First, the comparison with Prohibition is not valid. Prohibition attempted to ban an activity that had broad public acceptance and practice for centuries. That does not apply with marijuana consumption.Get your facts straight. The first woven fabric known to man was made from hemp fibers, and dates to about 8,000BC. There is documentation in China of hemp's medicinal properties dating to 2,772BC. Farmers in the Jamestown Colony were required to grow hemp in 1619. Your assertion here is so ridiculous as to fall beyond laughable.
Second, you cannot argue, logically anyway, that legalizing marijuana will both take out the profit motive and result in wildly wonderful amounts of sales tax.
Who has argued that? Who cares?
Third, you won’t see a decrease in crime. Criminals use marijuana as a vehicle for ill-gotten gains because they are criminals, not because they have some brief to provide marijuana.
Other statistics demonstrated the increasing volume of the bootleg trade. In 1921, 95,933 illicit distilleries, stills, still works and fermentors were seized. in 1925, the total jumped to 172,537 and up to 282,122 in 1930. In connection with these seizures, 34,175 persons were arrested in 1921; by 1925, the number had risen to 62,747 and to a high in 1928 of 75,307 (Internal Revenue, Service, 1921, 1966, 1970: 95, 6, 73). Concurrently, convictions for liquor offenses in federal courts rose from 35,000 in 1923 to 61,383 in 1932.
History has already refuted your assertion here. Why should police continue to help violent international gangsters protect their territory by raiding small-time domestic producers instead of going after the violent international gangsters?
Fourth, like it or not, marijuana is a gateway drug which tempts the weaker folk to look for higher highs and lower lows. Employers will be socked with the cost of testing everyone for drug use and trying to define what is acceptable and unacceptable impairment. With increased acceptance, impaired driving will be more common.
Spinning in a chair is a gateway drug, too.
Employers provide designated nicotine drug consumption areas for their employees, and free caffeine drug stations near the kitchenettes, and the more prosperous employers provide free alcohol drugging at after-work social events. Why do you expect that they will be "socked" for drug testing? Any sensible employer already tests and already has standards for acceptable impairment right now.
Fifth, ... But what happens to the weak among us, who have little home or hope, who are much more easily seduced to the dark side of drug use, even marijuana?
What happens? They simply drive to the nearest government-run liquor store and buy a "fifth" of Zhenka 100-proof vodka for $15 and then drive straight over to the dark side in their pickup truck.
Funny you should mention "impaired driving."
The fact that there are weak, homeless, and hopeless people in our society is not a justifiable excuse to wield the vast violence of government against people who just want to get a buzz on the weekends or fight back the nausea from chemo.
I’m not that good at point-by-point discussion formatting, so bear with me. I appreciate your response. It does not change my mind, however. Hee’s why:
“Get your facts straight. The first woven fabric known to man was made from hemp fibers, and dates to about 8,000BC. There is documentation in China of hemp’s medicinal properties dating to 2,772BC. Farmers in the Jamestown Colony were required to grow hemp in 1619. Your assertion here is so ridiculous as to fall beyond laughable.”
No one argues that hemp has not been around for a long time, for a variety of purposes. Nor would I argue there aren’t societies in the world who have a long history of tolerating and even encouraging using natural substances for altering mental states. In some cases, it was probably limited to shamans or their equivalent. In Bolivia, I believe it was quite useful for tolerating the effects of high altitude. But the United States has no history of widely encouraging or tolerating voluntary mental impairment beyond that of alcohol consumption. Saying marijuana use is no worse, and perhaps more benign, than alcohol use is a no-win scenario for me. We live with the deleterious effects of alcohol abuse and I’m not at all certain it has wreaked more damage than good to tolerate it at all. That said, I am by no means a Carrie Nation. We are stuck with alcohol problems, like it or not, because we tolerated it for centuries and it can’t be eradicated by government fiat.
“Second, you cannot argue, logically anyway, that legalizing marijuana will both take out the profit motive and result in wildly wonderful amounts of sales tax.
Who has argued that? Who cares?”
Actually, the sales tax income and the purpose of removing the profit motive for pushing marijuana is one of the main arguments of the pro-legalization crowd. I care that the people are being urged tgo vote this in with the idea that it will help balance our wildly out of balance state budget. The same argument was made with the lotteries, by the way, and it has larely failed to produce the claimed benefits.
“Other statistics demonstrated the increasing volume of the bootleg trade. In 1921, 95,933 illicit distilleries, stills, still works and fermentors were seized. in 1925, the total jumped to 172,537 and up to 282,122 in 1930. In connection with these seizures, 34,175 persons were arrested in 1921; by 1925, the number had risen to 62,747 and to a high in 1928 of 75,307 (Internal Revenue, Service, 1921, 1966, 1970: 95, 6, 73). Concurrently, convictions for liquor offenses in federal courts rose from 35,000 in 1923 to 61,383 in 1932.
History has already refuted your assertion here. Why should police continue to help violent international gangsters protect their territory by raiding small-time domestic producers instead of going after the violent international gangsters?”
The Prohibition Era ran from 1919-1933. Your stats of increased criminal activity are measured during the time alcohol was prohibited. Of course the crime stats are going to leap if something once legal becomes illegal. In the case today, marijuana is already illegal and the levels of crime associated with it are already in place and measured. Not changing the law isn’t going to result in the same type of increases Prohibition caused. It is just going to continue on as it has.
Nor do I think legalizing marijuana is going to result in a decrease in criminal activity. It will just change the nature of the criminal activity, except for a few “gentleman and gentlewomen marijuana suppliers” who want only to provide and use marijuana. And they are a very tiny minority of the current marijuana drug trade offenders.
“Spinning in a chair is a gateway drug, too.”
Sorry, that doesn’t bear refuting. We aren’t talking about everything that could possibly cause one to want drug intoxication.
“Employers provide designated nicotine drug consumption areas for their employees, and free caffeine drug stations near the kitchenettes, and the more prosperous employers provide free alcohol drugging at after-work social events. Why do you expect that they will be “socked” for drug testing? Any sensible employer already tests and already has standards for acceptable impairment right now.”
The move for enforcement against marijuana intoxication will move to the employer, along with the liability for damages caused by such intoxication while at work. Today employers are not liable for the illegal activities of their employees unless it is clear they are tolerating obvious intoxication. The liability shifts to the employer when the activity becomes legal.
“What happens {to the down-and-out of society)? They simply drive to the nearest government-run liquor store and buy a “fifth” of Zhenka 100-proof vodka for $15 and then drive straight over to the dark side in their pickup truck. Funny you should mention “impaired driving.”
We can all agree that alcohol is a problem for many people. Most people drink responsibly, although many will probably admit they have driven impaired at one time or another and “but for the grace of God . . . “. That doesn’t mean we should set the people up for even more means to impair themselves.
“The fact that there are weak, homeless, and hopeless people in our society is not a justifiable excuse to wield the vast violence of government against people who just want to get a buzz on the weekends or fight back the nausea from chemo.”
I am not sure the “vast violence” of government is actually wielded against those who want a “buzz on the weekends”. Generally those go on quite unimpeded by law enforcement. I do know that in the state medical marijuana is already legal so the chemo victim is a nonissue. I also know the notion of “medical marijuana” is seriously abused because finding a doctor to prescribe marijuana for everything from chemo nausea to hangnails is easy.
Generally the law sets limits primarily for the weak among us, not the strong. In this case, a lot of the weak are the upcoming generation. Making something legal conveys a message to people that it is acceptable, even if “disapproved”. When abortion was made legal, the argument was that 150,000 abortions a year would just become safer, not more common. But over the course of the decades since that decision, abortion has moved from disapproval to approval to a “right” for taxpayer funding. We can’t kid ourselves that making marijuana legal won’t have an effect on the future generations who will taking seriously the “Tune in, turn on, tune out” philosophy.
I understand the arguments you make but I believe the risks of condoning marijuana use in California will only cripple the state more than it already is. We can’t afford the risk so a few “responsible” users can enjoy their weekend buzz. That is why I am voting as I am. You are free to vote however you wish.