Here's something you might be interested in.
"Sorry, kid...no free trips!" --Herbert Block, from a 1970 cartoon in re: drug abuse.
This fall, we Californians have the opportunity to make legal for all what is only legal for those who are gravely ill. Proposition Nineteen will, in effect, legalize the growing and sale of marijuana for all Californians over eighteen. That means if somebody wants to grow pot for their personal recreational use? Under Prop 19, it will be legal under state law. If they want to buy some "killer bud" legally? Under Prop 19, the State of California will not stand in their way.
The proponents of Prop 19 claim that under this new amendment to the California State Constitution, legalizing weed will actually be a financial boon that will fill the state's cash-starved treasury. How can that be?
A process called "legalization-and-taxation." Much as we do with alcohol and tobacco products, the State of California can--if prop 19 passes--charge an excise tax on any marijuana "legally" sold through a licensed dealer, i.e: a pharamacy or a shop. The same with the seeds for those who prefer to "grow and roll their own."
Forgive me, however, if I sound less than enthused about the whole deal!
First off the bat: You still have the fact that marijuana is a Level I Controlled Substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. This means that the possession, distribution, and use of cannabis is a high-level Federal Felony. Even though the State Of California might "legalize today and get high tonight," the Feds still have the authority to haul your baked butt down to the Metropolitan Correctional Center--in handcuffs--for violation of the Controlled Substances Act.
Eventually, it will be up to the SCOTUS to decide the issue-at-hand (which, by the way, will also decide the Medical Marijuana issue) here: Can a state supercede--by State Constitutional Amendment--a Federal Law by legalizing something that is banned under Federal Law? The way that the current makeup of the SCOTUS looks--looks like two-to-one odds the issue will be decided in favor of the Federal Government. Looks like a bummer in the making for those in favor of Prop 19...as in a face-planting wipeout!
Then, of course, you have the practical problems dealing with those who regard the passage of Prop 19 as their license to enjoy their spliff of Jamacian Red wherever they please. I seriously doubt that to be true, despite the "claims" that weed is "less dangerous" than booze.
Public intoxication, no matter the source, is still a hazard. Putting someone behind the wheel of a car, for example, buzzed on Maui Wowwee doesn't strike me as truly smart, nor sane. If you are going to drive in such a manner, do yourself a favor and cancel your auto insurance policy first. Because if you get nailed for a DWI-Weed (just as with DWI-Booze, Cough Syrup, Cold Medicine, ect. ad nauseaum)? Your policy WILL get yanked upon conviction. Just as somebody busted for drunk-or-drugged driving how much fun they had just to get a provisional CDL from the DMV afterwards!
Add to that some other fun stuff: 1) Not everbody will be wanting to get a contact high from your joint of Hindu Kush. In fact, I am allergic to marijuana smoke, as in "Epinephrine and Benadryl"-level allergic. I can think of no other way to really ruin my day than to spend time in the Emergency Department of a local hospital dealing with anaphylatic shock (standard treatment is 0.5mg of epinephrine injected IM, plus 50mgs of Benadryl given by mouth, or via IM (InterMuscular) injection in the hip.) all because some Bake-O didn't heed my request to put out his stick of love grass. (This is why, in the core, I will NEVER be "420 friendly." Being "420 Allergic" cramps my lifestyle, but being dead from anaphylatic shock caused by burning hippie lettuce is a real, one-way bummer!)
2) Just like booze, marijuana is considered a "gateway drug" that leads to harder drugs, such as cocaine, meth, heroin, and mescaline. Don't take just my word for it. Both my dad and my late wife were part of their respective services' medical branches (Dad was a Navy Hospital Corpsman, Melanie was a Combat Medic/Substance Abuse Counselor in the Army). They both told me that a lot of the enlisted personel they had to treat (and later supervise) got their habit-in-question out of starting out with either booze or weed (and sometimes both).
In both services, mandatory drug testing has weeded out a lot of druggies. The way they deal with those who flunk lunch during "Operation Golden Flow" (nickname for a drug urinalysis screen, see also "Whizz Quizz") is two-tiered. For NCOs at E-5 rank (Sergeant in the Army, and Marines, Staff Sergeant in the Air Force, Petty Officer Second Class in the Navy and Coast Guard) and all warrant and commsioned officers, it's simple. ONE positive UA screen for controlled substances means "six, six, and the boot (six months loss of pay, six months confinement, and a Bad Conduct Discharge (or a Dishonorable discharge, if the judge at the General court martial wants to make an example of the (soon to be ex) service menber-in-question.))."
