California marijuana legalization talk proposition 19

[spice756]

California's move to legalize marijuana was rejected Tuesday night with 53.7 percent of voters statewide opposed to Proposition 19, a ballot measure that sanctioned personal possession and cultivation of pot and allowed local governments to approve commercial production.

Read more here http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20101102/ARTICLES/101109879?Title=Voters-rejecting-marijuana-legalization

I hear the big move is fear of the feds coming down hard on the state.

[Bud Struggle]

Bottom line is that while states control the laws on liquor--the feds control the laws on drugs. So any actual legalization is in the hands of the Federal Government.

[ComradeMan]

Well- that's democracy for you.

[Bud Struggle]

Well- that's democracy for you.

And I bet the Comrades vote EXACTLY same way on this issue AFTER THE REVOLUION!

[Demogorgon]

A very large number of people voted for legalisation, I daresay that this will come up again and it has a solid support base to start from.

Of course as Bud Struggle points out, the federal Government would have had little difficulty ignoring the new law, though he isn't quite correct to say that the states control liquor laws, constitutionally they do and they certainly regulate a lot of aspects of it, but the federal Government gets its way there easily enough too. Look at the manner in which it enforces that outrageous drinking age of 21.

Of course in times where false consciousness is strong, social authoritarianism gets popular as people seek outlets for their frustrations, that is why there are plenty of votes in coming down hard on recreational drug users and whatnot.

[Robert]

Simple possession of a user amount of marijuana is almost never prosecuted by the federal government, unless it's on a military base or other federal property.

[WeAreReborn]

And I bet the Comrades vote EXACTLY same way on this issue AFTER THE REVOLUION!
So you think once people are in a society which promotes freedom and equality they will vote so reactionary to ban drugs? A freedom that should be guaranteed in a healthy society? Doesn't sound like the revolution was a success if that happens.

[Sentinel]

Simple possession of a user amount of marijuana is almost never prosecuted by the federal government, unless it's on a military base or other federal property.

You mean that in practice it's legal? Interesting, it most definitely isn't so here.

The swedish state is kind of neo-puritan when it comes to drugs.

[Magón]

Like usual, people didn't listen to reason, they listened/watched the many scare tactics used in commercials and stuff like that to keep it an illegal substance. Like this commercial for example says if you legalize Marijuana, people are going to go to work stoned or drive while high on Weed. :rolleyes:


97RquPufXPc

[Jimmie Higgins]

And I bet the Comrades vote EXACTLY same way on this issue AFTER THE REVOLUION!You mean like how the Russians got rid of the old regime's legal code including bans on homosexuality and divorce after the Russian Revolution - like how the French emptied the King's prisons after the French Revolutions?

While the end of feudalism was slow and the new capitalist nation-states had a lot of hang-overs from feudalism (not to mention capitalism was just one minority-run system replacing another), people are now able to look an aristocrat in the eye without being flogged - in many places we can even wear clothes that don't clearly broadcast our social caste to others (except when I have to wear a uniform at work of course). In other words, the capitalists got rid of many regulations and laws that are useless for the purpose of profit. Likewise the working class, would not have any need to demonize individuals - Stalinism, Capitalism and so on all need people to conform so that the working class will go along with the ruling class program and not challenge it. These ideologies/ruling classes also need scapegoats and drugs and alcohol (and now food consuption or SUV driving apparently) are convenient ones: our schools aren't failing, it just all the students are stoned-slackers/there isn't a lack of jobs, people just want to sell crack and that creates poverty and misery and unemployment/the Irish immigrants are prevented from gaining employment, they just drink all the time and their women like being prostitutes because Catholicism is a weak religion/there is no artifically constructed famine in Ireland, it's just that the Irish have too many babies.

I think the collective values of the working class means that in a society made by use, we will have a collective interest in bolstering and protecting real individuality and free choice. Capitalism/Stalinism, need to be able to regulate and control people's behavior since those people aren't in a ruling position and are exploited - but if the people rule, then there is no need for us to "regulate" our own behavior on a generalized basis. Induvidual problems can be handled on an individual basis. It's funny that in capitalism, collective problems like unemployment or environmental destruction are treated as "individual problems" (i.e. unemployed people just don't try enough/pollution is due to too many people not using recycled hemp shopping bags) while individual problems or concerns are treated collectively: laws regulating drug use, marriage, etc. Capitalism fetishizes individualism while crushing any real practice of it just as Stalin fetishized Marx and Lenin while shitting on the real implementation of socialism.

When there is another revolution in the US and if it wins, I think the first thing people will do is to empty and raze the prisons.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Like usual, people didn't listen to reason, they listened/watched the many scare tactics used in commercials and stuff like that to keep it an illegal substance. Like this commercial for example says if you legalize Marijuana, people are going to go to work stoned or drive while high on Weed. :rolleyes:


97RquPufXPc

I blame it on the Obama administration. Both for disillusioning young voters and Democrats, making them stay home and not vote, but also for saying that the Federal governmnet would continue to crack down even if the prop passed.

It will be interesting to see what happens in a year when people start talking about the re-election campaign. What Democratic/liberal voting block has Obama not told to go fuck themselves? It will be interesting to see how people react when Obama starts trying to woo gay-rights groups after his lawyers just spent a few years fighting to keep "Don't ask, Don't tell" on the books.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, the good news is that the most recent Gallup polls put nationwide support for legalizing marijuana at the highest it's ever been. And if trends continue to rise, it should be over 50% after the next few years.

[WeAreReborn]

Like usual, people didn't listen to reason, they listened/watched the many scare tactics used in commercials and stuff like that to keep it an illegal substance. Like this commercial for example says if you legalize Marijuana, people are going to go to work stoned or drive while high on Weed. :rolleyes:


97RquPufXPc
Wow that commercial is insane. There have been studies showing that driving while high isn't dangerous. On top of that, it is only a gateway drug because they hear all the lies about marijuana, they try it and realize it isn't bad at all,then they question if everything is a lie and try actually dangerous drugs, like crack. Forgive my rant though I'm sure you all know this but it is ridiculous. Oh and I think it is awesome how it is 4x more mind altering. We have come far. :thumbup1:

[timbaly]

You mean that in practice it's legal? Interesting, it most definitely isn't so here.

