Skip to comments.Calif. GOP Says No To Pot Legalization Measure
Posted on 04/01/2010 5:54:13 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
SAN FRANCISCO (CBS 5 / AP) - The California Republican Party is just saying no to a November ballot initiative that would legalize marijuana in the state.
The less-than-surprising news that the state GOP would oppose a measure known as the Tax Cannabis Act was announced Wednesday on the party's Web site.
Party chairman Ron Nehring said the health and public safety costs of expanded marijuana use would far outweigh any tax revenue raised from legalizing the drug.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbs5.com ...
April's Fool, right? Right 8-?
Can’t they just jack the tax up to offset expenses?
a billion or two a year is nothing to sneeze at..
they could make that in HollyWeed alone
The Dem Party will announce their position after meetings in July.
I’m sure I’ll get blasted for this.. OH well... The Libertarian in me thinks it’s your God given right to smoke any plant He put on this earth. Also, there are far too many people clogging up the prison and court system because of marijuana related charges. I don’t like the idea of “legalize and tax” but it’s still better than illegal IMO.
“A California Democratic Party spokesman said the party would likely consider its official position on the measure at an executive board meeting in July.”
If they can still remember where the meeting is going to be...and if they don’t get lost on the way.
Typical. The GOP always standing up for big government again.
No, you’re RIGHT. The time for marijuana prohibition is coming to an end. If the feds won’t do it, then it’s up to the states & the People to see that it happens.
The CA GOP should be ashamed of themselves.
You won’t get blasted by me, I agree with you.
Would it mean anything even if it passed?
Wouldn’t federal law still “prevail” as in the medical marijuana cases?
And, if the feds were to legalize marijuana tomorrow, would the state laws against it lapse?
Yes the federal laws would still prevail. However, the majority of drug cases are handled in state court under state laws. The feds usually go after only the big cases not mere possession or somebody growing a plant in their house. Thus, if the law passes the FBI, DEA ect would be the only ones to enforce the marijuana laws.
Also, many of the drug cases that end up in federal court are arrests and investigations that began with local police--so they would essentially have to do their own work.
That’s a good question. No, it probably wouldn’t mean much if it passed.
But I still think that most of us conservatives are on the wrong side of this issue.
The GOP shows they are the stupid party, again... without the excuse of being stupefied.
I could leave right now and be back in half an hour with an ounce of pot rolled and ready to toke.
Why we keep pretending that it is not already legal is beyond me. The stuff is everywhere. It is so common and passe.
When a guy gets drunk, he beats his wife. When a guy gets stoned, he bakes cookies with her.
I don’t get what the GOP is protecting here, except maybe the alcohol mega-corporations.
I don’t give a crap what anyone smokes as long as they are not being stupid about it and then they get arrested and that I would support.
No, the states could still decide what to do, as well they should. Provided that the SCOTUS doesn't step in like they did on Roe v. Wade & declare that people have a "right" to privacy, of course. IMO, this is a STATE issue, not a federal one.
I tend to agree. I think the prohibition should have convinced everyone that legalization would be a far saner policy in the long run, but I also believe that there are too many coffee cups and careers tied up in the drug war for it every to be called off.
Good point. The War On Drugs creates a lot of jobs.
Agree ... except that then CA becomes an even bigger source for the rest of the country where it is still illegal. Kind of hard to believe we didn’t learn our lesson from Prohibition.
If all drugs were legal in all states, then the money would go out of it, and if the money goes out of it, then the crime associated with it disappears — including the Mexican drug cartels and much of the border violence. The FDA needs to be reduced to an advisory agency and the DEA eliminated altogether.
Maybe CA goes first and then the rest of the country follows suit, but in the short term it would increase crime in CA because of the continued illegality elsewhere.
The fact of the matter is that marijuana is NOT been made legal again as of right now. Whether the laws are enforced or not is a different story. REPEAL the law! Quit firing responsible marijuana users from their jobs. Enough w/ the police-state tactics & the hordes of helicopters flying over people's land during the harvest season.
Doesn’t count. They’re Canadjians.
Honestly, for the CA GOP: Who Cares?
Besides, the issue will be decided on the Nov ballot, with, or without, GOP input.
My father told me that when he was a kid hemp was a weed. It was a real weed. It grew in the ditches and the crop fields.
It was as common as a dandelion.
In fact they used to spray it with weed killer to keep it under control. (that’s not to mention that they made rope and cloth with it)
Then it was made illegal for reasons no one is quite sure about. And now we have this ridiculous situation we have today.
I’m with you brother. I think alcohol is much worse than pot and certainly causes more destruction. (physical damage, emotional damage, societal damage, marital damage )
The whole thing is stupid, completely illogical.