For E-4 level enlisted and below (Corporals in the Army and Marines, Air Force Sergeants (or Seinor Airmen), and Petty Officer Third Classes in the Navy and Coast Guard), it's Non-Judicial Punishment, a chewing out by the company CO, and possibly being sent to the military version of Subsance Abuse Rehab. A second positive test means "six-six-and the boot."
Then there is this factor to consider: As of right now, neither political party here in California is endorsing Prop 19. The GOP is in-your-mush against it, while the Democrats are currently "neutral" regarding thec issue (look for them to swing to the "against" position before the November General Election. About the only party supporting Prop 19 ae the Libertarians (who have a traditiion of supporting drug legalization to begin with).
With all of that, I daresay that come November 9th, recreational marijuana use will still be against California State Law--for Propsition 19 will go up in smoke courtesy of the voters! Another "pipe dream" of the drug legalization forces avails to naught.
But, I could be wrong! After all, despit the proclamation of the Chicago Tribune in 1948, Truman did defeat Dewey!
--LPR
"Sorry, kid...no free trips!" --Herbert Block, from a 1970 cartoon in re: drug abuse.
This fall, we Californians have the opportunity to make legal for all what is only legal for those who are gravely ill. Proposition Nineteen will, in effect, legalize the growing and sale of marijuana for all Californians over eighteen. That means if somebody wants to grow pot for their personal recreational use? Under Prop 19, it will be legal under state law. If they want to buy some "killer bud" legally? Under Prop 19, the State of California will not stand in their way.
The proponents of Prop 19 claim that under this new amendment to the California State Constitution, legalizing weed will actually be a financial boon that will fill the state's cash-starved treasury. How can that be?
A process called "legalization-and-taxation." Much as we do with alcohol and tobacco products, the State of California can--if prop 19 passes--charge an excise tax on any marijuana "legally" sold through a licensed dealer, i.e: a pharamacy or a shop. The same with the seeds for those who prefer to "grow and roll their own."
Forgive me, however, if I sound less than enthused about the whole deal!
First off the bat: You still have the fact that marijuana is a Level I Controlled Substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. This means that the possession, distribution, and use of cannabis is a high-level Federal Felony. Even though the State Of California might "legalize today and get high tonight," the Feds still have the authority to haul your baked butt down to the Metropolitan Correctional Center--in handcuffs--for violation of the Controlled Substances Act.
Eventually, it will be up to the SCOTUS to decide the issue-at-hand (which, by the way, will also decide the Medical Marijuana issue) here: Can a state supercede--by State Constitutional Amendment--a Federal Law by legalizing something that is banned under Federal Law? The way that the current makeup of the SCOTUS looks--looks like two-to-one odds the issue will be decided in favor of the Federal Government. Looks like a bummer in the making for those in favor of Prop 19...as in a face-planting wipeout!
Then, of course, you have the practical problems dealing with those who regard the passage of Prop 19 as their license to enjoy their spliff of Jamacian Red wherever they please. I seriously doubt that to be true, despite the "claims" that weed is "less dangerous" than booze.
Public intoxication, no matter the source, is still a hazard. Putting someone behind the wheel of a car, for example, buzzed on Maui Wowwee doesn't strike me as truly smart, nor sane. If you are going to drive in such a manner, do yourself a favor and cancel your auto insurance policy first. Because if you get nailed for a DWI-Weed (just as with DWI-Booze, Cough Syrup, Cold Medicine, ect. ad nauseaum)? Your policy WILL get yanked upon conviction. Just as somebody busted for drunk-or-drugged driving how much fun they had just to get a provisional CDL from the DMV afterwards!
Add to that some other fun stuff: 1) Not everbody will be wanting to get a contact high from your joint of Hindu Kush. In fact, I am allergic to marijuana smoke, as in "Epinephrine and Benadryl"-level allergic. I can think of no other way to really ruin my day than to spend time in the Emergency Department of a local hospital dealing with anaphylatic shock (standard treatment is 0.5mg of epinephrine injected IM, plus 50mgs of Benadryl given by mouth, or via IM (InterMuscular) injection in the hip.) all because some Bake-O didn't heed my request to put out his stick of love grass. (This is why, in the core, I will NEVER be "420 friendly." Being "420 Allergic" cramps my lifestyle, but being dead from anaphylatic shock caused by burning hippie lettuce is a real, one-way bummer!)
2) Just like booze, marijuana is considered a "gateway drug" that leads to harder drugs, such as cocaine, meth, heroin, and mescaline. Don't take just my word for it. Both my dad and my late wife were part of their respective services' medical branches (Dad was a Navy Hospital Corpsman, Melanie was a Combat Medic/Substance Abuse Counselor in the Army). They both told me that a lot of the enlisted personel they had to treat (and later supervise) got their habit-in-question out of starting out with either booze or weed (and sometimes both).
