Posted on 03/25/2010 3:21:41 PM PDT by Zakeet
Supporters of the initiative collected well more than the 433,971 signatures needed for it to go before voters in the fall, again putting the state at the forefront of the nation's drug debate.
An initiative to legalize marijuana and allow it to be sold and taxed will appear on the November ballot, state election officials announced Wednesday, triggering what will probably be a much-watched campaign that once again puts California on the forefront of the nation's debate over whether to soften drug laws.
[Snip]
With polls showing that a slim majority of voters support legalization, the legalization campaign will be trying to appeal to a slice of undecided voters who are mostly mothers. "It's always easier for people to say no than to say yes for an initiative," said Mark Baldassare, the pollster for the Public Policy Institute of California.
[Oakland marijuana entrepreneur] Lee hopes to raise as much as $20 million. He will probably be able to tap a handful of wealthy advocates who have supported efforts to relax drug laws, including multibillionaire investor George Soros and George Zimmer, founder of the Men's Wearhouse. Zimmer has donated at least $20,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Your conclusion that lax drug laws are causal for a rise in murders is worthy of junk AGW climate science.
¹http://www.expatica.com/nl/articles/news/Record-low-murder-rate-once-again.html
Yes it does...I lost control of my ability to regulate my own behavior due to nicotine. For 20 years, I HAD to have a cigarette. I could not live normally w/o it. I had to carry them w/ me everywhere I went, 'cuz it would be only a few more minutes before my body would begin to crave another one. I was controlled by the craving for nicotine--I was a complete drug addict that could have used the $ I spent for tobacco on more important reasons.
This initiative is certain to generate a large buzz.
Climate change research = Reefer Madness research
Both are govt funded with conclusions written in advance.
I have no quarrel on the point that marijuana might be worse than alcohol.
In case you are missing my POV, I do not relish a nanny state where the gubbermint decides what you can do or not do in your own home. Whatever happened to self reliance, small government, liberty & freedom? You sound like the democrats who think they know what is best for us non-elites.
Even worse is the fact that in spite of laws against marijuana use and other drugs, a multi billion dollar industry flourishes out there enriching the criminal element. What good is that? Why should I have to pay taxes for a government initiative which is a dismal failure?
On another point, people in India have been using Hashish for 5000 years. Today, India graduates more engineers and scientists than United States. Now that India has discovered capitalism and shed Nehru style big government runs everything mentality, Prosperity is growing.
Indian students coming to United States have the highest scholastic achievement of any group. Use of Hashish over 5000 years sure has’nt destroyed Indian minds. I like to learn from history more than some one’s opinion & theory.
“Today, India graduates more engineers and scientists than United States.”
They’d have more if so many weren’t getting high.
“, I do not relish a nanny state where the gubbermint decides what you can do or not do in your own home.”
I agree with this except to the point where people are deliberately destroying their mental capacity. As I said before, a largely sane and rational adult population is necessary for any decent society to continue.
“That being said, the numbers disprove the gateway theory.”
Depends on what study you choose. As I said, fairly, there appear to be reputable studies on both sides of the issue. To pretend otherwise is dishonest.
As for who is “less useful,” the mentally impaired are.
To pretend that most regular pot users do not get affected mentally is simply to deny reality. We all have probably known regular pot smokers. They are, as a general group, not doing well mentally.
Perhaps you know an exception or two. I can believe that. However, the vast majority I know/have known have been spacy, dumbed down, or paranoid. Some seriously paranoid.
A person who zones out on a tv show can still kick it into gear. A person who smokes out every day, can’t.
Murder and crime increased pretty much EVERYWHERE in that period. Pointing at one country that legalized pot and saying that's the reason there while ignoring greater increases in countries that didn't legalize is willfully obtuse. Basically you seem to want to blame pot for everything up to and including a rainy day.
Your opinion does not jive with 5000 year history.
What sort of nanny state intervention do you propose for the hundreds of thousands of alcoholics who are deliberately destroying their mental capacity?
By all means. Show me the studies that validate the gateway theory. As far as I know, they all use the “a person who has used pot is 40x (or whatever) more likely to use heroin than a person who hasn’t.” But is that what a “gateway” is? That a person who uses x was more likely to have used y than someone who didn’t use y? Or is the gateway theory more understood as a person who uses y will go on to use x. The sheer numbers disprove the latter. The former seems like common sense, but isn’t that meaningful. Like it’s any great shock that someone who uses a highly potent addicting drug that isn’t socially acceptable would not have tried or used a less potent and less addicting drug that has more social acceptance.
So all your arguments come down to anecdotal evidence? If that were useful we should go back to alcohol prohibition, at least for hard liquor. Most of those users are mentally impaired, violent, and obnoxious. At least the majority I’ve known.
So you want to go back to alcohol prohibition? Alcohol kills brain cells every time it's used. Your local skid roe winos have plenty of mental issues but there won't be many potheads among them.
In the absence of cohesive analysis - when competent analysts from what seem to be believable groups contradict each other - yes, I look to my own personal experience.
I trust myself.
I can’t believe you are trying to convince me that pot is benign and those who use alcohol are messed up.
The vast majority of my friends/acquaintances use alcohol. The vast majority are sane, productive, rational. I do know a couple of what I consider to be functioning alcoholics.
A plurality of my former (liberal) friends used marijuana. A majority of them went on to harder drugs, had mild to serious mental issues, and were less and less productive until they became just about inert. Except for the few that quit.
Public drunkenness is already against the law; operating heavy machinery and doing various responsible tasks (parenting, surgery, driving, air traffic control. . .) while drunk is against the law; supplying alcohol to minors is against the law.
So there is already quite a bit of “nanny state” intervention as you term it.
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.