The swedish state is kind of neo-puritan when it comes to drugs.


It's not legal in practice. The local governments usually prosecute cases involving user level possessions not the federal government. In some cities being caught with user amount gets you a summons and in other places you might get arrested. It varies by region.

[timbaly]

Well, the good news is that the most recent Gallup polls put nationwide support for legalizing marijuana at the highest it's ever been. And if trends continue to rise, it should be over 50% after the next few years.


Interesting and not too surprising. I wonder if that poll took likely voters into account or just the population in general. I think it's bound to be legal because it seems as though its more accepted by the younger people who will be coming of voting age. Also the people born in the 1920s are perhaps the least likely group to have been into recreational drugs and many of them are dying off now.

[Klaatu]

Here is a pertinent question. The US Constitution's 21st Amendment, (which abolished prohibition) gave state's rights to alcohol regulation.
If so, why not drug/narcotic regulation too? Does the 10th Amendment also come into play here, since there is NO mention of narcotics prohibition anywhere in the US Constitution??? (really there is no mention) :confused:

[timbaly]

Here is a pertinent question. The US Constitution's 21st Amendment, (which abolished prohibition) gave state's rights to alcohol regulation.
If so, why not drug/narcotic regulation too? Does the 10th Amendment also come into play here, since there is NO mention of narcotics prohibition anywhere in the US Constitution??? (really there is no mention) :confused:
There is a federal act that outlaws it. I believe it's called the Control Substances Act of 1970. Marijuana is considered a "schedule I" drug because it has a high potential for abuse amongst other qualifiers.

( 1000 Posts... Again... )

[RGacky3]

The advertisement was a completely and actually tipped the numbers against prop 19, its would STILL be illigal to drive high, and going to work high would still not be allowed, 100% lie.

Like always, the right wing can't win on ideas, they gotta turn to blatent lies.

[Robert]

You mean that in practice it's legal? Interesting, it most definitely isn't so here.

No!

It's still "illegal." I mean that the feds don't have the time, resources, manpower or inclination to do anything about it. To them, simple possession of a user amount of marijuana is like spitting on the sidewalk.

Obviously a state trooper will call the (federal) D.E.A. if he stops a tractor trailer with 100 kilos of marijuana. If it's a joint in an ashtray of a 2001 Camry, he might call the local police.

[Demogorgon]

No!

It's still "illegal." I mean that the feds don't have the time, resources, manpower or inclination to do anything about it. To them, simple possession of a user amount of marijuana is like spitting on the sidewalk.

Obviously a state trooper will call the (federal) D.E.A. if he stops a tractor trailer with 100 kilos of marijuana. If it's a joint in an ashtray of a 2001 Camry, he might call the local police.
The point that was made though was that if a state chose to legalise cannabis then the federal Government would start to enforce the law in that state, by in other words making it impossible for the in theory legal market to operate legally. Plus, as I understand it, State law enforcement still has the responsibility for enforcing federal law, the very existence of a federal law would undermine state attempts to change the law.

[thriller]

Wow, everyone seems to be waaaayyy off on why it was voted down. I lived in California, I smoke weed everyday, and I would have voted no on prop. 19. Go to California and smoke a joint on the street. No one is gonna give a shit. Everyone has a medi-card and everyone and there grandma smokes pot. The reason why a lot of "stoners" voted it down is because if the state government, or even the federal government, got a hold of the marijuana trade, prices would skyrocket. Think about it. Take tobacco for example. In some places like Chicago, smokes are 9 bucks a pack! And it is in fact illegal to grow, harvest, and distribute tobacco without going through miles of paper work and thousands of dollars of public fees. The way weed is now, you go up to someone on the street, ask how much, buy it, that's it. Why would anyone want a capitalistic government to gain control over ANY resource?

[Le Corsaire Rouge]

A disappointing result. I'm not a cannabis user myself, but I don't see the sense in prohibiting it.

[Demogorgon]

Wow, everyone seems to be waaaayyy off on why it was voted down. I lived in California, I smoke weed everyday, and I would have voted no on prop. 19. Go to California and smoke a joint on the street. No one is gonna give a shit. Everyone has a medi-card and everyone and there grandma smokes pot. The reason why a lot of "stoners" voted it down is because if the state government, or even the federal government, got a hold of the marijuana trade, prices would skyrocket. Think about it. Take tobacco for example. In some places like Chicago, smokes are 9 bucks a pack! And it is in fact illegal to grow, harvest, and distribute tobacco without going through miles of paper work and thousands of dollars of public fees. The way weed is now, you go up to someone on the street, ask how much, buy it, that's it. Why would anyone want a capitalistic government to gain control over ANY resource?
If people voted it down for that reason, then Cannabis has a much worse effect on cognitive faculties than I thought it did. Making something-particularly a drug-illegal forces prices up far higher than taxing it ever could.

Or perhaps you think it would be cheaper to buy alcohol in Islamic Countries where it is illegal and thus not being regulated by the Government?

[thriller]

If people voted it down for that reason, then Cannabis has a much worse effect on cognitive faculties than I thought it did. Making something-particularly a drug-illegal forces prices up far higher than taxing it ever could.

Or perhaps you think it would be cheaper to buy alcohol in Islamic Countries where it is illegal and thus not being regulated by the Government?

HAHAHA! Have you ever bought weed at a legal dispensary? Ever bought it on the street? Compare the prices and you will see how taxed and 'regulated' weed is more expensive than black market weed.

And Alcohol? Does alcohol grow on trees? Uh no, that's why there are government regulations, because, in case you haven't heard, alcohol is poisonous. Is weed manufactured in a building? No. It's a plant. You can't regulate a plant. Well who knows, maybe you go to the park at start 'regulating' different types of leaves and develop a tax system based on how many hospitalizations there are from leaf poisoning each year, I don't know.

