Official "Marijuana is legal in CA" Countdown Thread ***UPDATE: California Sucks***

Page 22 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
zin, I haven't seen the numbers of eligible voters who actually voted, but I suspect that, as usual, it was pretty dismal. I agree that regardless of which way things turned out, it wouldn't represent a majority of eligible voters, only a majority of those who cared enough to vote.

I LOL'd at the co-ops and MMJ growers who were against this. Pure greed motivated their opposition...not their "concern for their customers."


MMJ is a huge farce. I know many people expected it to become such a farce. The sad thing, is that there is very legit reasons to push for MMJ--just that, in practice, it lends itself to such exploitation. And there are legit patients out there that do use this, and have realized that it is the best thing for them (never having touched the stuff prior to becoming ill)

The goal, in the end, should always be to relax restrictions such that more research can be done with the very promising array of compounds found within cannabis. it's one thing to tout it as an anti-nausea, anti-pain, appetite restorer for patients on Chemo--that is great--but the fact that CBD has been shown to actually DESTROY TUMOR cells in certain cancers.

mind-boggling. completely....mind-boggling.

and yeah, the long-time growers remember the losses they took when MMJ was passed, the collapsed value (honestly, I don't smoke a lot, but from what I've seen, prices for good stuff here are about 1/2 what they were back home on the east coast.)

None of those guys want to see their profits tank. The funny thing, as you say, is how they try to promote their interest towards patients and the progressive "goodness" that they do--yet they are in full support of a local Berkeley measure that would grant them twice the resources to grow further. ...to, "allow them to better serve their patients, and serve more patients!"


yes...b/c prop 19 would not do that... :rolleyes:

I voted NO on that local measure, naturally. ;)
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
enjoy your antiquated views on society, because it's only a matter of time.

I can't wait for the day when gay people can legally marry in CA while smoking a blunt.

Very sad.

KT

I've said for two weeks that I was pretty sure this was going to fail.
Hell, it's even early in this thread.

the funny thing, is you continue to have this fundamental disconnect between majority and majority vote.

You simply don't understand the actual issues here. And you don't care to. That's fine--just don't waste your time pretending that you know what you're talking about.


it is laughable.

Ahh, I see. It's all a grand conspiracy against people like you. The majority actually wants this but (now) it's the voters that are holding things back:rolleyes:. I suppose that if this had passed you would be "pleasantly" surprised, right? "The people have spoken" would've been what you'd say, right? Yeah.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
Ahh, I see. It's all a grand conspiracy against people like you. The majority actually wants this but (now) it's the voters that are holding things back:rolleyes:. I suppose that if this had passed you would be "pleasantly" surprised, right? "The people have spoken" would've been what you'd say, right? Yeah.

I actually said that I didn't think that this would pass, for the same reasons that gay marriage didn't. But it's okay, because I know the time is coming.

Also, still decriminalized = still don't give a fuck.

CA government considers me smoking a blunt about as dangerous as throwing a gum wrapper out the window.
 

Locut0s

Lifer
Nov 28, 2001
22,205
43
91
I actually said that I didn't think that this would pass, for the same reasons that gay marriage didn't. But it's okay, because I know the time is coming.

Also, still decriminalized = still don't give a fuck.

CA government considers me smoking a blunt about as dangerous as throwing a gum wrapper out the window.

Personally I'd rather you smoked a blunt than threw the gum wrapper. :p
 

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,231
117
116
Ahh, I see. It's all a grand conspiracy against people like you. The majority actually wants this but (now) it's the voters that are holding things back:rolleyes:. I suppose that if this had passed you would be "pleasantly" surprised, right? "The people have spoken" would've been what you'd say, right? Yeah.

People like you? :confused: I don't smoke the stuff, I'm just against prohbition and find it sad that something as innocuous as this gets shot down by the close-minded, same for shotting down gay marriage, which was a much bigger travesty.

KT
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Ahh, I see. It's all a grand conspiracy against people like you. The majority actually wants this but (now) it's the voters that are holding things back:rolleyes:. I suppose that if this had passed you would be "pleasantly" surprised, right? "The people have spoken" would've been what you'd say, right? Yeah.

