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

[her209]

wow i really didnt think anyone actually got brainwashed by DARE

I'm not a chicken. You're a turkey!

 

[Ns1]

Yet a guy that wanted to hijack an airliner used the fact that he was high on MJ brownies as his defense.

about as good of a defense as "god told me to do it"

 

[zinfamous]

You must be retarded too if you cannot comprehend that stoners and those in the marijuana industry do not make up the majority of California. Fuck it's not that hard to understand.

the 6-7 point difference kinda shows that had many of those "stoners" voted for it...it most likely would have passed.


not to mention the young kids (polls showed ~70% in favor), had they shown up to vote as they did in 08, this would have been a very different outcome.

...so, that makes them the majority, then...right?


seriously, you are capable of understanding the difference between a majority of people, and a voter majority, right?

wait, no...you aren't. you've shown again and again that you are a single-tone fool.

 

[coxmaster]

I havent been keeping up with this thread, so i apologize if this was already discussed..

Anyway, yesterday (election day) I overheard like 10 groups of people talking about how prop 19 wasnt on the ballot. They were VERY upset that they couldnt seem to find it anywhere...

How did people not know Prop 19 was California only? Apparently a shitload of people though it was a national thing..

 

[her209]

I havent been keeping up with this thread, so i apologize if this was already discussed..

Anyway, yesterday (election day) I overheard like 10 groups of people talking about how prop 19 wasnt on the ballot. They were VERY upset that they couldnt seem to find it anywhere...

How did people not know Prop 19 was California only? Apparently a shitload of people though it was a national thing..

That's too funny.

 

[Kadarin]

I don't care what your personal beliefs or opinions are (religious or not). NO ONE has the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do to THEIR body as long as they are not directly hurting someone else, infringing on their rights, and so on.

For example, I SHOULD have the right to smoke weed in private. I should NOT have the right to put others at risk by driving while under the influence. I know smoking weed might make those that don't like it "upset", but if I'm doing something they simply don't like, that's too bad. I have the right to do it, and they have the right to not like it. BUT, they don't have the right to stop me just because they don't like it or don't understand it.

This is NOT a complicated issue. People are too focused on political and other bullshit that does not matter. Will it make me money? Will it make me lose money? Will it do this or that? No one asks if someone should have the RIGHT to do it, period. I don't care what something will do to the government or the country...if I should have the right to do it, then that should be it. No ifs or buts.

People think America is the "land of the free". It was founded with those ideas, but definitely is not that today. Anyone who does not understand this needs to wake up.

This is exactly why I voted for the measure.

I'd also correct your "NO ONE has the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do to THEIR body" by saying "NO ONE should have the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do to THEIR body", because the government has unfortunately claimed that right because they are legally telling you what you can do to your body.

 

[Wyndru]

I havent been keeping up with this thread, so i apologize if this was already discussed..

Anyway, yesterday (election day) I overheard like 10 groups of people talking about how prop 19 wasnt on the ballot. They were VERY upset that they couldnt seem to find it anywhere...

How did people not know Prop 19 was California only? Apparently a shitload of people though it was a national thing..

😀 Wow.

 

[coxmaster]

That's too funny.

😀 Wow.

Yeah, i mean come on.. I guess i overestimate the ability of the "average stoned voter"

 

[zinfamous]

it wasn't just the "community". From what I've read there were many other legitimate parts of the larger spectrum of California that was against this. As for "cuddling", you know what they say: those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. Why don't you look at the state of the country when virtually all types of drugs were legal. This was from the late 19th century to the early 20th century. You don't know addiction until you've seen it on a massive scale. Look at today's Russia or parts of Iran and their heroin addiction. Marijuana may not be the same but it's a slippery slope.

you do know that slippery slope is used to point out that an argument is fallacious, right?

The entire argument that this leads to that, inevitably leads to that, then to that is completely illogical. You know this...right?

It's hilarious how willingly brainwashed you have become by other ignorant politicians who use these arguments as justification, as if they have some logical foundation to support them. The entire concept of the "slippery slope" fallacy is to point out that their is precisely ZERO logical basis for making this argument.

It's used to attack someone's logic who want to argue that things begat other things--not defend the notion.

Fuck, you are an absolute idiot.

😀

 

[hans030390]

This is exactly why I voted for the measure.

I'd also correct your "NO ONE has the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do to THEIR body" by saying "NO ONE should have the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do to THEIR body", because the government has unfortunately claimed that right because they are legally telling you what you can do to your body.

That's true. Maybe their should be a proposition started that will not allow the government to tell us what we can and can't do with our own personal bodies on our own time, setting, etc.

Anyone who would vote against that is an idiot...

 

[zinfamous]

You are most vehement in your defense of the marijuana. Are you feeling withdrawls from your drug of choice? Does your body crave that drug? Huh?

Weed is already legal in the state of California for all intents and purposes. Get a MMC if you want to protect yourself and if not just don't get caught with more than an ounce. What is so difficult about that?

there is something very duplicitous in asking for a license with some dubious ailment.

I'm not that type of person. Look, i have all sorts of semi-chronic illnesses and pains that would very easily allow me to obtain one--headaches, lower back pain, sinus issues (i shit you not), depression, anxiety, stress...blah blah blah.

To me, the law here has already become a bit of a joke, rife for exploitation. Prop 19 failing does nothing to stop anyone from getting this for whatever reason or use.