Weed is a plant, it is not manufactured or produced. When a capitalist government starts to sell and regulate nature, shits weak.

[Robert]

The point that was made though was that if a state chose to legalise cannabis then the federal Government would start to enforce the law in that state, by in other words making it impossible for the in theory legal market to operate legally. Plus, as I understand it, State law enforcement still has the responsibility for enforcing federal law, the very existence of a federal law would undermine state attempts to change the law.I know that the point was made. But it's invalid as a practical matter because there aren't enough federal FBI agents or DEA agents to patrol every town and city looking for casual marijuana smokers.

If the state police detect evidence of federal crimes, they call the FBI. Sometimes the offense violates state and federal law, then they can refer it to either authority. There isn't nearly as much rivalry over who gets credit for a drug bust as the movies make out, but there is rivalry to be sure.

on edit: I expect some would fear that a local police man in a small town might call the FBI if he found a legal (under state law) marijuana cigarette in some kid's pants. The FBI would not investigate that case absent some other factor. They might have to drive 3 hours from New Orleans just to get to Bunkie, Louisiana to interview the kid. (There really is a place called Bunkie).

[Klaatu]

There is a federal act that outlaws it. I believe it's called the Control Substances Act of 1970. Marijuana is considered a "schedule I" drug because it has a high potential for abuse amongst other qualifiers.

Yes I know about that. But is it constitutional? Has the US Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of that law?
And further, doesn't alcohol have a high potential for abuse also? Or have beer/liquor lobbyists bought congress
the way big tobacco has? I mean let's be consistent here.

A new study says that alcohol is the most dangerous drug to society of all.

Alcohol 'Most Harmful Drug', According to Multicriteria Analysis
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101101162138.htm

[Robert]

You won't like the answer, but it is supposedly the Commerce Clause of art. 1, §8 cl. 3 of the constitution that has been found to empower Congress to control substances.

I was surprised to recall this, but ultra-conservative Justice Thomas recently sided with two marijuana growers in California in their challenge to federal control of their activity:

If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html

Note that he was in the dissent, i.e., the majority didn't agree with him.
The Constitution means whatever the reigning supreme court says it means.

So if you want repeal of federal marijuana laws, vote ... Republican. :lol:

[RGacky3]

Why would anyone want a capitalistic government to gain control over ANY resource?

Organized crime, thats a big one (putting them out of buisiness).

[Blackscare]

You mean that in practice it's legal? Interesting, it most definitely isn't so here.

The swedish state is kind of neo-puritan when it comes to drugs.


No, the states are basically deputized into prosecuting on drug offenses because of the pressure the federal government puts on them. Usually this happens through threats to cut funding.

This is why the drinking age is standardized at 21 even though it's technically a state's right to establish it's own laws in that regard; the government cuts all highway funding if the state doesn't make the age 21.

This is also why Puerto Rico has a lower age, they don't receive any highway funding and have no reason not to sell at a lower age.

[Klaatu]

So if you want repeal of federal marijuana laws, vote ... Republican. :lol:

Makes me think of the novel "Picture of Dorian Gray" where he sells his soul to the devil

[Demogorgon]

HAHAHA! Have you ever bought weed at a legal dispensary? Ever bought it on the street? Compare the prices and you will see how taxed and 'regulated' weed is more expensive than black market weed.

And Alcohol? Does alcohol grow on trees? Uh no, that's why there are government regulations, because, in case you haven't heard, alcohol is poisonous. Is weed manufactured in a building? No. It's a plant. You can't regulate a plant. Well who knows, maybe you go to the park at start 'regulating' different types of leaves and develop a tax system based on how many hospitalizations there are from leaf poisoning each year, I don't know.

Weed is a plant, it is not manufactured or produced. When a capitalist government starts to sell and regulate nature, shits weak.
Do try and think for a moment. Alcohol is extremely easy to produce. I make beer as a hobby and it is really quite easy, and bare in mind, I am making good ales where the purpose is good taste, not ability to get drunk. Simply making some horrid moonshine is as easy as adding yeast to orange juice and leaving it for a few weeks. Not that I recommend that of course, but that is how it can be done. Growing Cannabis in most parts of the world involves all sorts of equipment to keep it at the right temperature, the right level of light and so on. Plus of course you have to get your hands on a plant you aren't meant to have. By contrast there is nowhere in the world where the simple ingredients to make alcohol are illegal.

So back to my point, Governments banning narcotics drive the prices right up, so anyone who voted to keep it illegal in the bizarre hope they could keep prices down is mad.

On another note, you are hopelessly naive if you don't think Cannabis is a poison. Taken moderately it is unlikely to have any adverse effects, but the same is true for alcohol. That is not an argument to make it illegal, but I wish people were fully informed about what they choose to put in themselves.

[Demogorgon]

Organized crime, thats a big one (putting them out of buisiness).
Not to mention that it is often preferrable to having an industry entirely privatised...

[Demogorgon]

I know that the point was made. But it's invalid as a practical matter because there aren't enough federal FBI agents or DEA agents to patrol every town and city looking for casual marijuana smokers.

If the state police detect evidence of federal crimes, they call the FBI. Sometimes the offense violates state and federal law, then they can refer it to either authority. There isn't nearly as much rivalry over who gets credit for a drug bust as the movies make out, but there is rivalry to be sure.

on edit: I expect some would fear that a local police man in a small town might call the FBI if he found a legal (under state law) marijuana cigarette in some kid's pants. The FBI would not investigate that case absent some other factor. They might have to drive 3 hours from New Orleans just to get to Bunkie, Louisiana to interview the kid. (There really is a place called Bunkie).The concern I think is not them coming down on everyone with a joint, but them shutting down anyone actually producing Cannabis at any kind of noticeable scale. That would seriously undermine efforts to have legal Cannabis.

[ComradeMan]

:lol: I don't know, I am asking...:lol:

But do Californians/Americans here think that the all the shit going down in Mexico may have had an influence on how the vote went? I'm not talking about in-depth analysis but the general populus.