In both services, mandatory drug testing has weeded out a lot of druggies. The way they deal with those who flunk lunch during "Operation Golden Flow" (nickname for a drug urinalysis screen, see also "Whizz Quizz") is two-tiered. For NCOs at E-5 rank (Sergeant in the Army, and Marines, Staff Sergeant in the Air Force, Petty Officer Second Class in the Navy and Coast Guard) and all warrant and commsioned officers, it's simple. ONE positive UA screen for controlled substances means "six, six, and the boot (six months loss of pay, six months confinement, and a Bad Conduct Discharge (or a Dishonorable discharge, if the judge at the General court martial wants to make an example of the (soon to be ex) service menber-in-question.))."
For E-4 level enlisted and below (Corporals in the Army and Marines, Air Force Sergeants (or Seinor Airmen), and Petty Officer Third Classes in the Navy and Coast Guard), it's Non-Judicial Punishment, a chewing out by the company CO, and possibly being sent to the military version of Subsance Abuse Rehab. A second positive test means "six-six-and the boot."
Then there is this factor to consider: As of right now, neither political party here in California is endorsing Prop 19. The GOP is in-your-mush against it, while the Democrats are currently "neutral" regarding thec issue (look for them to swing to the "against" position before the November General Election. About the only party supporting Prop 19 ae the Libertarians (who have a traditiion of supporting drug legalization to begin with).
With all of that, I daresay that come November 9th, recreational marijuana use will still be against California State Law--for Propsition 19 will go up in smoke courtesy of the voters! Another "pipe dream" of the drug legalization forces avails to naught.
But, I could be wrong! After all, despit the proclamation of the Chicago Tribune in 1948, Truman did defeat Dewey!
--LPR
Wow, this article makes you look like such an ignorant, uniformed, idiot.
This article reads like a propaganda pamphlet from the 1970's, you're opinions are archaic and simply wrong.
Why don't you do some actual research about marijuana, how it has zero negative health effects, contrastingly it actually stunts cancer cell growth and helps ease the symptoms of countless diseases.
And by the way, to further my point, Proposition 19 makes the legal age for marijuana use 21, not 18, as ignorantly stated in your article. You don't even have the facts or know what you're talking about.
The latest polls show over half of California voters are in favor of Prop 19, so no, it is not just a pipe dream. You are just out of touch with society.
Proposition 19 will pass in November. Open your eyes, watch a documentary about Marijuana. I recommend "Grass", or "The Union: The Business Behind Getting High". Maybe then you won't write articles that make you look like an uniformed 13 year old.
Regarding #1 by thisarticleisridiculous
-- Ridiculous; but not for US --
I see that today is your first post please don't consider this Blog a "roast"!
Name calling is a waste of time (and it is too easy to rhyme),
So like Dragnet's, Joe Friday used to say, "Facts, just the facts" will always rule the day!
Let us all know just what you think after you have looked at this link:
http://www.drugpolicy.org
Your in good company with the remnants of a puritanical group of folk who dont understand what freedom or a free market is. If you only believe in freedom for yourself and people exactly like you, you dont understand what freedom is. The Puritans like yourself are dwindling. Your soapboxes are crumbling. Your being exposed for the freedom hating suckers that you are. The day of an American majority that doesn't believe in personal freedom is nearing an end. And truly, how many times have you got a contact high from someone smoking on the street? Are your regular readers as ignorant as you? Is this like the Fox News of San Diego online Newspapers?
WOW! The anti-anti-marijuana folks are brutal! Robbie, good blog post, apparently you've stumbled upon a subject that tokers can't keep from allowing it to fancy up their bong-bowls.
OK--time to return fire!
1): Your comments speak for themselves--so consider yourself reported for violation of "Reader Blog Comments" policy. In the future, read vthe article through before you comment, stick to commenting on the article instead of the writer, and leave the personal flamethrower attacks from Snarkville out! (BTW, I'm 46, and know far more about both the positive and negative effects of drugs than you realize. The so-called "herb superb" isn't just a harmless buzz...and anaphylatic shock is a very real killer indeed).
2): Thank you, Founder. Needed that.
3): Jared, normally, I'd debate you, but your site avatar shows that your mind is closed on this subject. Also, you do not know me at all, so leave the red herrings about my being a Puritan-type fan of "Bush II" and FOXNews Channel by the side of the road.
Also, I understand economics and "Free Enterprise" far better than you think--took Economics in both high school and college, and saw firsthand what untrammled "free enterprise" truly wreaks on a society. Let's just say that Gordon Gekko was wrong about greed--a byproduct on uncheck so-called "free enterprise."
