What I don’t get is...I thought it was against the law to smoke regular cigs in 99% of CA., is there going to be an exemption for smoking ‘wacky tobacky’?
It would make more Americans dependent on the state as more people lose the ambition to succeed as so will be more likely to vote Democrat.
I might make marijuana laws less stringent in regards to jail time to free up space for violent criminals but would never legalize it.
http://www.aim.org/special-report/the-hidden-soros-agenda-drugs-money-the-media-and-political-power/
It is a states right. I don’t agree with it, I wouldn’t want it in my state, but it is a states right to grow and sell commercially anything it wants to the citizens of that state.
What does bother me, is our current admin, uses its Superiority Clause when it deems it suits their causes only, ie Arizona.
But, since I don’t live in California, I really have no say so in what California wants to do.
Now, this attitude changes dramatically, when federal funds will be used (either upfront or when CA goes bankrupt and the whole US has to bail them out) to treat, enforce, etc, every bit of bathwater that goes along with the idea of making an already stupid group of people even more stupid.
I am sure trial lawyers are salivating at all the lawsuits, from suing employers for not hiring dopers, to the person who was harmed financially or physically because a doper at company X was too stoned to think properly, and now company X is liable for damages.
The list is endless. But in the end, the feds have no business in booze, alcohol, firearms, tobacco, etc, or many of the other things they are involved in.
I know that once legalized, our nationwide, mandated taxpayer funded Obamacare will be treating all the potheads, and our national sociol security will be supporting those who go out and claim that their drug addictions prevent them from working.
These issues are my objection, not the morality. You cannot legislate people to behave or be smart, and I resist all attempts by the federal government to do so, whether I agree with the stance or not, it is a states right.
I do find it compelling though, that CA is so anti-smoking, but they are OK with allowing one to smoke something far more dangerous to the general public than cigarettes or cigars. I wonder what the peoples take will be on it when Big Pot companies get into the act and start (dare I say) showing a profit? Oh the Huge Manateee!
Anyways, good luck CA, I hope you get what you wish for.
Well that decides it for me. If Soros is for it, I’m against it.
I couldn’t understand why he thinks the way he does. A stoned population is a passive population.
Their is no evil cause that the liar and thief George Soros does not support. Evil is as evil does and the boy is evil indeed.
I agree that it should be legalised, taxed if sold, and legal to be grown for personal consumption. I do not believe that it would be used for control, as the few that don’t do it now because of legal reasons, is not a problem. The govt will not make people use it, just as they do not make people drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes. If someone does not want to do it now, why would they want to do it, just because it’s legal? That’s like saying if if wasn’t illegal to murder people, we would all go out and start killing, Not true and a foolish argument.
I would like to see it happen, so that in 5-10 yrs, there will be people that can look back and say...”I told you so”. How else will anyone know what happens when it’s legal?
Soros is an evil bastard. Anything he is for will be harmful to the masses.
He should be rounded up and sent to a gulag.
I think Soros want weed smokers to gain more control and have less resistance amongst the population.
>The REAL reason CSGV hates the right to keep and bear arms—it works<
snip
>>This “threat to the entire ‘progressive’ [’progressive’ meaning, basically, ‘unconstitutionally enormous government’] movement” stems not from any hypothetical “insurrection” that Constitutionalists might someday engage in, but from the fact that reminding people that their security and liberty are their responsibility—rather than the government’s—is anathema to the “progressive” agenda of increased government control of nearly every aspect of citizens’ lives.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/the-real-reason-csgv-hates-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-it-works<<