[Klaatu]

On another note, you are hopelessly naive if you don't think Cannabis is a poison. Taken moderately it is unlikely to have any adverse effects, but the same is true for alcohol. That is not an argument to make it illegal, but I wish people were fully informed about what they choose to put in themselves.

I feel that way about "smoked" meats, especially nitrite-containing sausage and cold cuts.
These have been found to raise risk of stomach and deadly pancreatic cancers. :crying:

[Magón]

:lol: I don't know, I am asking...:lol:

But do Californians/Americans here think that the all the shit going down in Mexico may have had an influence on how the vote went? I'm not talking about in-depth analysis but the general populus.

Their judgement is too clouded by the scare tactics they've seen on TV, etc. But there was a recent story in So. Cali which some Sheriffs or something found another Super Tunnel that was used in only a couple months before being found. They lifted a ton of dirty Marijuana from the place to. But of course, the place was probably less scary than what the news showed it as; like they always do.

Mexico is used, at least here in California, as a scare tactic by politicians and anti-Drug groups, to say to people that that's how it would become in California if drugs were legalized. (Which is quite the opposite.)

[thriller]

Do try and think for a moment. Alcohol is extremely easy to produce. I make beer as a hobby and it is really quite easy, and bare in mind, I am making good ales where the purpose is good taste, not ability to get drunk. Simply making some horrid moonshine is as easy as adding yeast to orange juice and leaving it for a few weeks. Not that I recommend that of course, but that is how it can be done. Growing Cannabis in most parts of the world involves all sorts of equipment to keep it at the right temperature, the right level of light and so on. Plus of course you have to get your hands on a plant you aren't meant to have. By contrast there is nowhere in the world where the simple ingredients to make alcohol are illegal.

So back to my point, Governments banning narcotics drive the prices right up, so anyone who voted to keep it illegal in the bizarre hope they could keep prices down is mad.

On another note, you are hopelessly naive if you don't think Cannabis is a poison. Taken moderately it is unlikely to have any adverse effects, but the same is true for alcohol. That is not an argument to make it illegal, but I wish people were fully informed about what they choose to put in themselves.

So what you are saying is that oil is always at a good price because it is regulated by the government and kept in balance, and if it were illegal, THEN prices would skyrocket? What website are we on?

I forgot, big business owns!

And how many people die of lung cancer from cannabis? Ohh that's right "one joint is as much as four cigarettes" shouldn't ignore the propaganda.

Let's hope I don't kill anyone being stoned and driving.

And can you explain to me if illegalization of narcotics drives prices up, why are ciggarette cost's going up?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Wow, everyone seems to be waaaayyy off on why it was voted down. I lived in California, I smoke weed everyday, and I would have voted no on prop. 19. Go to California and smoke a joint on the street. No one is gonna give a shit. Everyone has a medi-card and everyone and there grandma smokes pot. The reason why a lot of "stoners" voted it down is because if the state government, or even the federal government, got a hold of the marijuana trade, prices would skyrocket. Think about it. Take tobacco for example. In some places like Chicago, smokes are 9 bucks a pack! And it is in fact illegal to grow, harvest, and distribute tobacco without going through miles of paper work and thousands of dollars of public fees. The way weed is now, you go up to someone on the street, ask how much, buy it, that's it. Why would anyone want a capitalistic government to gain control over ANY resource?I don't think that's the reason. The bay area counties were the only places where the Prop handily won the vote - if pot smokers were the reason it got voted down, then it would have failed in the bay area and not the agricultural heartland (which would be the place where any pro-pot agribusiness would be strongest). Northern illegal growers were very against the measure as it would mean an end to their livelyhood and I read news stories about how they tried to organize against the proposition.

In Oakland (Oaksterdam which was one of the big backers and I think the original organizer for the prop) are very clearly petty-bougroise in their weed-industry desires. They were angry at attempts by the Oakland city council to industrialize pot production in the city and fought against that legislative move to preserve the model of small home-growing and backyard operations). I think their vision is of small producers and local mom&pop dispensaries... they don't understand capitalism very well.

But the illegal growers, the Oaksterdam boutique weederies, and any libertarian dreams of agribusiness weed, all have class interests not really aligned with the working class on this issue. No where were working class politics on weed represented (but working class interests are hardly ever represented in mainstream politics and debates on any issue). I voted yes for the reason I think this is wrong:


Go to California and smoke a joint on the street. No one is gonna give a shit.While smoking is pretty pervasive, pot is still used as a tool of law-enforcement. Even if an illegal status means lower prices (I'm not convinced on that one) it is not worth the trade-off of law-enforcement using "Mexican drug cartel" fear-mongering to justify crack-downs on Latinos and immigrants. The day after the election there was a big story in the news about a tunnel under the border to smuggle weed into the state - time for more national guard troops and ICE patrols says the ruling class. It is also a tool still used to harass young people and black youth in particular. It's not used as much and in Oakland they traded effective de-criminalization of pot (no enforcement of the law) for a gang injunction that serves the same purpose... racially profile people without having to have a real reason (with pot, it's - "I thought I smelled something" and with a gang injunctions it's: "he looked like a member of the gang to me").

So that's why I voted for it and would support any measures to de-criminalize any drugs. If it causes high taxes on pot or inflated retail costs... well I can grow some plants if it bothered me.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Also, just to note in case people feel like this loss is like a total bummer or something:

This proposition was started on a shoe-string, had no adverts until a week before the election, had no official support by major candidates, was threatened by the Obama administration, and still got more votes than Meg Whitman who had a slick campaign and spent more than $140 million on her campaign.