As for not believing in "true freedom"? My father and my late wife both put their lives on the line to defend our freedom, bubba! Plus, with great freedom goes the responsibility to use it wisely.
Here's a shocker for ya: I support the legalization of industrial hemp. You can't catch a buzz from it (it'll make you blow chunks before blowing your mind) if you light it up. However, it's easy to grow, has a million aplications, and is a real money-maker of a crop.
As for FOXNews and Newscorp? If you change the "o" in FOX to a "U," then change out "or" in Newscorp to "ra"? That's what I think of Rupert Murdoch and his truly "evil empire."
--LPR
4) Thanks, Refried! Yes, the "true believers" tend to act like this if somebody even mentions one unkind word about their cause. Sometimes, the best I can do is slip a clip into the 57mm "response cannon" and let fly! Other times, I have no choice but to report them to the system administrator, as I did with #1.
Egads!
--LPR
Amusingly, the VA may change or has already started changing its federal policy on medicinal marijuana, allowing VA patients with pain to have access to opioid medications even if the veteran is already using marijuana for pain relief.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/health/policy/24veterans.html
I wonder how many Californian veterans of Vietnam, Iraq I, and more recent conflicts have some interest in the change in federal policy...
"Though veterans of the Vietnam War were the first group to use marijuana widely for medical purposes, the population of veterans using it now spans generations, said Michael Krawitz, executive director of Veterans for Medical Marijuana Access, which worked with the department on formulating a policy."
"Veterans, some of whom have been at the forefront of the medical marijuana movement, praised the department’s decision. They say cannabis helps soothe physical and psychological pain and can alleviate the side effects of some treatments."
"'By creating a directive on medical marijuana, the V.A. ensures that throughout its vast hospital network, it will be well understood that legal medical marijuana use will not be the basis for the denial of services,' Mr. Krawitz said."
"Although the Obama administration has not embraced medical marijuana, last October, in a policy shift, the Justice Department announced that it would not prosecute people who used or distributed it in states where it was legal" (NYTimes, see above link)
Both Grandfathers, my Father and 1 of my brothers all served honorably in the military - all went to battle except my brother, and they all survived... protecting all American's freedoms, not just freedom for their "own kind". Grandfathers and Father were career military men. They are/were all incredibly thoughtful people and have taught me much. They will all tell you that the "war on drugs" and your guy's sweet little puritan mindset give unbelievable power/cash to the black market, keep a war raging on our Southern Border and is just flat out immoral and UN-American... Love ya LaPlaca. | signed - Bubba.
and btw - what I wrote wasn't so cutting. You can handle it. I saw your picture, you're a big boy. :D
The gateway theory. Really? Is that the best you can do? That piece of propaganda has been thoroughly debunked by the scientific research. The vast, vast majority of people who use cannabis do not go on to hard drugs. That is not causation. Here is some interesting reading to start you off:
http://www.ukcia.org/research/gateway.php
Your entire article seems to suggest that use will dramatically rise if cannabis is legalized. A recent worldwide WHO study found no correlation between the severity of drug laws and substance abuse rates.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/01/health/webmd/main4222322.shtml
You also seem to suggest that people will be driving high and walking up and down public sidewalks with blunts. Both of these activities will remain illegal, as well they should.
I recommend supporting your arguments with peer-reviewed scientific studies. Without them, it is really just opinion.
Clark and Jared--time for you to hear MY response.
I'll start with you, Clark, since you were the more respectful of the two of you. First off, I must ask this of you...did you bother to really read my entry from top to bottom, or did you cherry-pick your way through it to show me up as a uninformed Boobus Americanus?
First point--if you think that the "Gateway Drug Theory" is utter, dubunked hogwash? Might I suggest to you that you step away from the Internet, go into the world, and talk to the folks who work in "the front lines" of substance abuse treatment? Perhaps even take in an open meeting of Narcotics Anonymous as field research (if the meeting is open, it's open to the public...addicts and normies are welcome to sit in). Then ask these fine folks if THEY consider the Gateway Theory to be a load of Bravo Sierra? Then ask them if they are in favor of Prop 19?
Second point--before you comment on anything I write, do me a favor and read it from top to bottom. My thread was never about the supposed "increase" in useage if Prop 19 passes. I'm not that foolish, friend. In fact, not only do I despise the root of the "harsh sentence"-school of thought regarding drug laws (New York State's "Rockefeller Laws" of 1972--soon copied nationwide--marked the genesis of this injustice), but I would applaud the repeal of every "Rockefeller and Raygun" drug prohibition nationwide! Such laws are the moral equivilant of wiping out a fire ant mound with a 20kt nuclear warhead fused for airburst over the nest!
