"All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz and I'm fine ..."
Posted on 03/25/2010 3:21:41 PM PDT by Zakeet
Supporters of the initiative collected well more than the 433,971 signatures needed for it to go before voters in the fall, again putting the state at the forefront of the nation's drug debate.
An initiative to legalize marijuana and allow it to be sold and taxed will appear on the November ballot, state election officials announced Wednesday, triggering what will probably be a much-watched campaign that once again puts California on the forefront of the nation's debate over whether to soften drug laws.
[Snip]
With polls showing that a slim majority of voters support legalization, the legalization campaign will be trying to appeal to a slice of undecided voters who are mostly mothers. "It's always easier for people to say no than to say yes for an initiative," said Mark Baldassare, the pollster for the Public Policy Institute of California.
[Oakland marijuana entrepreneur] Lee hopes to raise as much as $20 million. He will probably be able to tap a handful of wealthy advocates who have supported efforts to relax drug laws, including multibillionaire investor George Soros and George Zimmer, founder of the Men's Wearhouse. Zimmer has donated at least $20,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog. —G.K. Chesterton
Still waiting for you to NAME ONE POT addict who can not obtain it illegally on the street.
The FACT is you can not name ONE. Because making it illegal does NOT stop it’s sale by criminals.
Learn the most basic fundamentals of economics. If there is
demand for any product at a good price, the supply will materialize, legal or not.
I would much rather prefer there were was no dope in the world. But that is not reality. People like you sit on their high horse and are happy when something you don’t like is made illegal, yet it is being sold right under your nose all around you ILLEGALLY. So who benefits? the CRIMINALS! So in effect you are advancing the cause of criminals.
"All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz and I'm fine ..."
That is one dumbest comments I have read here. The law deters acts. The tougher the law, the more deterrent.
Countries and states that have decriminalized pot have seen dramatic increase in its usage:
http://www.sarnia.com/GROUPS/ANTIDRUG/argument/myths.html
Dr. K. F. Gunning, president of the Dutch National Committee on Drug Prevention, cites some revealing statistics about drug abuse and crime. Cannabis use among students increased 250 percent from 1984 to 1992.
Decriminalizing marijuana in Alaska and Oregon in the 1970s resulted in the doubling of use.
California decriminalized marijuana in 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles.
Dave’s not here.
Looks like a Che T shirt he is wearing, no less...
Yep. I recall that pot was sold in my high school hallway fairly openly. But to buy alcohol and cigs, one had go to the store and get carded more often than not.
I’d say everyone I knew in highschool smoked before they ever got drunk.
A high-demand market forced underground doesn’t care about kids...
Your arguments appear to be opinions. Any facts?
The stupidity you are observing is the Libertarian wing.
Legalize anything, and people will do more of it.
It doesn’t matter what it is.
Legalize pot, and more people will smoke it. If the Libertarians think that is a good thing, then I guess they’ll vote for it.
If alcohol, for that matter, were illegal, less people would drink. I wouldn’t drink, if it were illegal.
If smoking tobacco were illegal, fewer people would smoke. No question.
There are MANY people who have a sense of responsibility about the law, and will simply avoid doing illegal things.
There are many more who avoid breaking the law because they don’t want to deal with the repercussion.
I personally will be voting against it. I don’t think pot does one good thing for one person, and does active harm in many. That’s my observation. We don’t live in a vacuum, and our nation does not need yet more stoners.
But then again I am a conservative, not a Libertarian. There is a big difference.
Making anything illegal does not stop it.
Making shoplifting illegal doesn’t make it stop. It just makes it harder.
Making public nudity illegal doesn’t make it stop. It just makes it harder.
It would be much harder for me to get up from this keyboard and go find a pot dealer than for me to go literally around the corner and buy a beer. I would not know where to begin to buy pot. Beer is available at the corner store.
Of course making pot illegal makes it harder to get, duh.
I name myself. I am not a pot addict, but I have zero idea where I could get my hands on some.
It demonstrates that your opinion is quickly becoming the minority one on both sides of the political spectrum.
How about Obama?
Do you really think so? I have my doubts, altho I gotta admit that I would LOVE to see marijuana re-legalized in CA & throughout the country. But I'm not sure that this will be the election in which it happens.
I hope my prediction is dear wrong.
Read the actual proposition/measure...it has stupid restrictions on the amount you can possess and limits growing to a small plot. I want to make some money on the side farming the stuff and selling it to the pot-heads! If I want to do 3 acres, so be it!
Also, now that we are quickly headed further into socialized medicine...I don’t want to pay for pot-heads emphysema and bullous lung disease.
No, creates a lot of problems — more losers getting high and harming others, more drug trafficking and usage as marijuana is a gateway drug
Wrong! It is pharmaco;ogically not a gateway drug. “wow, man, I’m laid back from that doobie—oh, wait a minute, Let’s do some coke to rev up!” You sound like a DEA agent. It’s only gateway in the sense that it is usually in the same place in the black market.
Please name ONE pot addict who can not obtain pot illegally on the street.
There are no “pot addicts,” just as there has been not one confirmed death due to the actual smoking of it.
It was the PROGRESSIVES, not the conservatives, that we can thank for creating our nation's first major anti-drug laws @ the federal level. The Harrison Narcotics Act in 1906 & the Marihuama Tax Act of 1937, (if I remember correctly) for example...not to mention the 18th Amendment.
Progressives think they know how to control or improve human nature & think the government is the best method for doing so. Call me strange if you will, but I have always thought that the best way to do that was for a person to get down on their knees in prayer, but who am I to say???
______________________________________
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/california/toplines/toplines_california_budget_crisis_may_12_2009
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/california/49_in_california_favor_legalizing_taxing_pot
___________________________________
Suppose CA votes to legalize. Do you support the State's prerogative under the Tenth Amendment to do so without fedgov interference? Or, should fedgov shut it down under authority of the Commerce Clause?
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.