The only bummers are that we got Jerry Brown-Acid for a Gov. and I won't be able to legally get high before going into the movie theater to watch "Harry Potter" - I'll have to wait for Star Trek 2 before I can legally smoke some pot:crying:.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Wow, everyone seems to be waaaayyy off on why it was voted down. I lived in California, I smoke weed everyday, and I would have voted no on prop. 19. Go to California and smoke a joint on the street. No one is gonna give a shit. Everyone has a medi-card and everyone and there grandma smokes pot. The reason why a lot of "stoners" voted it down is because if the state government, or even the federal government, got a hold of the marijuana trade, prices would skyrocket. Think about it. Take tobacco for example. In some places like Chicago, smokes are 9 bucks a pack! And it is in fact illegal to grow, harvest, and distribute tobacco without going through miles of paper work and thousands of dollars of public fees. The way weed is now, you go up to someone on the street, ask how much, buy it, that's it. Why would anyone want a capitalistic government to gain control over ANY resource?

Prices would actually go down.

How do you not know this?

How can you ignore the mass amount of positives, including a victory for civil liberties?

How is a capitalistic private individual, who can lace your weed, or even rip you off, kill you, etc. better than government regulation? Why don't you go read some more Ayn Rand?

[Demogorgon]

So what you are saying is that oil is always at a good price because it is regulated by the government and kept in balance, and if it were illegal, THEN prices would skyrocket? What website are we on?

I forgot, big business owns!

And how many people die of lung cancer from cannabis? Ohh that's right "one joint is as much as four cigarettes" shouldn't ignore the propaganda.

Let's hope I don't kill anyone being stoned and driving.

And can you explain to me if illegalization of narcotics drives prices up, why are ciggarette cost's going up?
"What website are we on?"
Revleft if I remember correctly, not "leaveitalltothemarket.com". Though at any rate I should have thought it obvious to everyone that banning something is a bit more Government regulation than simply, well, regulating it.

I shall try to explain once again. You can prove that illegal narcotics are more expensive than legal ones both using economic theory and simply looking at empirical evidence. Economically it is very simple. People want to buy drugs whether they are legal or illegal but others are keener to supply them when they are legal as there are less risks involved. The simple fact that supply is more readily available brings the price down.

Proving it empircally is even easier. Places where drugs are legal tend to have them at lower prices, even when they are taxed. The best example is of course alcohol as I say. Buying alcohol in Islamic countries where it is banned is much more expensive than buying it elsewhere, including in neighboring countries where it is legal.

I rather suspect that you like the idea of doing something illegal so much that you are unwilling to have something that you consider rebellious to be made legitimate even if it would increase your civil liberties.

Moreover I must emphasise again that Cannabis is bad for you. It is bad for your throat and lungs and taken excessively it can have mental health implications. That is not to say that moderate use will do much damage, but just as with other drugs like alcohol people must be well informed about what they choose to do with their bodies.

I must say there is an extreme irony here in me who strongly believes Cannabis should be legal, lecturing you, who has a bizarre belief that it should be prohibited on the dangers of it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why pot growers turned against Prop. 19 (http://californiawatch.org/watchblog/why-pot-growers-turned-against-prop-19-6455)


"My favorite piece of propaganda floating around these parts for the last few months," one Mendocino County resident told blogger Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/11/mendocino-the-wild-west-of-marijuana.html), "was that Phillip Morris was buying up giant tracts of land in Mendocino County in advance of Prop. 19 passing. The company would then, the theory goes, put every grower out of business. I found it amazing how many people fell for that stinker."Just to give people a sense of what people in California are saying about the prop's defeat. I'm a little skeptical that opposition from rural bootleggers was decisive, I actually think that considering what little organized machinery or establishment support this prop had, it was a pretty high vote in favor of the proposition. There'll no doubt be another prop like this in 2012 and I think it will probably get some more establishment support and more funding since people saw how well this one did - that combined with a higher turnout that general elections usually have (especially higher turnout from young people) will mean it will probably pass. I also have a hunch that the next bill will appeal more to conservatives in the crafting of the bill - mandating tax revenues go to police or something... in which case I would vote against it. Hopefully I'll be wrong, but that's my guess unless there is a significant change in the political landscape between then and now (which, considering how unstable mainstream politics are right now, is a good possibility).

[thriller]

"What website are we on?"
Revleft if I remember correctly, not "leaveitalltothemarket.com". Though at any rate I should have thought it obvious to everyone that banning something is a bit more Government regulation than simply, well, regulating it.

I shall try to explain once again. You can prove that illegal narcotics are more expensive than legal ones both using economic theory and simply looking at empirical evidence. Economically it is very simple. People want to buy drugs whether they are legal or illegal but others are keener to supply them when they are legal as there are less risks involved. The simple fact that supply is more readily available brings the price down.

Proving it empircally is even easier. Places where drugs are legal tend to have them at lower prices, even when they are taxed. The best example is of course alcohol as I say. Buying alcohol in Islamic countries where it is banned is much more expensive than buying it elsewhere, including in neighboring countries where it is legal.

I rather suspect that you like the idea of doing something illegal so much that you are unwilling to have something that you consider rebellious to be made legitimate even if it would increase your civil liberties.

Moreover I must emphasise again that Cannabis is bad for you. It is bad for your throat and lungs and taken excessively it can have mental health implications. That is not to say that moderate use will do much damage, but just as with other drugs like alcohol people must be well informed about what they choose to do with their bodies.

I must say there is an extreme irony here in me who strongly believes Cannabis should be legal, lecturing you, who has a bizarre belief that it should be prohibited on the dangers of it.


So once again, why are tobacco prices skyrocketing if they are legal?

So the only way to get high off cannabis is to smoke it? Obviously you have never heard of vaporizers or "special brownies".

Do you honestly think that big business would leave marijuana alone and not one single company would try to monopolize on it?

I would have to disagree with you on your argument that products are more readily available when they are legal. This may be true for some products, but not drugs. I know of at least 3 people that could bring me ANY drug I wanted, to my door, in 10 minutes from now. I do not know of a single service that would bring alcohol or tobacco to my door. And anyone who has ever done drugs knows "the first bag is free." Never got that offer from a liquor store. Also, some drug dealers use bartering if money isn't available. Can you name one liquor store or tobacco outlet that does that? Plus when drugs are illegal, no ID is required, therefore making it more readibly available to the entire population, not just 21 or 18 and up.

