Skip to comments.Push to Legalize Marijuana Gains Ground in California
Posted on 10/28/2009 2:51:00 PM PDT by honestabe010
SAN FRANCISCO These are heady times for advocates of legalized marijuana in California and only in small part because of the newly relaxed approach of the federal government toward medical marijuana.
State lawmakers are holding a hearing on Wednesday on the effects of a bill that would legalize, tax and regulate the drug in what would be the first such law in the United States. Tax officials estimate the legislation could bring the struggling state about $1.4 billion a year, and though the bills fate in the Legislature is uncertain, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, has indicated he would be open to a robust debate on the issue.
California voters are also taking up legalization. Three separate initiatives are being circulated for signatures to appear on the ballot next year, all of which would permit adults to possess marijuana for personal use and allow local governments to tax it. Even opponents of legalization suggest that an initiative is likely to qualify for a statewide vote.
All of us in the movement have had the feeling that weve been running into the wind for years, said James P. Gray, a retired judge in Orange County who has been outspoken in support of legalization. Now we sense we are running with the wind.
Proponents of the leading ballot initiative have collected nearly 300,000 signatures since late September, supporters say, easily on pace to qualify for the November 2010 general election. Richard Lee, a longtime marijuana activist who is behind the measure, says he has raised nearly $1 million to hire professionals to assist volunteers in gathering the signatures.
(Excerpt) Read more at thewoodwardreport.com ...
Now if only the push to legalize guns would gain ground...
The resources this would free up is also a benefit.
Apparently, some feel that life in Obamaland is easier to take if you’re stoned. That way, you won’t know you’re a slave to the state. Until, of course, the state hauls you off to a work camp. Sound like Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or some other 3rd world cesspool?
This is a liberal cause that the CA nutcases can embrace without doing much damage.
“Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden said marijuana was a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime, adding that no state can authorize violations of federal law.
I still don’t understand this position. What makes marijuana anymore dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes? Both are a ‘drug’, addictive, and yet both are legal and taxed to death.
Note: I am not equating pot with heroin or meth or anything like that. It just seems that marijuana would be in the same class as alcohol and tobacco.
Will the hand wringing nanny staters worry about increased cannabis use being a gateway drug to more tobacco use?
Those conservatives who believe that marijuana is the worst thing for humanity since Satan fell to earth should still be happy to see this kind of movement occur, especially in California. If the entire state were to legalize marijuana (for all uses), either by legislative act or referendum, it would put California at direct odds with the federal drug laws, and would force a states’ rights showdown with the fed. It would be the perfect setup for a states’ rights victory, because it would have support from left-wingers and would be spearheaded by the most populous state in the union.
...or lowering taxes, or balancing their budget, or cutting spending, or the border enforcement, or common sense in general. The list goes on.
Consider, how many alcohol deaths do we have every year? Prohibition didn’t work, did it? No, thanks to the bootlegging industry we now have a bunch of Kennedys in Congress.
Alcohol is addictive, we have a plethora of drunks, generations of abused women and traumatized children. We have drunks killing innocents on our highways, we have kids getting drunk and believing that they are better drivers.
So, prohibition doesn’t work; it makes scumbags get rich, it makes the contraband even more desirable, and results in the advancement of more addictive and more concentrated drugs to be discovered. Everclear didn’t exist until the Prohibition era - gee, nice one guys. Pre-Prohibition, beer and wine was considered ‘high class’ and whiskey, vodka and Gin were considered the stuff that drunks and bums drank. This is the law of unintended consequences.
Compare pot today, with the weed available in the 70’s. The THC levels in modern pot are far greater than they were 30 years ago. That is a fact, it’s measureable and quantitative. Why? After millions of years, did marijuana suddenly decide to increase it’s THC content, or were the plants bred to produce THC in higher concentrations? Hint: Those plants didn’t exist 30 years ago.
30 years ago, we didn’t have Crack cocaine either. Gee, thanks anti-drug lobby. We didn’t have Crystal Meth, PCP or a lot of other new designer drugs. Why do you suppose they were invented?
In the history of the human race; prohibition has never worked. All it does is make the contraband more desireable to the masses, make the criminal element rich, and foster creation of more concentrated forms of the contraband.
Now, before you rush off on an emotional high and say that I’m just tryign to justify a habit - here’s a little bit of fact to ruin your rant.
Never done drugs, never intend to try them.