I can’t figure any reason for this obstinate and heavy handed obsession with keeping it illegal except to protect the alcohol industry.
I dunno, its ridiculous.
* All schoolbooks were made from hemp or flax paper until the 1880s; Hemp Paper Reconsidered, Jack Frazier, 1974.
* It was LEGAL TO PAY TAXES WITH HEMP in America from 1631 until the early 1800s; LA Times, Aug. 12, 1981.
* REFUSING TO GROW HEMP in America during the 17th and 18th Centuries WAS AGAINST THE LAW! You could be jailed in Virginia for refusing to grow hemp from 1763 to 1769; Hemp in Colonial Virginia, G. M. Herdon.
* George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and other founding fathers GREW HEMP; Washington and Jefferson Diaries. Jefferson smuggled hemp seeds from China to France then to America.
* Benjamin Franklin owned one of the first paper mills in America and it processed hemp. Also, the War of 1812 was fought over hemp. Napoleon wanted to cut off Moscow's export to England; Emperor Wears No Clothes, Jack Herer.
* For thousands of years, 90% of all ships' sails and rope were made from hemp. The word 'canvas' is Dutch for cannabis; Webster's New World Dictionary.
* 80% of all textiles, fabrics, clothes, linen, drapes, bed sheets, etc. were made from hemp until the 1820s with the introduction of the cotton gin.
* The first Bibles, maps, charts, Betsy Ross's flag, the first drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were made from hemp; U.S. Government Archives.
* The first crop grown in many states was hemp. 1850 was a peak year for Kentucky producing 40,000 tons. Hemp was the largest cash crop until the 20th Century; State Archives.
* Oldest known records of hemp farming go back 5000 years in China, although hemp industrialization probably goes back to ancient Egypt.
* Rembrants, Gainsboroughs, Van Goghs as well as most early canvas paintings were principally painted on hemp linen.
* In 1916, the U.S. Government predicted that by the 1940s all paper would come from hemp and that no more trees need to be cut down. Government studies report that 1 acre of hemp equals 4.1 acres of trees. Plans were in the works to implement such programs; Department of Agriculture
* Quality paints and varnishes were made from hemp seed oil until 1937. 58,000 tons of hemp seeds were used in America for paint products in 1935; Sherman Williams Paint Co. testimony before Congress against the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.
* Henry Ford's first Model-T was built to run on hemp gasoline and the CAR ITSELF WAS CONTRUCTED FROM HEMP! On his large estate, Ford was photographed among his hemp fields. The car, 'grown from the soil,' had hemp plastic panels whose impact strength was 10 times stronger than steel; Popular Mechanics, 1941.
* Hemp called 'Billion Dollar Crop.' It was the first time a cash crop had a business potential to exceed a billion dollars; Popular Mechanics, Feb., 1938.
* Mechanical Engineering Magazine (Feb. 1938) published an article entitled 'The Most Profitable and Desirable Crop that Can be Grown.' It stated that if hemp was cultivated using 20th Century technology, it would be the single largest agricultural crop in the U.S. and the rest of the world.
The following information comes directly from the United States Department of Agriculture's 1942 14-minute film encouraging and instructing 'patriotic American farmers' to grow 350,000 acres of hemp each year for the war effort:
Have you read George Washington’s Diary? He wrote about his own efforts @ growing marijuana (i.e., hemp) & I think the last chapter is called “Hemp As A Fibre Crop”.
He also mentioned, however, that he seperated his male plants from his female plants “a little too late”. Hmmmmmmm...I wonder what the purpose for doing THAT was, LOL? I think Presidents Jefferson, Madison, & Jackson also grew marijuana, if not even a few other Presidents-to-be.
As far as marijuana being made illegal, we can thank the Progressive movement of the early 20th century for that. FDR made it illegal in 1937, & @ the time most pot smokers were blacks & Hispanics in the South — so I think there were racial overtones to it. The Progressives believed that they could create a more moral person or what have you, & supported euthanasia, they passed the 18th Amendment prohibiting alcohol, etc.
I also suggest that you watch the movie REEFER MADNESS, which was created around 1936 or so. It’s considered to be a stoner’s classic today, but back then they were dead serious about how “evil” marijuana was & how it (a-hem) lead to murder, rape, yada yada yada. Nancy Reagan would have loved it!
Oh yeah, I think the Hearst newspaper enpire has a lot to do w/ criminalizing marijuana, too.
Joe Biden was one of the creators of the Drug War when he was in the Senate back in the early 1970’s (remember that Delaware is a big chemical company state, IIRC).
Thanks a lot.
I didn’t know any of that stuff.
I'll bet you'd get some interesting answers.