I'm sorry, but you know absolutely nothing about drug habits/life.

And btw, I would like weed to be illegal but decriminalized, therefore big business can't get their hands on it, and people are not penalized for use of the drug.

[RGacky3]

And btw, I would like weed to be illegal but decriminalized, therefore big business can't get their hands on it, and people are not penalized for use of the drug.

The Cartels that have their hands on it now ARE big buisiness.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Short of a revolution, I'd like it to be a public utility - just pump some smoke right into my apartment like gas and water. Then they could redesign the Monopoly board and have that utility on there. Also pnumatic tubes should go into everyone's homes... you could call a number and ask for them to send you a newspaper or comic book or some cookies and... swah-pop! It's be there in your house immediately. I saw a goat once and they are harrier (sp?) than you'd imagine. Did anyone ever use that word hirsute? I've read it but never heard it - do you say it like a suit made from hair?

[maskerade]

So once again, why are tobacco prices skyrocketing if they are legal?

So the only way to get high off cannabis is to smoke it? Obviously you have never heard of vaporizers or "special brownies".

Do you honestly think that big business would leave marijuana alone and not one single company would try to monopolize on it?

I would have to disagree with you on your argument that products are more readily available when they are legal. This may be true for some products, but not drugs. I know of at least 3 people that could bring me ANY drug I wanted, to my door, in 10 minutes from now. I do not know of a single service that would bring alcohol or tobacco to my door. And anyone who has ever done drugs knows "the first bag is free." Never got that offer from a liquor store. Also, some drug dealers use bartering if money isn't available. Can you name one liquor store or tobacco outlet that does that? Plus when drugs are illegal, no ID is required, therefore making it more readibly available to the entire population, not just 21 or 18 and up.

I'm sorry, but you know absolutely nothing about drug habits/life.

And btw, I would like weed to be illegal but decriminalized, therefore big business can't get their hands on it, and people are not penalized for use of the drug.

how can you monopolize a product which anyone can grow almost anywhere? comparing weed to tobacco is stupid because the two plants are very different. One plant grows in certain select areas of the world and in certain climates, whereas the other one can be grown pretty much anywhere.

And even if prices were to go up, i wouldn't see it as a bad thing. The vast improvements in quality (as in no sprayed/laced weed) would outweigh increases in price.

Age limit is a good thing. Drug dealers that don't ID are one of the reasons FOR a legalisation. Drug dealers should not be selling any drugs, even a relatively safe drug like weed, to impressionable little kids. Weed is only 'harmless' to developed brains, thus there should be an age limit.

And if you are so fed up with the lack of alcohol and tobacco delivery, get some friends together and start a delivery business or something.

[ComradeMan]

So once again, why are tobacco prices skyrocketing if they are legal?.

Elastic market- sin taxes as they are known- no matter how much you tax things like petrol, tobacco and alcohol people will continue to buy them and earn you tax revenue.

[Property Is Robbery]

Well at least Schwarzenegger changed the law from one ounce or less being a misdemeanor to being an infraction equivalent to a parking ticket. That would've been useful about two years ago :p

[Property Is Robbery]

Wow, everyone seems to be waaaayyy off on why it was voted down. I lived in California, I smoke weed everyday, and I would have voted no on prop. 19. Go to California and smoke a joint on the street. No one is gonna give a shit. Everyone has a medi-card and everyone and there grandma smokes pot. The reason why a lot of "stoners" voted it down is because if the state government, or even the federal government, got a hold of the marijuana trade, prices would skyrocket. Think about it. Take tobacco for example. In some places like Chicago, smokes are 9 bucks a pack! And it is in fact illegal to grow, harvest, and distribute tobacco without going through miles of paper work and thousands of dollars of public fees. The way weed is now, you go up to someone on the street, ask how much, buy it, that's it. Why would anyone want a capitalistic government to gain control over ANY resource?

Quite the opposite in the case of prices. They would have to keep the prices lower than street prices in order to drive dealers out of business

[Bud Struggle]

Quite the opposite in the case of prices. They would have to keep the prices lower than street prices in order to drive dealers out of business

That's how WalMart does it!

[Demogorgon]

So once again, why are tobacco prices skyrocketing if they are legal?

So the only way to get high off cannabis is to smoke it? Obviously you have never heard of vaporizers or "special brownies".

Do you honestly think that big business would leave marijuana alone and not one single company would try to monopolize on it?

I would have to disagree with you on your argument that products are more readily available when they are legal. This may be true for some products, but not drugs. I know of at least 3 people that could bring me ANY drug I wanted, to my door, in 10 minutes from now. I do not know of a single service that would bring alcohol or tobacco to my door. And anyone who has ever done drugs knows "the first bag is free." Never got that offer from a liquor store. Also, some drug dealers use bartering if money isn't available. Can you name one liquor store or tobacco outlet that does that? Plus when drugs are illegal, no ID is required, therefore making it more readibly available to the entire population, not just 21 or 18 and up.

I'm sorry, but you know absolutely nothing about drug habits/life.

And btw, I would like weed to be illegal but decriminalized, therefore big business can't get their hands on it, and people are not penalized for use of the drug.No, I don't know much about drug lifestyles, nor do I wish to, I do however know a lot about the economic and social effects of drugs on society and I am not so parochial so as to be unaware of what happens in other countries with differing drug policies, so I think I can give a reasonable explanation here. Should I ever wish to know about how to grow the plant or the best ways to consume it, I assure you that I will defer to you.

Now the health question first of all. I am aware that there are different ways to take it, but smoking it is very common so it has to be mentioned and of course taking it in other ways still carries health risks. No narcotic is ever going to be completely harmless and there are plenty of documented side effects of long term use of Cannabis. I do not think you should be so hostile to being told this. I am not telling you to stop using it, I am pointing out that one ought to have an accurate picture of what they put in their bodies.

As for whether big companies would try to produce Cannabis, well depending on the legal environment, then yes they would, obviously I would support laws to stop them doing that, such as a requirement that anyone growing to sell commercially may not produce more than a set amount each year, but it would be impossible to stop small scale growing by individuals.

