual report -- a breath of fresh air.


45 posted on 08/30/2005 7:26:00 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Amalie
480/oz? - MUST BE GOOD S*IT

$480 is cheap for good stuff. $100.00 for an eight of an oz is the going rate for "good stuff" in LA. So I'm told.

46 posted on 08/30/2005 7:41:07 PM PDT by MilspecRob (Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; freepatriot32

"Then you don't agree 'cause that's not what I said."

You sure did say "Seems to me that if the state is not going to enforce the drug laws, then they certainly don't need the federal money that goes with it." I just happen to agree--and I think the "federal money that goes with [states enforcing the drug laws]" ought to first be pulled where it will 'hurt' California the most, the California DEA offices.

Leave it to California to be the states' rights capitol of the U.S. in order to protect their craphead liberal laws. This demonstrates pretty clearly that some 'conservatives' ARE of an authoritarian cut as libertarians claim, that the federalist sheepskins they clothe themselves in when they run for office get thrown off when convenient.


47 posted on 08/30/2005 9:39:47 PM PDT by LibertarianInExile (Kelo, Grutter, Raich and Roe-all them gotta go. Will Roberts change things? We all should know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Yes, by an overall narrow margin, and carried mainly by the San Francisco Bay area.

The vote was 55.6% to 44.4%, for crying out loud. Such measures have passed by even wider margins in other red states.

I'm a big believer in states rights. I'm also a believer in the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause.

So far, the only places I've seen it claimed that CA is in violation of the Supremacy Clause are your posts. Have you been able to come up with any source yet that agrees with your position?

48 posted on 08/31/2005 2:56:35 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"I'm a big believer in states rights."

Bull

"Yes, by an overall narrow margin, and carried mainly by the San Francisco Bay area."

I wouldn't say there was a narrow margin between the 56% of Californians who voted for Prop 215 and the 39% who voted against it. I suppose you can characterize it as such if it makes you happy.

"I believe a vote today would be very different..."

Poll results I have seen show more support for medical marijuana in California today than in 1996. The polls might all be bogus though. The most recent polls from California I have seen for outright legalization of marijuana similar to the way alcohol is legal now mirror the 1996 Prop. 215 results, only for legalization its 39%, 56% want it to stay illegal.

Things are going to change, rp, and not in the direction you want them to change. The first set of folks who more likely than not have smoked marijuana are now in their early fifties. Less than 10% of those now in their late sixties and older have ever smoked it. The old politicians are slowly but surely being replaced by people who have probably smoked pot, as are the old voters. Along with this change in people is coming a change in attitudes about marijuana. Support for a war on marijuana will slowly but surely disappear. The colors on your little color coded voter maps will shift. The percentage of those opposing marijuana legalization will decrease. Ignore it if you want, but don't be surprised when marijuana is legalized in the next twenty years or so.
49 posted on 08/31/2005 5:58:55 AM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I prefer to say that I will be in concurrence with Justice Scalia.

You may prefer to say it, but it still won't answer the question. "Silence speaks volumes".

50 posted on 08/31/2005 6:05:08 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("libertarian" - what Repblicans call republicans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson