Replies

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. Whle many people have tried it, it is not publicly acceptable to most of society. Legalizing it would, however, create that broad public acceptance and make it nearly impossible to reverse if it turned out to be disastrous. We need only look at the arc of abortion to see how that principle works.

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. Sales tax is based on price and the price of marijuana will drop, severely decreasing any expected sales tax windfall. This is already happening in Humbolt County where prices for legal marijuana farm produce is severely depressed.

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. They aren’t suddenly go to say, “Well, marijuana is now legal. Guess I’ll go get a job flipping hamburgers.” No, they will just move on to other lucrative, worse illegal activities, such as pushing harder drugs or stronger marijuana than government allows, or targeting kids instead of adults. Therefore, the alleged savings in law enforcement won’t happen.

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.

Fifth, “dignified” marijuana use right now is primarily among those financially able enough to use it recreationally. Getting high on the weekends or occasionally at a party is probably not that damaging to those who can afford it, both financially and mentally. 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?

I don’t think our society can afford that cost. Nor can California afford to make itself a magnet for just those type of people. We have enough here as it is. I know many will have contrary opinions but this Freeper is voting against the Proposition. The devastation of alcohol is bad enough and, as Prohibition proved, impossible to change once it is publicly acceptable. We can’t afford to do the same with marijuana without understanding the true consequences of that decision.

“Prohibition attempted to ban an activity that had broad public acceptance and practice for centuries. That does not apply with marijuana consumption.”

The Human race has been using pot for medicinal and recreational purposes since before recorded history.

I use to believe all of these lies until I was in my thirties and got educated. No I don't smoke it but have. I am a RN and have become very educated, alcohol and tobacco are far worse for you then weed.

To start watch "The Union: The business behind getting high". Or you can chose to be like a liberal and just be emotional about it and uneducated. You can use the link or watch it on Netflix. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007#

T. Package RN

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.

Prohibition attempted to ban an activity that had broad public acceptance and practice for centuries. That does not apply with marijuana consumption. Whle many people have tried it, it is not publicly acceptable to most of society.

Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong here. I don't know how old you are, but I have noticed a significant age gap in the understanding of how the public views marijuana usage. For anyo0ne under the age of 40, for example, marijuana usage is nearly as common as drinking and I suspect the same could be said for the boomers, given that their 1960s excesses really kicked off the drug culture.

As a more concrete example of the changing societal standards, when I went in to the Army in 1989, a recruit was immediately disqualified from service if that person had smoked marijuana even ONCE (that they admitted to). When I looked into going back in in 2003, marijuana usage was no longer an automatic disqualifier. One had to have used more than 7 times total, or anytime in the last 3 years to be disqualified. One of the recruiters explained that military realized over the years that marijuana had become so acceptable that even otherwise solid recruits would be eliminated with the zero tolerance policy, so they scrapped it.

Also, you should realize that money is power. The more money criminals have (or can get) the more power they have. Right now, marijuana sold in the US is the number one source of revenue for Mexican drug cartels. If we eliminate that source of money, the cartels won't get real jobs, but they will be far less powerful and thus far less able to recruit new criminals or subvert governments.

the chemical presence of marijuana tends to stay in the bloodstream just a little (/sarc) longer than alcohol ..... at least 30 days longer