Moreover one of the things that concerns me about drug prohibition is that big companies do get involved-not so much with Cannabis, because it does lend itself to home production-and they are the worst kind of big companies, the mafia or terrorist variety. I would greatly like to see the back of them.

You claim next that banning Cannabis does not make it more scarce, that is rubbish. To use the sort of anecdotal evidence of which you are so fond, I don't have the first clue where to buy Cannabis these days, on the other hand I know exactly where to get tobacco, even though I don't smoke. If Cannabis were as readily available then I would have an equal knowledge of where to get the two drugs, given my interest in using both is the same.

Speaking of tobacco, you ask why the price is going up, well first of all I don't think that is the case everywhere and where it is going up there are plenty of explanations, in some cases it is more heavily taxed, greater restrictions on the industry is another possibility, also of course any addictive product can tend to lead to higher prices, this is speculation but I imagine that because fewer "first time" or "casual" smokers are taking up the habit now, the tobacco companies may have decided there is no point in pricing to attract them and are focussing on those who need their nicotine fix even if the price does go up. At any rate though, tobacco has always been legal, so you can not attribute recent changes in price to its legality.

[WeAreReborn]

Now the health question first of all. I am aware that there are different ways to take it, but smoking it is very common so it has to be mentioned and of course taking it in other ways still carries health risks. No narcotic is ever going to be completely harmless and there are plenty of documented side effects of long term use of Cannabis. I do not think you should be so hostile to being told this. I am not telling you to stop using it, I am pointing out that one ought to have an accurate picture of what they put in their bodies.

I can assure you that a hamburger is much more unhealthy then any marijuana one can smoke.

[Demogorgon]

I can assure you that a hamburger is much more unhealthy then any marijuana one can smoke.
Well it would depend on what kind of burger is being eaten and how many. Obviously eating several McDonald's burgers a week is worse for you than smoking the occasional joint.

However we are not discussing hamburgers, we are discussing Cannabis and my point that it is bad for you stands. That isn't to say you should not take it, and after all nobody avoids putting anything unhealthy into themselves, it is impossible, but if you do take it, you should understand what the risks are so you can balance them sensibly against the enjoyment you get from it. I do not see why this should be objectionable to anybody.

[Revolution starts with U]

If legalized, it doesn't matter what some bourgie capitalist tries to charge... just grow it yoursel. It's not hard.

[RGacky3]

However we are not discussing hamburgers, we are discussing Cannabis and my point that it is bad for you stands. That isn't to say you should not take it, and after all nobody avoids putting anything unhealthy into themselves, it is impossible, but if you do take it, you should understand what the risks are so you can balance them sensibly against the enjoyment you get from it. I do not see why this should be objectionable to anybody.

I don't see the point of brining it up.

[thriller]

If legalized, it doesn't matter what some bourgie capitalist tries to charge... just grow it yoursel. It's not hard.

They would make it illegal to grow. People seem to forget it is illegal to grow tobacco ANYWHERE in the US for personal use. The tobacco companies put those laws into place in order to secure there monopoly on the crop, the same would go for marijuana.

[thriller]

The Cartels that have their hands on it now ARE big buisiness.

Umm no. I grew it, for myself, legally. No cartel was involved. I can't believe how many people believe Reefer Madness here :P

[WeAreReborn]

Well it would depend on what kind of burger is being eaten and how many. Obviously eating several McDonald's burgers a week is worse for you than smoking the occasional joint.

However we are not discussing hamburgers, we are discussing Cannabis and my point that it is bad for you stands. That isn't to say you should not take it, and after all nobody avoids putting anything unhealthy into themselves, it is impossible, but if you do take it, you should understand what the risks are so you can balance them sensibly against the enjoyment you get from it. I do not see why this should be objectionable to anybody.
I suppose I read it wrong or at least took it wrong. Because I do agree with this statement.

[WeAreReborn]

They would make it illegal to grow. People seem to forget it is illegal to grow tobacco ANYWHERE in the US for personal use. The tobacco companies put those laws into place in order to secure there monopoly on the crop, the same would go for marijuana.
Prop 19 actually said it would be legal to grow for personal use. So you could use the ones you grow for yourself or friends etc.

[Lucretia]

I think one of the major reasons this hasn't passed is that the grassroots arguments in favor of decriminalization (not the ads on television but rather what you hear word of mouth from people you know) continue to be almost indistinguishable from advocacy for using marijuana. In order for this kind of law to be passed, people in favor of decriminalization need to start talking to their friends, co-workers, etc. using more agnostic arguments about whether drugs, and which drugs, are good or bad. They need to focus more on the idea that, whatever a person's opinion about using marijuana, treating it as a criminal justice problem is insane.

Yet every time there is a prop decriminalizing marijuana on the ballot, what I mostly hear is the usual suspects going on and on about how great marijuana is. It's not enough for them to argue that it's not properly a criminal justice problem. They want to argue that it's not a problem, period. And for people like me, who aren't big fans of recreational drug use, it creates a situation in which otherwise sympathetic people feel they are neither with the proponents of criminalization nor with the proponents of decriminalization.

[Ele'ill]

I think one of the major reasons this hasn't passed is that the grassroots arguments in favor of decriminalization (not the ads on television but rather what you hear word of mouth from people you know) continue to be almost indistinguishable from advocacy for using marijuana. In order for this kind of law to be passed, people in favor of decriminalization need to start talking to their friends, co-workers, etc. using more agnostic arguments about whether drugs, and which drugs, are good or bad. They need to focus more on the idea that, whatever a person's opinion about using marijuana, treating it as a criminal justice problem is insane.

Yet every time there is a prop decriminalizing marijuana on the ballot, what I mostly hear is the usual suspects going on and on about how great marijuana is. It's not enough for them to argue that it's not properly a criminal justice problem. They want to argue that it's not a problem, period. And for people like me, who aren't big fans of recreational drug use, it creates a situation in which otherwise sympathetic people feel they are neither with the proponents of criminalization nor with the proponents of decriminalization.