I feel that it will eventually come down to SCOTUS deciding who is being unconstitutional...the State of California, or the Federal Government...on this issue. Will we ever know?
As for my "fears" that folks are going to celebrate legalization by getting baked publicly? I know that doing so is a good way to spend a few months in the Crossbars Hotel as a guest of the government. Also, much like those of us who enjoy a brew-or-two, most users keep their Maui Wowwee joy smoke breaks inside their homes.
However, just as it is with alcohol, there are those who get baked and think nothing of getting behind the wheel of their car. The same goes for those who forgot that smoking the dizzy spinach in public, much like drinking alcohol in a public place, will get you more pain than you wanted for that ten minutes of bliss.
There is still reason to worry, Clark.
And by the way... I learned a simple fact about anything coming from a URL on the Internet. I tend to trust hard copy more than I do anything on the 'net. As in books, magazines, and newspapers. They, at least, have fact checkers and editors to catch the rumors and steer them away.
Jared--I'm getting to you next comment section.
--LPR
Ok, Jared--your turn in the barrel!
Your comments, unfortunately, were far less about my blog thread and more about getting your jollies by pulling a "Cheap Shot Raiders" act and going after me personally.
I am glad to see that members of your family served our nation, much as members of my own family did, both in uniform and in jobs essential to National Defense. However, you still do not get the point. I never supported "Bush II," nor any other "Drug Warrior For President's" insanity regarding drug laws. In fact, if you read your U.S, History, you will find that our current "Legislative War On Drugs" began with the Eighteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Prohibition), got their sharp teeth through the Volstead act (which enforced Prohibition), then wound it's evil way into our lives via the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act and the Controlled Substaces Act.
Then came the New York State "Rockefeller Laws," which mandated that incarceration, rather than treatment, awaited those convicted of drug possession. What Nelson Rockefeller wraught, the other states copied slavishly.
Then came Ronnie and Nancy Raygun and the "Just say No" policy...which Federalized the Rockefeller Laws and unleashed the utter hell-on-earth the "War on Drugs" has become.
However, know this... Proposition 19 is NOT the "cure-all" for the state budget deficit, nor is it going to make everthing hunky-dory in regards to laws dealing with the criminalization of marijuana. It might pass in November, granted. However, that still leaves the Federal Government's prohibition of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act intact and enforceable.
The proof will only come when SCOTUS decides to weigh the Constitutionality of a passed Prop 19 against the United States Constitution. Only then can we be certain whether-or-not recreational use can be legalized by the States...or if the Federal Government can-and-will continue it's unholy war.
Now, Jared, ask yourself this: Does what I just told you sound like someone who supports this wreteched excuse by a bunch of yahoos to suck money from the public teat to pay for "incareration instead of treatment uber alles?"
I do not support this war...but I also do not support Proposition 19. And my allergies to marijuana smoke are very real.
And, Jared-- Fat jokes are NOT funny! I know that I'm a "big boy," but that little emoticon at the end of your comments was uncalled for. Before you laugh at me--look in the mirror real hard. You are not perfect either, friend!
As I end another blogging day, let me just say that you can disagree with my views on any topic. I can dig that. But if you start getting personal in your remarks...I will call you out, and refer you to the Systems Administrator if it comes to that.
Stick to the subject at hand, and we'll get along fine. Please? --LPR
Thanks LaPlaca, I enjoyed my time in the barrel.
Let me first sincerely apologize for the Big Boy comment, I didn't think that would offend you. I really didn't. I should have been more sensitive. And those laughy emoticons do have a way of setting folks off, so heres a friendly smile. :)
So how would you go about fighting an immoral law LaPlacaRifa? Do you wait around for perfect legislation?? Maybe thats what people with marijuana allergies would like to do... because it's just not that important to them... But, I think you know as well as I do that if we sat around and waited for a perfect Proposition, it would never happen.
The Feds and the people giving them power (our thoughtless puritan neighbors armed with their uninformed votes) are behaving immorally, perpetuating a war on our Southern Border, supporting the black market instead of the free market, and probably worst of all, locking up innocent young men and women who would have otherwise led happy peaceful lives.
Your personal freedoms aren't being assaulted here LaPlaca. Ours are, and when we hear garbage like its a Gateway Drug - we know that it's a careless/thoughtless charge.
The human body needs no instruction on how to be addicted to substances we find here on Earth. We are fully trained to be addicted to sugar and caffeine from the age of 8, usually earlier. Both of those substances are inarguably addictive and mind altering. Im sure you've seen how a child acts when loaded up on them.
So, the only reason the 420 community is so passionate about going after someone or some group spreading the tired old arguments about why marijuana should stay illegal is, our freedoms are being hampered.
If what we did affected anyone else's freedom, in any imaginable way - we would not be having this argument. If you are Pro Hemp production - you LaPlacaRifa need to be with us on this fight. - [email protected]
the bad seed weed...cripes what a verbal boxing match....I LOVE IT!!!
lot's of very clear minded knowledgeable info here
i remember smelling it around the band stands in the 50's...and musician have been using it since the 20's
medicinally it's proved itself over and over again...for nausea during chemotherapy and the pain of end stage Cancer..it's now showing itself as treatment for AADD...and OCD
alcohol=belligerent possibly violent behavior when addicted...with sequelie of cirrhosis of the liver... esophageal bleeds...cardiomyopathy...brain degeneration (Wet Brain) et all
marijuana= dreamy feeling with a changed view of reality,a mostly non violent high.. lethargy...some become addicted most do not...has many medicinal uses but is mostly a recreational drug like alcohol
chronic medical difficulties due to its use is limited but not completely known
people die of alcoholism...they don't die of marijuana use
nice quiet high...no hangover
alcohol is legal
this is a terrific free for all of thought Robbie...except for personal darts thrown it's well worth reading..u did a fine job here in ur blog and let lose some strong opinions and super factoids for both sides of a long term interesting debate
KUDOS LPR!!!
I hear fear, in your blog post. I am a Veteran, and I refuse to live in fear, nor do I have any illusions that I can control another persons behavior. I am gratified at the Federal change in policy toward medical marijuana. I believe we would all be better served by compassionate sane policy, instead of the pervasive power and control policies of government at all levels. After all, if the United States can encourage the compassionate release of the Lockerbie bomber to his home country of Libya, then the Federal Government can look the other way while a Veteran finds relief from her pain.
Aw c'mon, Robbie. Don't be such a buzzkill. :)
Personally, I'd much rather drive around on the roads with a bunch of potheads than alkies. Much safer. The weeders just go reeeeeaally slooooooow, as opposed to half blind and all over the road.
And, you'd like me better stoned. Hell, 'I' like me better stoned, and I'm around me 24/7. Much more agreeable that way.
(Obviously, I haven't smoked in a long time.)
:)
LaPlaca -
Point one - I certainly did read your entry in its entirety. As for the gateway theory, I do not get my information from "the internet." I get it from peer-review scientific studies published in real journals. As for people in substance abuse treatment, that is not a representative sample of the cannabis-consuming population. If I did go to a meeting, I would imagine that cannabis was not the first psychotropic substance used by the majority of the people in treatment. As for those whose first ILLEGAL drug was cannabis, I would ask them how they obtained their first bag or vial of hard drugs. I'll bet that they obtained it either from their cannabis dealer or from a contact made through that person. This is the real gateway - the convergence of the black markets for cannabis and hard drugs exposes people to hard drugs. The real nail in the coffin of the gateway theory is the fact that the vast, vast majority of people who use cannabis do not go on to use hard drugs.
Point two - So, if you do not believe that use will increase after the passage of Prop 19, what are you concerned about?
As for the federal angle, as long as growers keep it small the feds will not be interested. The beauty of Prop 19 is that it allows people to grow their own small plots of cannabis. There is no way that the feds will go after a million tiny plots of cannabis.
As for driving stoned, I believe that penalties for driving under the influence of anything should be increased. Impaired driving is a scourge; however, it should be targeted directly, not indirectly with prohibition.
As for getting info from the internet, I agree that one has to be wary. That's why I always follow the links to the peer-reviewed studies published in "trusted hard copies" of scientific journals.
Read them all. I thank you all. New Thread Coming Down. When November 9th comes down, it will not be the end... it will merely be the beginning!
Now, mount up and let's move on!
--LPR
Regarding #19
Now, we'll all have something to look forward to in November!
Carry On!