Narmer, no one is saying that the majority didn't vote against it, obviously they did. What we're saying is there are other reasons it was voted down than people just being against pot. Like we've said numerous times there are those in the marijuana community who pushed very hard against Prop 19 and were able to convince a lot of their customers to do the same. I had personally experienced it and talked with people who had changed their mind because their clinic convinced them with bs.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Narmer, no one is saying that the majority didn't vote against it, obviously they did. What we're saying is there are other reasons it was voted down than people just being against pot. Like we've said numerous times there are those in the marijuana community who pushed very hard against Prop 19 and were able to convince a lot of their customers to do the same. I had personally experienced it and talked with people who had changed their mind because their clinic convinced them with bs.
That is only your perspective. Of course, there are others.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/03/miron.pot.vote/index.html?hpt=T2

Why did California vote down legal pot?

By Jeffrey A. Miron, Special to CNN


STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Jeffrey A. Miron: Prop 19 advocates didn't present right reasons for making pot legal
  • Voters were wary of claims of dramatic positive change if it were legalized, he says
  • Miron advises advocates to argue pot prohibition interferes with individual liberty
  • Another key to legalizing marijuana is to get conservatives involved, he writes

Editor's note:Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University and senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Miron is the author of "Libertarianism, from A to Z."
(CNN) -- California voters have just rejected Proposition 19, the ballot initiative that would have legalized marijuana under state law. Where did Prop 19 go wrong?
Prop 19 failed in part because many proponents emphasized the wrong arguments for legalization. Many advocates promised major benefits to California's budget because of reduced expenditure on marijuana prohibition and increased revenue from marijuana taxation. Other supporters claimed that Mexican drug violence would fall substantially.
Both claims were overblown. The budgetary benefits, while not insignificant, would have been small compared with California's fiscal mess. Mexican drug violence is mainly associated with the cocaine and methamphetamine trades, as well as from marijuana traffic to other states.
Many voters sensed that Prop 19 supporters were overreaching, and this made them suspicious of all the arguments in its favor. Common sense should have recognized that since marijuana was close to legal already, Prop 19 would not have had dramatic effects.
Prop 19 failed also because it overreached. One feature attempted to protect the "rights" of employees who get fired or disciplined for using marijuana, including a provision that employers could only discipline marijuana use that "actually impairs job performance." That is a much higher bar than required by current policy.
This provision allowed Prop 19 opponents to claim that workplaces would become infested with impaired pot users. That assertion is not well-founded, but that is not the point. Prop 19 did not need to address employee marijuana-testing in the first place.
A more effective position for Prop 19 supporters would have been that employee marijuana-testing should be unencumbered by state or federal law. That would allow employers to protect themselves and their employees against perceived risks from marijuana, thereby promoting support for legalization.
A final problem with Prop 19 is that it would only have legalized marijuana under state law, since federal law also bans marijuana. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, moreover, announced just weeks before Tuesday's election that the administration would enforce the federal law fully even if Prop 19 passed.
This legal limbo would have kept the marijuana market underground, limiting tax revenue and continuing the ills of black market. This ambiguity also dimmed support by making state-level legalization feel like an empty gesture.
So what is the path to legalizing marijuana in the United States?
First and foremost, advocates must emphasize that in a free society, the burden of proof should be on prohibitionists to justify the interference with liberty that results from outlawing marijuana, a burden the prohibitionists have never met. Any calm assessment of marijuana versus alcohol, for example, shows that alcohol is the substance with the greater potential for harm.
Ancillary benefits of legalization are naturally important: by eliminating the black market, legalization promises reduced crime and corruption, fewer infringements on civil liberties, better quality control for marijuana users, along with budgetary benefits. But these considerations are unlikely to convince the majority until more people agree that government should not interfere in the private decision to consume marijuana.
Marijuana advocates should also focus on federal law, in addition to or even instead of state law. Legalization proponents have long despaired of affecting change at the federal level and assumed that state-by-state change would someday bring down federal prohibition. That position is understandable, and it has achieved some success, such as the decriminalization of medicalization of marijuana in many states.
Yet it's hard to see the federal apparatus yielding ground without direct elimination of its authorization; the stakes for those who hold this power are too high. Legalizers can also argue compellingly that no reasonable interpretation of the Constitution justifies federal imposition of a marijuana ban.
A final key to legalizing marijuana is to get conservatives, not just liberals, more involved. A number of well-known conservatives have advocated legalization, such as Milton Friedman, George Schultz, and William Buckley, but the general perception is that legalizers are "stoners, " acting mainly out of self-interest.
Yet legalization can appeal to conservatives, especially if the arguments emphasize freedom, personal responsibility, and the Constitution, along with up-front clarity about the goal: legal production and use of marijuana for adults, whatever their motivations. Past liberal efforts, such as medical marijuana, invite charges of hypocrisy and weaken support.
Marijuana can and should be legal, Prop 19's failure notwithstanding. But the strategy for achieving that end must change.
The opinions in this commentary are solely those of Jeffrey A. Miron.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
Narmer's Linked Article said:
Marijuana can and should be legal, Prop 19's failure notwithstanding. But the strategy for achieving that end must change.