I find this to be the case with most things political. A 'moderate' stance isn't needed but one that's based on fact and one that's generally going to help people's lives.

While we're at it-

It would also be nice to let users know that it is not ok to arrive at various marches and demonstrations surrounding subjects unrelated to marijuana (like May Day in Portland). I'm sure some of them were genuine in regards to the decriminalize to stop the prisons being flooded with people serving long sentences but I think the majority- dressed up in their stupid outfits were there to be sensational- they were like a bunch of 13 year olds that had just smoked their first cigarette.

[Political_Chucky]

So once again, why are tobacco prices skyrocketing if they are legal?

So the only way to get high off cannabis is to smoke it? Obviously you have never heard of vaporizers or "special brownies".

Do you honestly think that big business would leave marijuana alone and not one single company would try to monopolize on it?

I would have to disagree with you on your argument that products are more readily available when they are legal. This may be true for some products, but not drugs. I know of at least 3 people that could bring me ANY drug I wanted, to my door, in 10 minutes from now. I do not know of a single service that would bring alcohol or tobacco to my door. And anyone who has ever done drugs knows "the first bag is free." Never got that offer from a liquor store. Also, some drug dealers use bartering if money isn't available. Can you name one liquor store or tobacco outlet that does that? Plus when drugs are illegal, no ID is required, therefore making it more readibly available to the entire population, not just 21 or 18 and up.

I'm sorry, but you know absolutely nothing about drug habits/life.

And btw, I would like weed to be illegal but decriminalized, therefore big business can't get their hands on it, and people are not penalized for use of the drug.

Don't people get annoyed by this guy's argument of "I'm the drugmaster, you don't do drugs, so I know everything!"?

Let me first start off by saying there is no ONE reason why it didn't get legalized. If anything, I would conclude the election was fixed considering a vast amount of information on the legibility of electronic voting.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/electronicvoting

Next, the funny thing about the whole legalization of prop 19 is that it was rejected, but other acts to raise the taxes on marijuana actually passed. This means people voted on raising marijuana taxes as a whole as we have it now, in MEDICAL CLINICS. And because there is such a small amount of it available to the public compared to what it would be if it had been legalized completely, that certainly means that the taxation would be much higher then it would have been if prop 19 had passed.
http://hightimes.com/legal/ht_admin/6808

Now for the idiot Mr. Thriller. No one is going to bring you alcohol or tobacco to your pad because 1. it is readily available at a store for you to go to. 2. Those people delivering it to you are black market "entrepreneurs" funding their own business and in their case its worth it to give you a free bag because they make their money back plus more once you buy from them. Any jackass could see that but you. You keep talking about big business messing up the price and what not, but a $300 dollar ounce of kush would end up only being around $60. Even if there were laws that would outlaw growing it yourself(Which there wouldn't have been in prop 19) people would still grow it and it would have been much more accessible.

What I don't understand is how people don't see how the government really takes your freedoms away. Sherrif departments stated that they would have treated it like it had always been whether or not it was legalized, which is utter bullshit. The State police cannot support federal laws if it is going against state laws. Plus, even Obama made a statement that it would not condone California passing it, but in my mind I ask"even though it was the will of the people?!" Everyone needs to wake the fuck up!

[Ele'ill]

So once again, why are tobacco prices skyrocketing if they are legal?

So the only way to get high off cannabis is to smoke it? Obviously you have never heard of vaporizers or "special brownies".

Do you honestly think that big business would leave marijuana alone and not one single company would try to monopolize on it?

The tobacco industry has already laid out plans for marijuana legalization. They're ready to go.


I would have to disagree with you on your argument that products are more readily available when they are legal. This may be true for some products, but not drugs. I know of at least 3 people that could bring me ANY drug I wanted, to my door, in 10 minutes from now.So you pick up 1/8th for half the street price at the store. If you are unable to get out of your house because of medical reasons I'm sure you could get someone or a service to do it.


I do not know of a single service that would bring alcohol or tobacco to my door.It would have to be for medicinal purposes otherwise it would beg the question as to why you are incapable of planning ahead.



And anyone who has ever done drugs knows "the first bag is free."Yeah, the body bag when you ask them for a free bag. Maybe if you ask your best friend for a bag on your birthday...

oh and with meth and crack.


Also, some drug dealers use bartering if money isn't available. Can you name one liquor store or tobacco outlet that does that?I got to know someone at a beer distro once and they gave me a case of beer for a night at my place to watch hockey/food.


Plus when drugs are illegal, no ID is required, therefore making it more readibly available to the entire population, not just 21 or 18 and up.As if this stops people anyway..



And btw, I would like weed to be illegal but decriminalized, therefore big business can't get their hands on it, and people are not penalized for use of the drugIf it were decriminalized by state the feds would still hold the monopoly on action.

[Revolution starts with U]

I have never once in my life seen someone offer the "first bag free." Of any drug, any time... I've never even heard about it outside of movies and TV shows.

[spice756]

The reason why cigarettes are costly is the government .It is the best interest to make it dirt cheap and get rich and get people hooked on it.The tobacco companies want it dirt cheap and on every city block it is the governmet that gets in the way.

Same reason it hard to set up bars ,strip clubs ,dicos ,night clubs so on .

It all comes down to vice and the governmet thinks you a kid and sex,smoking,drinking or drugs are bad and we are your mom or dad.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think this is a tremendous opportunity to open up discussion about why democracy is total crap: 47.3% of Californians want to be able to consume a relatively harmless (relative to say, automobiles, or aspartame) plant, but are prevented from doing so by the majority.

Anyone who thinks this is reasonable is an ideologue, a moron, or both.
Fuck democracy.

[Skooma Addict]

it is just unbelievable that anyone could oppose the legalization if Pot. The Drug will become much safer after legalization as well (less of a need to worry about other drugs being mixed in). Also, making drugs illegal makes them more potent as it is easyer to smuggle smaller amounts of a more potent drug. This is also what happened with alchohol prohibition.