ur welcome Robbiebear...thx for an important blog...can't wait for the November one
Clark...my info comes from the medical world and medical journals..30 years of working in Medicine
Wow! Did I just read the script to the 1936 masterpiece of propaganda: "Reefer Madness"? I won't even debate any of the inaccuracies and outright falsehoods of your essay, suffice it to say, that cannabis prohibition will have to end, just as the ill-conceived and miserably failed alcohol prohibition did. Just as the 18th Amendment gave rise to organized crime here in the US, cannabis prohibition is directly responsible for the strength of the cartels to the South. Add to that the idiotically lax gun laws in states such as AZ and TX, most of the firepower comes directly from the US. Nothing different between Al Capone of the 30's or Pablo Escobar of the 90's. Both enriched themselves by making bank off an illegal substance. Simply enough, the solution to both is the same. LEGALIZE the substance and control it. Holland has done the smart thing, as have some of the more progressive European countries. They made cannabis boring, by turning a blind eye or outright legalizing it. Did Holland fall of into the North Sea, did Portugal float off in the Atlantic or did the Alps come crashing down on Switzerland?? No of course not. Had this country chosen the path of truthfulness about cannabis, rather than the fear mongering and lies from the temperance movement of the past, to the same propaganda shilled out today by the prison industrial complex today, we'd be decades ahead. Cannabis, a plant about as addictive as caffeine (see below url)must be legalized along the same lines alcohol and cancerettes are today. Both of these are much harder for minors to obtain than currently illegal substances or the parent's prescription pills. While Police Unions, Sheriff's Associations, CCA (Corrections Corp of America) other Corporate prison systems, Pharmaceuticals and other special interests support the war on some drugs, does by no means reflect the mood of most Americans.
And lastly, why does every one get their undies in a bunch? Legalization does in no way infer that you have to use cannabis. To infer that use will go up when legalized is baseless, as many European Nations have already learned.
I will vote FOR Prop 19 this fall, as well as make cannabis legalization one of the deciding factors who will or will not get my vote for office.
http://www.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=001492
http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
LPR (#19)
The election is November 2nd, not on the 9th...
BusGreg: How can you be for legalization of weed and against the 2nd amendment? Shouldn't all of these things be legal? In other words, why pick and choose? Freedom is freedom and liberty is liberty.
I am not against the 2nd Amendment at all. I am a gun owner and as such fully endorse back ground checks and any other requirements that may be neccessary. Consider that the Bill of Rights and with it the second amendment were ratified during a time when Flintlock pistols and rifels were the zenith of invention (March 4, 1789), adding requirements or restrictions as technology increases is only sensible. That no checks are required to purchase weapons at AZ and TX gunshows with the technology available today, both in weapons and communications for those B/G checks, has nothing to do with the basic idea of the 2nd amendment. Had our founding fathers had access to todays advanced weapons, do you really believe the wording today would be the same. To compare issues such as legalizing cannabis and the 2nd amendment on the same level is ludicrous. And I never even used the word freedom in my reply to the absurd assertions made by the author of the above essay, as my reply is about the stupidity and futility of continuing prohibition. Your comparison and assertion have no context to my reply to Mr. Johnston's essay.
"Your comparison and assertion have no context to my reply to Mr. Johnston's essay."
Couldn't care less about Mr. Johnston. You said, "Add to that the idiotically lax gun laws in states such as AZ and TX..."
The 2nd Amendment says nothing about control. Your comments concerning legalization of weed, then, would pretend to allow the government to decide who would be able to smoke it (or bake it into confectionary pastries or whatever).
Regarding your broad assumption concerning what the 2nd Amendment REALLY means (because, after all, the founding fathers had absolutely no clue about the future, as if that actually matters), I am forced to reach to conclusion that you really have no clue as to WHY the 2nd Amendment exists.
It exists to protect the citizens against the possible tyranny of its own government. If the government gets to use cannons, then so do the citizens. Texans are one hell of a lot smarter than you give them credit for; as much as I otherwise dislike that State, I admire their gun laws.
The government should have no more control over weed than it should have over gun ownership, and it should have no authority to control either.
As a proud and happy socially liberal and progressive democrat, I stand by my aforementioned. (If you feel that way about the 2nd I hope you also oppose rewriting the 14th, but enough off topic; to inject a phony argument about "freedom" into the cannabis issue may be valid in some aspects, not in my argument.) I re-iterate, it is you who brought freedom and the 2nd into my opposing a failed policy. This has nothing to do with freedom, it has to do with the public's right to be informed of the truth about cannabis - rather than distorting the truth - and not the argument about freedom. To do so, cheapens the meaning of freedom. My opposition to the cannabis prohibition are based on subject related fact, not on farfetched comparison. As far as the fallacies in Mr. Johnston's essay are concerned, I am providing a URL to a word for word analysis of Prop 19. To mention just a couple of flaws in the above essay, the proposed age is 21, not 18 as stated and children are protected. Prop 19 includes the prohibition of cannabis in front or the presence of anyone under 21. While I agree that NORML has an agenda and may be biased, their article goes in depth and is worth reading.
http://stash.norml.org/californias-prop-19-a-word-for-word-analysis
Look, Greg, I'm for the legalization of pretty much everything, but you brought up the argument about prohibition. Then you brought up an argument about gun control (apparently you are in favor of it).
Criminals ran booze when it was illegal. Great point. And now, Mexicans die because Americans won't legalize drugs, good point. Now, let's carry that through to your argument about gun control. Do you really think that a convicted felon isn't going to be able to purchase an AK-47?