You’re welcome. I’m glad it wasn’t an overload. You could also Google “DuPont, Mellon and/or Hearst” in association with the Marihuana Tax Stamp Act. They all had a huge economic motivation to eliminate hemp fiber from competition with their industrial interests.
From their obsessive almost manic determination to keep it illegal, I always knew something was going on. I just didn’t know what. The confusion in my posts was genuine.
As if I have time in my life to worry about if someone is smoking a joint or not. Who cares?
The triviality of it always confused me, but now I see there is a much bigger picture.
A Puritan is a person who sits around worrying that someone somewhere is having fun. The GOP, apparently, sits around worrying that someone somewhere is smoking a joint.
Puleez there’s nothing more important to worry about?
I know what you mean. There is more than a little statist impulse that manifests on the right. I think I finally had it with both parties when no-knock raids were approved of under Reagan for the purpose of fighting the war on drugs. My first thought then, as it is now, is that “this will be used to confiscate our guns one day.”
I disagree. Maybe my political views of "Left" & "Right" are way off base, but, IMO, if you have strong, statist positions, you are NOT on the right:
TOTAL gov't (Left) ----------> NO gov't (Right)
I believe that if this was a # line from 0 to 10 from left to right, our federal government would have been found around 8.5 or 9. McCain/Bush would be around a 6; Blue Dog democrats would be about 4 or 5, & Obama would be around 2 or 3.
What do you think?
In my mind, the extreme left would be an all powerful government - perhaps a feudal king or fascism. On the right is zero government, which is defined as anarchy. Once you define the smallest societal rule or law, even requiring people to drive on the right side of the road, declaring theft illegal, recognizing private property, or establishing a currency, you creep back from the extreme right.
Conservatism, I believe cannot be defined precisely on that scale. Rather it is the underlying belief system that says that laws exist to protect the rights of the people, sometimes acknowledging that the rights of some may be compromised to protect the rights of others. Sometimes that underlying belief pushes you far away from the extreme right of the scale you defined. Enforcement of contracts and protection of private property come to mind.
I don't know if that adds anything, but the scale just isn't all that clear to me when allowed to go to the extremes.
That’s why I added the 0 to 10 numeration w/in the scale of extremes. BOTH extremes are an impossibility to create, therefore the gov’t that we are looking for must be somewhere in between. The question is, where in that scale should we be as a free People?
Like I said, the Founders created a government that was very limited in scope & power, while recognizing that the states from which it was formed retained their authority to move as far to either the left or the right on that scale as the People so desired. The size of the federal government was fixed, while those of the states were not.
That's more authoritarian vs. libertarian.
I have taken that political quiz (I used to be a card-carrying member of the LP), & IIRC, I ranked as a “radical” libertarian. :-)
You find most conservatives supporting more government to control abortion, pornography, drug use, to freely travel to Cuba ...
Being the federalist & supporter of the 9th & 10th Amendments that I am, I believe most of the issues that you listed (w/ the exception of the one re: Cuba) should, IMO, be left to the states to decide.
The GOP wants to keep the Mexican cartels in business? Hmmmm, what’s up with that? Legalize Pot and do REAL damage to the cartels! Stupid GOP.
Just a thought experiment... is the “scale” value of the Federal government different (as designed) than the scale value of the state or local government? I think it is, with the local government having more say in community values issues (i.e., being further left than the feds). With regard to that, I can see more local control within the community based on community values and standards as being acceptable. The job of the Fed then becomes assuring that local laws are not onerous and do not deprive the local citizens of their God-given rights.
With that in mind, I can see the Federal role being around an 8 with the local governments ranging from 5-8 being acceptable. The reality is, as you or someone else said, that some conservatives want control of others so they can impose their will rather than the same degree of control by liberals. To me, that is not conservatism, yet it somes down in the “right vs left” as being right wing.
I believe that our nation was created to have a botton-up government, in which power was like a truangle: the People were the base & had the most authority...then as you proceed from them to the local, coubty, state, & federal govt's, it became smaller. Notice also that as the seat of gov't drifted away from the People, the less power it had over them. I dunno if I'm making any sense, but that's the way I look @ it.
Maybe I should have said ‘Republican.’
We believe that political matters should be resolved by the local or state governments unless such matters are expressly reserved for the Federal Government by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Federal Government has repeatedly violated the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by encroaching on the rights that are reserved and delegated to the states and to the People.
The California Republican Party firmly believes that the best governments are those most accountable to the People. We heed Thomas Jefferson's warning: "When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another."
Someone in CA should ask the CA GOP leaders if they will support CA's authority under the Tenth Amendment to enact this policy, should it pass in November.
Excellent point. I am a strong supporter of state’s rights and the up swell of interest in the 10th amendment.
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.