Posted on 08/28/2014 11:26:39 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom
Oregon has had a wink-wink, nudge-nudge relationship with recreational marijuana use since 1998, when legalization for medical purposes created a wide, open system that distributes pot cards to just about anyone with a vague medical claim and the signature of a compliant physician. We're not suggesting that marijuana has no palliative value to those with genuine medical problems. But let's be honest: Recreational marijuana is all but legal in Oregon now and has been for years. Measure 91, which deserves Oregonians' support, would eliminate the charade and give adults freer access to an intoxicant that should not have been prohibited in the first place.
Opponents of the measure are right about a couple of things. Allowing retail sales of recreational marijuana inevitably will make it easier for kids to get their hands on the stuff, as will Measure 91's provision allowing Oregonians to grow their own. It's also true that outright legalization will increase the number of people driving under the influence, which is particularly problematic given the absence of a simple and reliable test for intoxication. There is no bong Breathalyzer.
As real as these consequences are, Oregonians should support outright legalization. No responsible adult wants kids using pot, but legalization would simply add another product to an "adults-only" category that includes tobacco and alcohol. There is no movement to ban alcohol in order to keep it away from kids, so why use that justification to prevent the legalization of marijuana, which in many ways is no worse? The potential increase in intoxicated driving is, again, a reason for concern, and the measure directs the Oregon Liquor Control Commission to recommend appropriate changes to the vehicle code by 2017.
Let's not pretend, however, that Oregon isn't dealing with both of these problems already thanks to the state's (wink, wink) medical marijuana program, which the Legislature itself has made more user-friendly by legalizing dispensaries. And let's not forget what's happening right now in Washington, where adults – including Oregonians – may buy pot at retail outlets. A completely legal high is only a short drive away for anyone in the Portland metro area.
Measure 91 would move Oregon from a hazy condition of almost-legalization to one of rational access guided by straightforward regulations and subject to sensible taxation. In other words, it would force Oregon's 16-year-old marijuana experiment out of adolescence and into legal adulthood. The measure appropriately leaves the task of regulating the new industry to the Oregon Liquor Control Commission, which knows a thing or two about the distribution and sale of intoxicants. The OLCC would adopt the necessary rules by 2016.
The tax burden imposed by Measure 91 would be more modest than that adopted in Washington. Taxes would be levied at the point of sale by producers and would range from $5 per immature plant to $35 per ounce for flowers. These rates might strike some as too low, but taxing legal pot too heavily would merely give people an incentive to keep buying on the black market. In any case, the measure directs the OLCC to review tax rates regularly and recommend appropriate changes to the Legislature.
Legalizing recreational marijuana probably sounds like a revolutionary concept to a lot of Oregonians, including many of those who can't wait to fill in the "yes" bubble on their ballots in a couple of months. Given everything that's happened on the ganja front since 1998, though, it's really not as big a step as it might seem. As of July 1, almost 65,000 Oregonians had medical marijuana cards, and many of those 65,000 have friends with whom – just a guess! – they share the fruits of the system. So widely accepted has this form of shadow legalization become that the Legislature OK'd dispensaries in 2013 even though voters defeated related ballot measures in 2002 and 2010. And then, there's the big pot shop across the river, aka Washington.
Measure 91, far from revolutionary, would simply allow Oregon adults to obtain something they may obtain now, but without having to stroll through a "medical" loophole or drive over a bridge to a neighboring state. The measure would be worth supporting for reasons of honesty and convenience alone, but it also would raise millions of dollars per year for schools and other purposes. For that reason, it deserves support even from those who aren't normally high on taxes.
Probably the same folks who decided .08% was the “acceptable” level of alcohol in the blood to constitute DUI.
For someone who thinks drugs = freedom, I'm not terribly interested in what you think is equals hypocrisy. I don't post that graphic to make any debatable point, I post it to demonstrate what an utter pack of whinny little brats Libertarians are about their pet drug issue.
I keep posting it to remind you that your constant comparison of pot to alcohol is both a Non-Sequitur AND a Tu Quoque argument.
I post it to point out to others that your intended point is deserving only of mockery, because it isn't a valid point. It is a silly assertion that we should put up with more bad results because we already have bad results from this other thing, as if there is some expectation that we ought to be "fair" to bad results causing substances or something.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
And they did something sensible with it. They made it into rope, for which it actually had some use.
IOWs you're not here to participate honestly in the FR forum you're just a disruptor type troll.
bkmk
Ending the “medical marijuana” fraud is worth legalizing it, IMO.
Typical response to officer, kinda like the old “I only had 2 beers and they were O’Douls”. “But officer, I only toked half a joint of home grown. Not the industrial strength stuff.”
Join DAMM now. Drunks Against Mad Mothers. :>}
That's a helluva load of crap to say to DL. Considering Conserving Freedom is a newbie retread troll whose primary purpose is to spread the Soros based message of legalizing marijuana.
DL looks to be a noobie troll hisself. Apparently the rock I threw hit you too! LOL
And this is about the time I would knock you down, climb on top of you and just start punching you, all the while punctuating each and every punch with the words "Physiology. doesn't. change."
Once again, you have said something incredibly ignorant, and something of which my patience has had enough. Human physiology is the ONLY FACTOR.
Form of government does not affect drug addiction.
Place on Earth does not affect drug addiction.
Time in History does not affect drug addiction.
Language you speak does not affect drug addiction.
Culture you posses does not affect drug addiction.
The kinds of trees that grow down the way does not affect drug addiction.
Do you know what affects drug addiction?
HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY.
That's what affects drug addiction.
If you are a human, the chemicals will bind to your human brain and affect you. Your culture won't save you, your location won't save you, your time in history won't save you, and being an American won't save you.
It is just as stupid as presuming that your modern Americanism will save you from Ebola.
Throwing rocks. Is that what you liberals are good for?
Make all the arguments for dope smoking you want. But it simply aligns you with George Soros, the liberal press...
And other DUmmies at the DUmp.
Make all of the insults you want. That’s all you two have and it’s a ten year old’s tactic. I don’t want to chat with ten year olds on the internet.
No, just signs that say WE ID UNDER 40.
Just BAC standards of 0.08 (as pressured by the federal government) that are headed down to 0.05 or even 0.03 (it is 0.01 in Sweden).
Just prosecutions in Dallas for "PI" if you are observed drinking more than 2 adult beverages in an hour.
Just calls for 0.01 BAC for ALL bar staff (including entertainers).
No, no movement to ban it per se. The founder of MADD left that organization decades ago when she determined it to be a neo-prohibitionist front.
The Libertarians have been saying that for quite a long time, but it does not conform to our history. In fact, it is quite disconnected from it. Here is an example.
As a matter of fact, it is enforcing those Christian ideas of equality that more or less caused that civil war.
The problem is that a lot of the Locusts which destroyed them are migrating to other states, and there affecting the existing political balance with their insanity.
Colorado is the consequence of those dope smoking Californians leaving that utter mess they created over there.
A Statement that has become demonstrably true with each passing election.
They gave us Obama. They are utterly clueless about what they are doing.
The Defense Clause. And you don't have to define a weapon, you just have to recognize the general class.
I don’t want to chat with ten year olds on the internet.
____________________________________________________
Not any more, huh? Not since that “incident” you had back in 2011.
(lolol. Sorry. Had to do it. You set yourself up for that one)
robertpaulsen would have agreed with you.
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.