You really have to wonder why the voters chose to allow the status quo continue for what is, while keeping the market tied up into very small sectors, and lose out on shit-tons of revenue--both recreationally, medically, research, and agriculture (HEMP CULTIVATION).

The only thing the state loses with this is a lot of revenue. I understand that pressure from the feds is a legit concern, ...but the hilarious thing is that the typical conservatives who are against such freedoms of personal choice view these issues in a hilarious hypocritical fashion, considering their professed beliefs in small government, personal freedom, guns, booze...etc.

 

[zinfamous]

kfc is more dangerous than weed.

but but but but weed is a gateway drug! It leads to more KFC consumption!

D😀:

 

[KeithTalent]

i meant 2 years sorry typo. But 46% of voters isn't a vocal minority by any means.

Two years is much more reasonable.

Is that not the definition of a minority? 😕 They did lose after all. Really a shame.

KT

 

[zinfamous]

I'm curious, does anyone know the political specifics of alcohol prohibition and the repeal of it? Like, what were the two campaigns like?

I'm assuming it was somehow different since it was on a federal level. It didn't require the vote of citizens, it would have been voted on by the house, senate?

I'm shocked that whatever bill it was to make it illegal passed. That would never, ever fly these days. Yet all you opponents act so smug. So please, go have a beer on me and revel in your hypocrisy.

it took ~80 years of hard lobbying for the Temperance movement to gain enough traction to succeed with prohibition. The climate was much, much different, then.

There were very real, very serious issues related to alcohol--many of them domestic abuse cases and health issues that simply weren't on the map in the pre-industrial age, and there simply were no resources for women to escape, alcoholics to seek both counseling and rehab--seriously, there was no such thing as an alcoholic.

It's funny, alcohol (and we had a HUGE industry at the time, far bigger than what we have today), was so unregulated, so accessible, the dangers of addiction were simply ignored. Because there were essentially zero social programs to combat many of the societal ills that alcohol abuse cause, it became a very serious issue for an ever-growing group of people.

I forget the specifics, but politically, many stars aligned--national election, power consolidation, back door deals, and a very present social enemy had been long-established at this point: alcohol--that prohibition was passed.

It was only after a decade of ridiculous violence and crime, and I suppose a concerted effort to address the problems caused by alcohol, rather than restrict people from doing what they will do anyway, that it was repealed.

 

[zinfamous]

54/46

I'm actually pretty happy with these results. Legalization in our lifetime = possible.


For comparative purposes, prop 8 passed 52.7/47.7 - and we all know gay marriage is going to happen in our lifetimes....right?

I was thinking about this last night. would have been sad if the margin was closer than it was in Prop 8. Glad to see out priorities lean somewhat closer to individual freedom than individual choice. :\

 

[Aikouka]

Two years is much more reasonable.

Is that not the definition of a minority? 😕 They did lose after all. Really a shame.

KT

I think the idea is that while it is a minority, it is not a small one as in it was close to half of the voters. That might make it worthwhile to go back and revise the proposition or perhaps see how the movement would go at a federal level.

 

[Locut0s]

...but the hilarious thing is that the typical conservatives who are against such freedoms of personal choice view these issues in a hilarious hypocritical fashion, considering their professed beliefs in small government, personal freedom, guns, booze...etc.

The problem as Yates so succinctly put it is that:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity

If the younger generation, the academics, the intelligent out there actually had the drive and conviction of the right wing, the nut jobs and the teaparty goers election results would be markedly different.

 

[KeithTalent]

I think the idea is that while it is a minority, it is not a small one as in it was close to half of the voters. That might make it worthwhile to go back and revise the proposition or perhaps see how the movement would go at a federal level.

No, I get that, it's just seemed that I was hearing a very large amount of support for this and not a lot of opposition, so I was expecting it to be even closer.

Could just be the groups/sites I pay attention to are more inclined to vote yes.

KT

 

[Ns1]

Could just be the groups/sites I pay attention to are more inclined to vote yes.

KT

Probably that, since I doubt you visit hardcore conservative/religious sites =P

 

[KeithTalent]

Probably that, since I doubt you visit hardcore conservative/religious sites =P

Only on Sundays.

KT

 

[Narmer]

you do know that slippery slope is used to point out that an argument is fallacious, right?

The entire argument that this leads to that, inevitably leads to that, then to that is completely illogical. You know this...right?

It's hilarious how willingly brainwashed you have become by other ignorant politicians who use these arguments as justification, as if they have some logical foundation to support them. The entire concept of the "slippery slope" fallacy is to point out that their is precisely ZERO logical basis for making this argument.

It's used to attack someone's logic who want to argue that things begat other things--not defend the notion.

Fuck, you are an absolute idiot.

😀

the 6-7 point difference kinda shows that had many of those "stoners" voted for it...it most likely would have passed.


not to mention the young kids (polls showed ~70% in favor), had they shown up to vote as they did in 08, this would have been a very different outcome.

...so, that makes them the majority, then...right?


seriously, you are capable of understanding the difference between a majority of people, and a voter majority, right?

wait, no...you aren't. you've shown again and again that you are a single-tone fool.

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.

 

[Ns1]

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.

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.

 

[KeithTalent]

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.

Very sad.

KT

 

[Wyndru]

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

Sounds like a fun wedding.

 

[meltdown75]

Sounds like a fun wedding.

reception to follow at Taco Bell :awe: