Are these reason enough to keep pot illegal?

[ricky]

epic ^

and we should totally add a poll to this thread.

[El Barto]

epic ^

and we should totally add a poll to this thread.

We've done polls before, and between the stoners and the libertarians, it's always a blowout.

[William Wallace]

Because of Reapsta's objection, I went back and re-read the OP.  Two things stuck out at me.  First off, they were citing MADD as the source of these concerns, and that automatically makes the rest of the article highly dubious.  Those guys are the kings of misleading people with bogus interpretations.  The other thing was how they were spinning it.  They were very deliberate in how they described people.  Specifically their usage of "has marijuana in their system" when they're referring to the new law,  as opposed to being stoned, impaired, under the influence, etc when referring to the old one.  Under current law, if a worker shows up smelling of alcohol or marijuana, an employer may remove the employee from a dangerous or sensitive job, such as running medical lab tests in a hospital, or operating heavy equipment. But if Proposition 19 passes, the worker with marijuana in his or her system may not be removed from the job until after an accident occurs.  Typical MADD bullshit.  Here are the two clauses of the proposed law that are relevant to the concerns that Reapsta shares with them.

(a) This act shall not be construed to affect, limit, or amend any
statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous
activities such as driving, or that penalizes bringing cannabis to a
school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12,
inclusive.

(c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against,
or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any
conduct permitted by this act or authorized pursuant to Section
11301. Provided, however, that the existing right of an employer to
address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an
employee shall not be affected.

It seems to me that it's still illegal to operate a forklift or drive the Greyhound bus if you're fucked up, and employers still have the right to prohibit people from working if they're impaired.  MADD almost always promotes prohibition first and foremost.  Their concern here isn't people driving the bus stoned, but anybody who ever smokes dope driving a bus.  That's two very different things. 

Thanks for digging through the proposition for that. More proof that CA voters are idiots.

[Chino]

It looks like CT is going to end up with decriminalization. You can carry up to four ounces without it being anything more than a fine similar to j-walking.

[El Barto]

This is definitely the way to go.  None of that prop-19 bullshit that Cali [thankfully] shot down. 

On a side note, a QP is a helluva lot of grass to consider simple possession.  I'm certainly not complaining, but I've never heard of anybody setting the bar so high. 

[eric42434224]

This is definitely the way to go.  None of that prop-19 bullshit that Cali [thankfully] shot down. 

On a side note, a QP is a helluva lot of grass to consider simple possession.  I'm certainly not complaining, but I've never heard of anybody setting the bar so high. 

Right...do you know how long it will take a casual user to smoke a QP of good quality weed?  My brother grows in Cali, and fedExed me a QP...as a surprise.  Took it out and laid it on the table.  damn.
That would be like buying enough toilet paper at costco to fill your garage.

[Scheavo]

This is definitely the way to go.  None of that prop-19 bullshit that Cali [thankfully] shot down. 

In the short term, or period?

We accept alcohol, a far worse substance. Don't see why weed should be fully legal, and not just not-illegal.

[lateralus88]

Well seeing how the reason it's contraband to begin with is due to corporate greed, I assume that still plays a major part in it.


Other than brainwashing the minds of millions that it's bad and will cause you to become a family killing, axe murderer.

[El Barto]

This is definitely the way to go.  None of that prop-19 bullshit that Cali [thankfully] shot down. 

In the short term, or period?

We accept alcohol, a far worse substance. Don't see why weed should be fully legal, and not just not-illegal.

My opposition to prop-19 is pretty clearly stated early on in this thread.  Basically, Cali's a great place to be a stoner right now.  It's status as medicine really protects it and it's users well.  The bill would have taken away most of what they have and replaced it with corporate corruption and bureaucracy.  Unfortunately, I think this would apply to anywhere in America.  I certainly don't think that people should be punished for smoking dope, but I don't like the idea of it being turned into the next windfall for Phillip Morris or Daiichi Sankyo, either.  As is so often the case, decriminalization is far better than legalization in this instance.

[Scheavo]

This is definitely the way to go.  None of that prop-19 bullshit that Cali [thankfully] shot down. 

In the short term, or period?

We accept alcohol, a far worse substance. Don't see why weed should be fully legal, and not just not-illegal.

My opposition to prop-19 is pretty clearly stated early on in this thread.  Basically, Cali's a great place to be a stoner right now.  It's status as medicine really protects it and it's users well.  The bill would have taken away most of what they have and replaced it with corporate corruption and bureaucracy.  Unfortunately, I think this would apply to anywhere in America.  I certainly don't think that people should be punished for smoking dope, but I don't like the idea of it being turned into the next windfall for Phillip Morris or Daiichi Sankyo, either.  As is so often the case, decriminalization is far better than legalization in this instance.

I don't think pot legalizatino would be as huge of a windfall as some people think. It's just too god damn easy to grow, unlike tobacco which takes a lot of knowledge and care. There's a reason George Washington stopped growing tobacco, and moved to good 'ol hemp.

[El Barto]

I agree, but it'll still be quite profitable.  Tons of people won't be interested or capable of growing smoke as good as what they could buy.  There's definitely value in convenience.  That said, tons of people are growing their own in Cali right now, and a lot of them are selling their surplus to dispensaries.  The Cali model is that scripts are rubber-stamped, so pretty much anybody can smoke it, buy it, or sell some to dispensaries.  The only people not winning in this situation are the commercial enterprises.  Personally, that pleases me no end. 

[Scheavo]

Why do you label the dispensaries as non-commercial enterprises? They make bank. Give it enough time, and I imagine, with no change in the law, that a big company could get in on the action in California. Things could pretty much be the same with legal marijuana, so long as consumers still went to the same dispensaries, who would still get their product from the same suppliers.