At least you were kind enough to pick someone who agreed with us.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
lol at Narmer.

I honestly don't think he's read a single one of our posts.

That, or he's just really, really...really fucking stupid.

:D
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,138
12,457
136
I have to LOL at the "pro-dope thread" that turned into an argument about the best Chinese restaurants...

I guess youse guys are serious about your munchies...:p
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
At least you were kind enough to pick someone who agreed with us.
Well, that's his opinion but I posted to show that there were many other reasons. I doubt the marijuana growers were that influential. lol.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
Well, that's his opinion but I posted to show that there were many other reasons. I doubt the marijuana growers were that influential. lol.

My question to you is why did you pick that article, since that article more agrees with our position than yours.

First and foremost, advocates must emphasize that in a free society, the burden of proof should be on prohibitionists to justify the interference with liberty that results from outlawing marijuana, a burden the prohibitionists have never met. Any calm assessment of marijuana versus alcohol, for example, shows that alcohol is the substance with the greater potential for harm.

Alcohol isn't as bad as weed because it's legal, yet we should keep weed illegal because it's bad?
 
Last edited:

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
lol at Narmer.

I honestly don't think he's read a single one of our posts.

That, or he's just really, really...really fucking stupid.

:D
I read them but I think your laser-sharp focus on the pot farmers shows where your focus was wrt to this matter. Unfortunately, you've failed to realized that most americans don't want this in the stores or in vending machines. or wherever it was going to move to from the "clinics" and street corners.

Hence, you're really dumb for not even comprehending that dimension of the debate. You're no different from the retards who loudly wondered how America could've voted for Bush in 2004 after seeing his first term. Stupid liberals...
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
My question to you is why did you pick that article, since that article more agrees with our position than yours.
I picked it because there are different dimensions to this debate. Morons like zinfamous are over-focusing on ads ran by marijuana growers. It's just asinine to think that marijuana growers were that influential when the larger population (most likely) had other concerns. The article points that out.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
I picked it because there are different dimensions to this debate. Morons like zinfamous are over-focusing on ads ran by marijuana growers. It's just asinine to think that marijuana growers were that influential when the larger population (most likely) ha other concerns.

i didn't see a single ad for prop19, so you'll have to elaborate on these ads run by mj growers.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,138
12,457
136
From talking to a few people, one of the other reasons people voted against this was the Federal Supremacy clause. Why vote for something that remains against federal law, especially when the feds have stated both their opposition to the law, and promised to enforce federal law. While I doubt the feds would have bothered with "Joe Potsmoker" and his small stash, they COULD have gone for the larger grow-operations as well as every corner store who sold pot, in whatever form.

PLUS, the feds are notorious for withholding various federal funds in order to force compliance. (the Reagan "21 drinking age" is a prime example of how they can manipulate states to do what they want. The 1973 National Maximum Speed Law is another example of the feds threatening to withhold funds to force compliance.

The feds could (and probably would) have drug this into federal court, dragging it out for months, if not years, and costing the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars in legal fees.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
i didn't see a single ad for prop19, so you'll have to elaborate on these ads run by mj growers.
zinfamous has been bitching about "propaganda" so I assumed these were adverts. If he was only talking about word of mouth then he is more pathetic than I thought. Maybe he was high at the time.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
From talking to a few people, one of the other reasons people voted against this was the Federal Supremacy clause. Why vote for something that remains against federal law, especially when the feds have stated both their opposition to the law, and promised to enforce federal law. While I doubt the feds would have bothered with "Joe Potsmoker" and his small stash, they COULD have gone for the larger grow-operations as well as every corner store who sold pot, in whatever form.

PLUS, the feds are notorious for withholding various federal funds in order to force compliance. (the Reagan "21 drinking age" is a prime example of how they can manipulate states to do what they want. The 1973 National Maximum Speed Law is another example of the feds threatening to withhold funds to force compliance.

The feds could (and probably would) have drug this into federal court, dragging it out for months, if not years, and costing the taxpayers millions and millions of dollars in legal fees.
Exactly. There are many other sides to this debate.
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
You're just a bitter loser. You thought the majority was on your side and you've realized today that, not only are they smarter than you, but that your loser lifestyle is not envied.