I don't think that you can pick and choose what you decide shouldn't be legal on the basis that some things are more dangerous than others.
I think it's great that you have an opinion on this, just as I admire Robbie for his (I don't agree with it, but I think he presented his opinion very well). But, you know, it's up for discussion, and I'm compelled to point out what I see as sort of duplicit concerning your first comment.
And freedom and liberty are the core of the argument concerning legalization of practically everything; I'm not introducing it as a new idea in this, simply pointing out that it's the main concern here.
here r a few myths about canabis
Marijuana Can Cause Permanent Mental Illness Marijuana Is Highly Addictive Marijuana Is More Potent Today Than In The Past Marijuana Offenses Are Not Severely Punished Marijuana Is More Damaging to the Lungs Than Tobacco
the benefits scientifically studies have shown that it is a powerful Antiemetic....it can relive the muscle pain and spasticity of Multiple Sclerosis...THC has been shown to reduce intraocular pressure in those with Glaucoma...it improves the appetite of those with debilitating diseases...is a pain reliever and has some analgesic activity in patients with cancer
and it's now being shown that it seems to be able to hamper the protein that forms the tangles in Alzheimer's disease
legalized and properly control Marijuana has many beneficial qualities that many people need to get on with and have quality in their lives
even alcohol used moderately has good health benefits
Moderate drinkers tend to have better health and live longer than those who are either abstainers or heavy drinkers. In addition to having fewer heart attacks and strokes, moderate consumers of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine or distilled spirits or liquor) are generally less likely to suffer hypertension or high blood pressure, peripheral artery disease, Alzheimer's disease and the common cold.
moderation is the key to the use of both of these substance..which is a personal descision
Here is another link that has data on the failed war on some drugs as well as other pertinent facts.
http://cannabis.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
I think it is really great to read well posted debate
Both sides now have much to say So "Look Out", election day
The most important of all my election goals is to get many, many more, folks to the polls
Please keep promoting, which ever side you are on anything is better, than being a pawn
Do not get dismayed, or allow your spirit, to sag it's freedom of speech, like this that best protects, our Flag
Anything is better, than the "Wealthy Few", telling all US, what we can or cannot do,
Get your friends and family to study up, on the facts and support all those, that will help everyone, the max.
Well put, Fouder.
(btw. thanx 4 the tip)
ur poems r getting better and better founder...BRAVO!!!
REPLY to nan, #35 Happy keeping poetry alive
This is an old article, but I'd like to add just a few corrections and notes.
possession of a small amount of marijuana is not a high federal felony, it is a federal misdemeanor.
Every living organism on this planet is allergic to smoke. Smoke is a natural allergen. I find it doubtful that you are allergic to marijuana itself, being that your brain contains cannabanoid receptors, and your brain produces it's own cannabanoids. I imagine that it is possible, but it would be a dreadful disorder - much like being allergic to serotonin or opium. The brain is designed for serotonin and opium being that it has receptors for it and produces it's own supply of these chemicals (in the form of endorphins & serotonin).
Also, there is some disagreement on the health benefits vs. health detriment of alcohol in general. Red wine in moderation has health benefits due to the tannins from the grapes, but grape juice has the exact same health benefit. I know many people who have lived well into the 90's and beyond who have never consumed one drop of alcohol.
Alcohol is, after all, the post metabolized product of a living organism; yeast. To place this in different terms, alcohol is the waste of yeast, the excrement. Alcohol is a combustible fuel. Human and animal waste also contain combustible fuels.
Please keep this in mind when you consider taking the next drink - that you are consuming an organism's waste.
I am not sure -- need to look it up -- but it's possible that in the last several weeks, California has reduced possession of an ounce or less to an infraction.
For those not sure of what that means, an infraction is a crime for which no jail time can be given on conviction, just a fine like when getting caught jaywalking or parking 11 minutes in a 10 minute loading zone. Of course, there IS jail time for jaywalking then punching the officer who's writing your ticket in the grill, so don't go there.
It is certainly true that federal laws prohibiting possession and use are still enforced by federal agents in California... only with or without Proposition 19, it appears that only federal agents will be expending resources to enforce those laws for smaller amounts. This could be a good thing for California during a budget crisis.
As for local resources for investigating and prosecuting infractions, it appears that all nonviolent crimes are now being handled over the phone. I guess when the newest cell phones start using smell-o-vision apps, it might be possible to be accidentally self-incriminated by calling in a fender-bender caused by trying to roll one while driving.
At the same time, I predict at least some Californians may already be missing Sargent Stadanko in a sentimental sort of way...