The only reason big corporations haven't gotten involved isbecuase of the federal drug war, and the legal uncertainty they would be in. It has nothing to do with the medicinal status of marijuana, but the potential risk of a big operation being shut down, and losing all that money.

[El Barto]

Dispensaries in Cali can only exist as non-profit collectives. 

[Implode]

Color me uninformed, but is there an actual reason smoking marijuana is illegal?

[Scheavo]

Dispensaries in Cali can only exist as non-profit collectives.  

Hmm, sorry, I must be confusing my states, and is that a new regulation?

Plus, there's obviously some money incentive, otherwise there wouldn't be the amount of dispensaries there are. Non-profit doesn't mean people don't make money.

[El Barto]

I'm really not sure how non-profits work.  I assume you can pay yourself a nice salary.  What it obviously means is that an out of state corporation can't come to town and open up a chain of dispensaries.  The crux of Prop 19 was that dispensaries would be for-profit, and naturally, they'd have to pay a substantial license fee each year.  The goal of the whole thing was to transfer the business from little guys to big guys.  It also would have lessened the amount you could grow for yourself, and prohibited people from selling their surplus.  It really was a lousy deal.

[Scheavo]

I'm really not sure how non-profits work.  I assume you can pay yourself a nice salary.  What it obviously means is that an out of state corporation can't come to town and open up a chain of dispensaries.  The crux of Prop 19 was that dispensaries would be for-profit, and naturally, they'd have to pay a substantial license fee each year.  The goal of the whole thing was to transfer the business from little guys to big guys.  It also would have lessened the amount you could grow for yourself, and prohibited people from selling their surplus.  It really was a lousy deal.

Well that bold part is certainly bullshit.

I didn't really want this to get into a debate about prop 19 though (I admit ignorance about it, don't live in Cali, don't really care what Californians do); meant more you seemed to be approving decriminalization over legalization. Legalization wouldn't have to follow the corporate favoritism you're describing. Decriminalization generally means the producers are still in legal trouble, as well as purchasing the item.

[El Barto]

Personally, I just don't want to see it turned into the mess that I think our consumer driven society would create.  It's kind of strange.  Legalization would lead to exactly the sort of bureaucratic nonsense that Braveheart gets so riled up about.  If The Man is expecting it to generate cash for his coffers, he's going to be a real pain in the ass about it.  Best to stop putting people in prison for it and otherwise leave us alone. 

[Scheavo]

Hmm, interesting points. I've always been somewhat confused about the distinction between decriminalization and legalization, and I may be using the terms in a way which mask that we agree more than we disagree. I think you should be able to buy pot from somewhere, we sell worse things anyways, but my main concern is that we make it a criminal activity.

Color me uninformed, but is there an actual reason smoking marijuana is illegal?

A sound reason? No. The real reason is historical, and basically amounts to oil tycoons being afraid of hemp oil as a threat to their business model, so they started defaming hemp  by calling it marijuana, associating it with them damn dirty Mexicans, and preying upon peoples racists tendencies.

[El Barto]

The distinction between legalization and decriminalization is that the former involves the government becoming actively involved via regulation.  There are laws that regulate how it is to be bought, grown, sold, etc.  Decriminalization is pretty much the government staying out of it altogether.  This really is an instance where WW is absolutely correct about rotten government making a mess of things. 

Prostitution is a good, established example.  The "legalized" version in Nevada is an absolute disaster.  The regulating that goes on is almost entirely for the benefit of the handful of owners and keeps them from having any real competition and turns their employees into cattle.  The consensus seems to be that the owners are worse than your average pimp.  In this instance, whether asshole thugs or asshole bureaucrats, the women are exploited under really shitty conditions.  Whereas in other countries where prostitution is left alone, the industry regulates itself quite nicely.  Competition improves the situation for all parties involved.  The ladies decide what works best for them.  It's basically giving them the freedom to work as they see fit, rather than giving the power to some guy who bought a license. 

[Scheavo]

I still think there's room for legalizatino that wouldn't be the corrupt version America would assuredly follow.

However, most decriminlizations only go half ass. They still make producing and selling illegal, such as the recent CT law.

[El Barto]

What's possible in theory and what's possible in America are never the same thing.

Keep in mind that under any American model of legalization, there would still be plenty of people convicted of a crime for selling, buying or growing.  The laws will be in place to protect the business interest and the interests of The Man.  People would grow their own because it's cheaper, it's tastier, and the taxes that they'll levy on it will be insane.  Those people would have to be eliminated.  At $50 an ounce, the Cali tax proposal, there still would have been a huge black market, which means tons of people getting racked up on charges probably more severe than just possession of a dime bag. 

I agree with you that we shouldn't even have to be discussing this, but at the moment, the current trend of low-profile, user friendly initiatives are really the best possible outcome.

[Scheavo]

Seeing as how you're reasoning is based upon cynicism of the American people and the American systen, I agree.

[hefdaddy42]

Seeing as how you're reasoning is based upon cynicism of the American people and the American systen, I agree.

You can really never go wrong with this approach.

[Chino]

The marijuana legalization bill announced today by Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Ron Paul (R-Texas), H.R. 2306, would repeal federal penalties for production, distribution, and possession of the drug, leaving the states free to address the issue as they see fit

https://reason.com/blog/2011/06/23/more-on-the-frankpaul-marijuan

[Scheavo]

If my memory serves me correctly, Ron Paul or Barney Franks, and or both, have done this before?

[El Barto]

It's getting covered this time because Paul is currently seeking the GOP presidential nomination.