Class. Do you have any? You're acting like this is a sports game, and the losers are being poor sports.

The losers aren't being poor sports. They're appalled that in this day and age, there are still people like you.

I don't think you've answered any of my questions. Do you drink alcohol? Have you ever drank alcohol? Do you support the prohibition of alcohol?

If you can answer no/no/yes, I support your views even if I disagree with them. If you answer yes/yes/no, then I do not support your "loser lifestyle". Two can play that game. I loathe alcohol. I think it's a terrible, terrible drug. And I think that if you drink alcohol, you're a loser.

:rolleyes:
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
Narmer,

Answer me one thing. What gives you the right to determine what I can and cannot ingest? I think that is the bottom line here.

What is the point of a law that doesn't work? What is the point of a law that costs taxpayers untold amounts of money - for nothing? It has never been hard to get marijuana. It will never be hard to get marijuana. Instead of forcing it underground, why don't we tax the fuck out of it and make some money rather than spending money in a failed attempt to enforce it?

You said that the reason it shouldn't be legal is because of all the stoners. You mean all of the stoners that exist right now? Your coworkers, neighbors, possibly even friends? Just like the people who use alcohol, the vast majority of people that use marijuana are normal people that contribute to society.

Do you think S&M should be banned? I don't identify with pain and suffering when it comes to sex, but I'm not going to say that other people can't do it. If you cannot see the hypocrisy that is alcohol being legal while marijuana is not, then you are blind and ignorant. Please, at least tell me that you want alcohol to be illegal also....

Who is the smart one around here? My arguments are a lot more thought out and logical than "It's a gateway drug", "there will be a lot of stoners". Can you please think for yourself instead of repeating the same illogical garbage that you were fed?
 
Last edited:

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
you've failed to realized that most americans don't want this in the stores or in vending machines. or wherever it was going to move to from the "clinics" and street corners.

Hence, you're really dumb for not even comprehending that dimension of the debate. You're no different from the retards who loudly wondered how America could've voted for Bush in 2004 after seeing his first term. Stupid liberals...

well, that isn't part of the debate, because that wouldn't happen.

vending machines? roflsocks. you continue to show that you know nothing about the legislation or the issues at hand.

continue to prove us right, though. as you are want to do...
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
zinfamous has been bitching about "propaganda" so I assumed these were adverts. If he was only talking about word of mouth then he is more pathetic than I thought. Maybe he was high at the time.

these were posted in clinics. I haven't been there, because I don't smoke MMJ. Those publishing anti-prop 19 arguments are professed members of the industry, as well.


again, the point is that despite all of the other factors (I know them, talked about them AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS THREAD YOU FUCKING CLUELESS DOLT), what really pushed this over are the people that would actually benefit from this legislation having been convinced to vote against it.

THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT. the slim margin would have easily been overcome by the kids that don't vote for anything (except Obama), and the users that were afraid they would lose their supply.

I never said anything about other issues (typical naivete and ignorance, which you understand in spades) not being a major factor. The simple fact that a large number of users--representing that losing margin--having voted against it, is crucial.

HOW DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS WERE YOU DROPPED ON YOUR HEAD AS A BABY DID YOU EAT PAINT CHIPS OR SOMETHING?
 
Last edited:

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,138
12,457
136
well, that isn't part of the debate, because that wouldn't happen.

vending machines? roflsocks. you continue to show that you know nothing about the legislation or the issues at hand.

continue to prove us right, though. as you are want to do...

wont...

http://mw2.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wont?show=0&t=1288828967

"1wont
adj
\ˈwȯnt, ˈwōnt also ˈwənt, ˈwänt\
Definition of WONT
1
: accustomed, used <got up early as he is wont to do>
2
: inclined, apt <revealing as letters are wont to be — Gladys M. Wrigley>
Examples of WONT

1. <she paced about the room, as she is wont to do whenever she is agitated>"
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Well, that's his opinion but I posted to show that there were many other reasons. I doubt the marijuana growers were that influential. lol.

it is by far the number one cash crop in this state. the current profits that these guys see would be crushed had prop 19 passed.

not influential? rofl
...



can you start to think about this issue, or do you continue to refuse simple logical processing?


you don't live in CA? you really have no concept of what goes on here, right? You grew up in some cornfield, in some ignored, meaningless, shithole in the middle of the country?