I just am not willing to place myself, my loved ones, my friends or neighbors in harms way trying to keep an adict from getting enough poison in his system to remove himself permenantly from the gene pool. Wanna kill yourself? Fine by me - I’m for making the poison of your choice cheap, plentiful and legal.
As for the children - when the kiddies see 20% of their friends kill themselves on drugs - drugs won’t be cool anymore.
Whenever the subject is marijuana, the FReeper Cannabis Libertarians come out of the woodwork.
I’m in the Reserves, and we now have to p## in the bottle monthly (random select) instead of yearly (100%).
Marijuana is NOT a harmless substance, the drug laws are there for a reason, and I’m fed up with being required to prove my innocence on a regular basis because of those who disregard the law.
BTW, just what does all that dope smoking do to one’s lungs, anyway?
(Flameproof suit donned)
>...or lowering taxes, or balancing their budget, or cutting spending, or the border enforcement, or common sense in general. The list goes on.
Guns can do ALL of those, for example:
For politicians who refuse to balance their budget, or have unacceptable expenditures, shoot them; repeat until you DO have them.
For illegal immigrants, shoot them; repeat until only Citizens, tourists, and legal immigrants remain.
For common sense, give people guns and ammo... the deficiency will correct itself.
Ohhhhhhh now I get it!
So you having to pee in a cup is someone else’s fault for thinking that the government is overstepping their bounds?
Since you are so concerned about everyone else’s lungs, what organization do you belong to that is pushing to make cigarette smoking illegal?
And I’m sure that you are just as concerned about liver damage, so I’d like some information on the organization you belong to that is pushing to make alcohol illegal.
Oddly enough, if alcohol were to be made illegal, how many Freepers would be considered “Freeper Whiskey Libertarians” because they are pissed they can’t down a few cold beers at the game? And I don’t even smoke pot! I just have never understood the game the government was playing with the propaganda (and it IS propaganda) to why it should be in the same class as heroin or cocaine.
I never said pot wasn’t dangerous, I said why is it considered MORE dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Which that question still has jack to do with you peeing in a cup.
Mary Jane is pretty much legal here in Southern Oregon. D.A. says bring no cases. 0bummer says bring no cases.
Neighbor across the way has a commercial pot farm, everyone knows, and ain’t nothin’ gonna happen, man!
Nice try, Autumnraine.
As though dopers smoke their weed because they are taking a principled stand against government overobtrusiveness,
What a joke! They smoke their junk to get high, and when they get busted, I hope they get the book thrown at them.
I don’t enjoy submitting to urinalysis for the reasons stated. BTW, did it ever occur to you that I might be something of a libertarian on that subject? I should be able to sign a sworn statement that I never have, and never will, use an illegal drug, and that should be the end of it. BTW, I’m a JAG legal administrator and before that I was a drug separation board member. No pity on those who popped hot. They knew what they were doing was illegal and they did it anyway and they were not doing so on principle.
But because members of the military fire weapons (like me), fly aircraft (like me), and operate heavy tactical vehicles (like me), and because of our drug-ridden common culture that says using illegal drugs is morally OK and should not be prosecuted, we who are held to a higher standard (call me elitist) are forced to maintain good order and discipline through methods such as involuntary urinalysis.
Are you a Vietnam veteran? Have you ever been required to submit to urinalysis? My answer to both is yes. But answer no to either and the worth of your aforestated comments will be obvious.
Current CA polling shows 58% favor total legalization.
Like anyone gives a damn that you have to take a drug test. If you don’t like it get discharged from the military. If you didn’t like it why did you re-up?
“As though dopers smoke their weed because they are taking a principled stand against government overobtrusiveness,”
What? Who said they smoke weed to take a stance against government? I think this is that ‘strawman’ everybody talks about.
And no one said people in the military shouldn’t be in trouble for doing illegal drugs. Some of us think that some drugs shouldn’t be illegal. If that’s your argument, simply that it’s ‘illegal’, then it isn’t much of an argument when the issue is making it NOT illegal.
Are you sure your name isn’t John Kerry? WTF does being a Vietnam Vet have to do with the price of tea in China? For your information, I was born AFTER the war. So unless I’m a reincarnated deceased soldier, no, I wasn’t in Vietnam. My dad was, but I still don’t know what that has to do with this discussion.
