Posted on 09/27/2009 2:36:52 PM PDT by cakid1
Whether You Like it or Not - California Will Legalize Pot Next Year
(That seems to be the idea behind a new article out today)
According to a well known, and outspoken leader from the left it’s a good bet that the state will legalize Pot next year.
Part of the reason?
The state needs...
Tobacco isn’t all that easy to grow, it’s subject to a lot of diseases. It takes a bit of aging after drying, and I bet it wouldn’t taste too much like a marlboro or whatever.
It’s not illegal, but that’s because nobody does it, either.
The state didn’t care when hippies raided Diners for (free) used french fry oil, when it went mainstream, they wanted to hit users for not paying the road-use tax! See where this always ends up?
Weed is (apparently) a lot easier for the DIYer to make a product. My view is that weed is not good for children/teenagers especially, and tends to create a lethargy and mental confusion that is not generally a Good Thing. There are probably worse things out there, but esp. parents who perhaps partook “back in the day” are decidedly against their children from smoking the stuff.
One thing I have always wondered about though, outlawing Booze required a constitutional amendment - why aren’t other substances?
Yeah, you are a stoner all right.
This is lame, Western Civilization is alcohol based, not Cannabis based and you don't even seem to be challenging it, yet like a true doper you still want to talk about getting high.
The state only wants the tax money. Think "tobacco" for a moment, private growers, private producers manufacturing tidy packages ready for use and tax collected at point of sale. That would be the model for legal pot. I expect that legalization would drive the "wholesale price" received by the growers way down as the only reason they can charge the prices they get in today's market is because of the risk of providing an illegal product, once it is legalized anybody can get into the business.
I expect that small growers could be treated just like people who brew up their own beer or wine. As long as you stay under 200 gallons, don't distill the end product and don't sell any you get a pass for "home consumption". The analog for pot being home growers shall produce no more then a kilo a year, refrain from extracting the hash oil, and keep consumption to friends and family w/no commercial sales.
I really think that there is a place for legal pot as it is probably less harmful then tobacco or alcohol and will generate a considerable revenue stream.
Regards,
GtG
What!? You’re daring to question Dissident Voice, a self-proclaimed “radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice”?
Not much taxing if everyone is growing thier own.
Yeah, tobacco isn’t that easy to grow, it does require some aging. It doesn’t always taste like Marlboros. But it isn’t that hard either, else farmers wouldn’t be able to plant acres and acres of it. People do grow tobacco, have success with it. People who grow it deal with the fact that it doesn’t taste exactly like Marlboro. You’ll see, with the new taxes on loose cigarette tobacco, a lot of people starting to grow it.
Pot isn’t exactly easy to grow either. There are issues involving the “sexing” of the plant. The females are the more desireable, and the unpollenated females the most desireable. You’re not going to get the best stuff if you plant 20 seeds and just let em grow.
Just because the state can come up with a bad law doesn’t mean that the law the come up with will be bad.
What do you think the chances of everyone growing their own are? Why spend the time doing that when you can buy a pack from Quik Trip with only the money for the pack and gas to the store involved?
The difference between a conservative and a liberal: a conservative looks at a firearm (marijuana) and thinks, 'That's not for me, I won't buy one (use it).' A liberal looks at firearms (marijuana) and thinks, 'That's not for me, I'm scared what it will do to the children so I won't buy one (use it) and therefore nobody else should be allowed to buy one (use it) either.'
Leftist love falsely equate the right to keep and bear arms with the imaginary "right" to sell dope.
I have grown pot, it doesn’t take anything or any time, if you don’t pull it out by the roots then it grows by itself, it is a weed.
Nice grammar there - you can wipe the spittle off your screen now. LMAO.
Leftist love to falsely equate the right to keep and bear arms with the imaginary “right” to sell dope. And whimper when they’re called on it.
I think the Feds need to keep their nose out of most of our business.....let the states decided what to do and the Feds should only protect our borders (military) and maintain our infrastructure........think of the money this country would save if we did not have to fund the Washington machine......
And how high quality was it? I’m not saying it is hard to grow marijuana, but it is much harder to grow quality marijuana. Why deal with that headache when you can go somewhere and essentially pay someone to grow you quality stuff?
Freedom of the individual is a western value.
Prohibition is a despotic oriental concept.
That’s what Hillman’s censored thesis and later published book demonstrated.
Western Civilization extents far beyond the boozy world of NASCAR, trailer parks, and bootleggers.
Too bad you refuse to stop repeating yourself. I hear drunkards do that without realizing it.
That’s right, attack the messenger, or in this case, publisher.
Now nobody will notice you ignoring Hillman’s thesis!
So clever. So Honorable. So enlightened.
You represent your side of the debate very well, in all its intellectual paucity.
"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson
When you cite your hardcore leftist sources it's on you prove the thesis.
Fail.
You need to check your recollection of the facts in Raich:
“The government argued that if a single exception was made to the Controlled Substances Act, it would become unenforceable in practice. The government also contended that consuming one’s locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate—and prohibit—such consumption.”
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Gonzales_v._Raich
The government argued that local production and consumption were functionally equivalent to interstate commerce.
Thomas correctly rejected this anti-intellectual, oxymoronic concept.
Scalia rationalized and sanctioned this federal overreach, to his eternal discredit.
[Justice Scalia’s new stance on the Necessary and Proper Clause leaves citizens little, if any, room to protect their liberty from federal encroachment in the future. It has always seemed significant that he never joined Justice Thomas’s originalist concurrences in Lopez and Morrison. Nor does he explain why Justice Thomas’s originalist dissent in Raich is historically inaccurate, which would be incumbent on him as an “originalist justice” to do. Instead, Justice Scalia now joins in expanding the reach of the Commerce Clause power beyond even that which the Court had endorsed in Wickard v.
Filburn. In oral argument he admitted, “I always used to laugh at Wickard.” Now it’s Judge Stephen Reinhardt and the Ninth Circuit’s turn to laugh.
Gonzales v. Raich has had the salutary effect of showing that federalism is not just for conservatives. Many liberals are distressed about Justice Stevens’s opinion. With a Republican Congress they have come to see the virtue of state experimentation. The case also succeeded in raising the national visibility of the medical-cannabis cause. Maybe now Congress will act where it has refused to act in the past.
But Gonzales v. Raich has placed the future of the New Federalism in doubt, which makes future appointments to the Supreme Court all the more important. Will the president name someone who, like Justice Thomas, is truly committed to federalism? Or will his nominee be a fair-weather federalist, as Justice Scalia has turned out to be when the chips were down?]
I can’t imagine how I might agree more. Just the savings froms billions of dollars per year for the rediculous, ineffective “drug war” is more than enough justification for letting a free people have the freedom of choice with regard to anything they wish to imbibe.
A shift from a gross and godawful waste of taxes to a modest tax income is just rational.
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.