This bill will devastate what’s left of the economy of Humboldt County. I ran into two of my old times friends in Costco and they were both talking about selling their newer Harleys now as the pot money is burning a hole in the pockets of some of the neewbies. On the other hand the Brown Cartel are the really big growers and also they hedge their bets with lots of Meth Labs plus there have been about 5 murders because of rip offs of pot dealers. I have never been so close to voting for a bill like the one coming up as I am now. My fear is the Cartel will up production of cheap Meth to make up for the lost revenue...
It’s not social stigma that stops me from smoking dope, it’s having at least half a brain.
And, your feeble attempt to insult the military aside, half the military aren’t stoned, it’s more like four percent who come up hot. If it’s someone’s first time, he or she usually gets a reprieve when boarded.
I don’t like urinalysis and I don’t like getting deployed, but I have done both more than once, so don’t go “why don’t you just get out?” Those who serve do so in spite of lots of inconveniences and privations (and you’ll probably reply that’s because they couldn’t get a real job).
Sorry to reply to several FReepers in one post, but if the shoe fits....
If your father is a Vietnam veteran, thank him for his service and then ask him what drugs from the Golden Triangle did to our people over there. Example: those living skeletons on crystal meth you see on TV? That’s what 98% pure heroin did in Vietnam. So I guess I have an opinion about what illegal drugs do, including “harmless” marijuana.
And for all of you who demand respect for others’ right to use illegal drugs (even if you personally don’t, that caveat always gets thrown in) , pardon me if I disagree.
I wish the feds would pull their heads out of a certain place and make the growing of hemp legal. Hemp was, at one time, Missouri’s largest cash crop. The rope was stronger than anything, the cloth made from hemp outlasts cotton by an exponential number, and oils made have limitless uses. It grows tall and fast meaning that you can harvest more than one crop a year and it doesn’t require pesticides.
Hemp could give mom and pop farms some much needed cash from a crop that was grown by our founding fathers.
BTW, the hemp of which I speak could not get you high if you smoked an entire acre of the stuff. But it gets the same stigma as the THC filled weed.
I'm moving to california man....stumbling for my bong, Club rolling papers and Dead archives CDs..
now where are my statins and prilosec?
I'm high already..
The new California millionaire,
The Pizza delivery person.
Yeeeech! I can smell the Patchouly from here....
The war on pot is a failure.
I dunno... This is a toughy. On the one hand, we might put thousands of professional drug warriors out of business. On the other, American drug growers would be able to operate in the open, paying taxes as they do so. But then again, there are thousands of illegal aliens growing MJ in our national forests. What will they do for a living? After all, they’re just growing the dope that Americans refuse to grow.
What? Monthly drug testing in the reserves? So every single drill, drug tests for everyone? How much time does that leave for actual training?
“How much time does that leave for actual training?”
An excellent question.
A 100% lockdown (everybody confined to a holding area) until everyone has given a sample will easily kill half a training day. If applied correctly, the program is supposed to test ten percent of personnel each month. The first sergeant calls out names randomly selected by SSN, and everyone else goes about their business. This keeps the actual druggies on tenterhooks as it was designed to do; for the rest of us it the same invasive, degrading, guilty-until-proven-innocent procedure it has always been since introduced in 1972, our last full year in Vietnam.
Now, somebody said that “alcohol is at least as dangerous as marijuana”. That is nothing but an opinion unless backed by volumes of facts and statistics, so the assertion is a non-starter.
My whole argument is that compulsory urinalysis, like airport security searches, are the result of the misdeeds of a few, for which the majority (and liberty itself) pays a considerable price.
You really oughta try pot. It's awesome; you won't be sorry.
Your analogy to airport security screenings is a poor one. At the airport, we are attempting to keep those determined to commit murder from getting on airplanes. They are bent upon doing something that the vast majority of people consider evil and immoral. Acts such as murder are immoral in and of themselves and require no laws to define them as such. Drug use, on the other hand, is not so universally condemned. Some drug use, such as alcohol consumption, is even socially acceptable. Drug use is not an act that is immoral in and of itself. It is only "evil" because the law says so. Take away the law, and the definition as "evil" goes away too. Not so with murder. Murder is evil with or without a law saying so. (In legalese, this is the difference between Malum in se and Malum prohibitum.)
Thus in your case, you are not being told to pee in a jar because a few bad apples are intent upon doing some horrible evil, but because some politicians didn't like their choice of a recreational intoxicant. (Do you suppose said politicians toasted the passage of their drug laws with a few adult beverages?)
“Good citizenship means obeying the laws, even those you don’t like.”
Ahh, California. The Amsterdam of the USA.