Pot going up in smoke in California?

[bamacre]

You mean like laws that say you can't drink and fly a passemger plain?

Right because the airline industry is so free. :\

There's no law saying I can't drink at work. Yet, somehow I imagine doing so may get me fired.

There will always be government. It's what kind that is the issue.

Drug laws are a mixed bag. I don't want kids to have easy access cocaine because it's so hard to break addiction and the stuff isn't too good for you, but I don't see such problems with grass. But Grass, swept up with drug enforcement via paranoia, in my opinion, has now become an economic issue. The police and the prison industry are justifying their existence and funding by locking up more and more people. I like rational government but we're getting a police state because of greed for money. Not a good idea to give greedy money grubbing swine too much power, I don't think.

Ahh, I see. So you let government get into the market, then all of a sudden the market owns the government. Then decisions get made for political reasons rather than economic reasons. I see what you mean, Moonbeam. A loss of our economic freedom leads to a loss of our social freedoms. Good stuff, Moonbeam. I agree 100%.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

If pot helps someone who has a LEGITIMATE medical issue, I say let them have it. Other than that, why the hell do you need to smoke that crap? Sure, you can say that about many things but really what is the appeal of pot?

That shouldn't matter. It's what someone else wants to do with their body. Why does it concern you?

 

[Saint Nick]

I don't typically agree with you Moonbeam, but you make some valid points in post #75 that I completely agree with. Grass has now become a large source of income for states—helping fund prisons, the staff, the police officers who find them, the DAs that prosecute. Without drug laws and illegality, they lose so much money and possibly jobs.

 

[LunarRay]

California's Prop 19 seems to be simply a first step toward removing Pot from the CSA schedule as it applies internationally. NAFTA would enable the exportation of Pot from all the producers who for years have tried to dis enable/dissuade their citizens from growing an economically viable crop if it was legal to consume it in the USA.

I don't see a move from say... the cigarette makers introducing Pot as part of their product offering until it no longer is CSA classified... Or growers planting a new crop...

So... who in California will provide the Pot to the consumer? Seems to me that it will have to be the grower/consumer for the most part. I can't get by the Supremacy Clause in this case... not at all... The implications are just too far reaching.

IF Prop 19 passes I envision an immediate court challenge and a long delay until it gets to the SCOTUS... It will fail there because among the various (on point) cases do point to the right of the Congress to regulate 'drugs'... Gonzales v Oregon, Penn v Nelson, Cipollone v Liggett, Silkwood v Kerr and American Insurance Assoc v Garamendi among others sorta points to the Supremacy clause as being the controlling force of law in the USA where applicable.

The effort must start in the federal venue and not in the states...
So long as Pot is a CSA schedule 1 drug.... it is illegal even for Medicinal use... Move it to schedule 2 along with Oxy and we've started the process...

Although I default to Freedom when I vote... I have no hope this Prop being more than one more feeble attempt to address freedom in some form.

 

[hellotyler]

That's what they want you to think. The media is trying to downplay support all the meanwhile doctors, scientists, ex-dea, ect are overwhelmingly coming out in support of it.

 

[techs]

I think everyone is missing the point. Marijuana is a gateway to harder drugs like alcohol.

 

[nonlnear]

I think everyone is missing the point. Marijuana is a gateway to harder drugs like alcohol.

And Tostitos.

 

[hal2kilo]

Somebody has to counter George Soros.

Awk! Awk! Standard sock puppet PeshakJang knee jerk.

 

[ebaycj]

And Tostitos.

Seriously, how Frito-Lay Corporation is not heavily weighing in on Prop 19 is beyond me. Seems like a straight-forward marketing investment to me.

 

[nonlnear]

Seriously, how Frito-Lay Corporation is not heavily weighing in on Prop 19 is beyond me. Seems like a straight-forward marketing investment to me.

I would have expected them to roll out new bags with "Yes on 19" plastered all over them, coupled with a social networking campaign to get out the stoner vote. Somebody in marketing needs to be fired.

 

[Moonbeam]

Right because the airline industry is so free. :\

There's no law saying I can't drink at work. Yet, somehow I imagine doing so may get me fired.



Ahh, I see. So you let government get into the market, then all of a sudden the market owns the government. Then decisions get made for political reasons rather than economic reasons. I see what you mean, Moonbeam. A loss of our economic freedom leads to a loss of our social freedoms. Good stuff, Moonbeam. I agree 100%.

What is wrong with you. The government is corrupted by people, the same people who without government would screw people with the market which is why government regulation was invented in the first place.

 

[zerocool84]

It really sucks to see it's gonna fail. I always find it funny when people ask why someone would need to smoke that crap. Well why does someone want to drink some beer or alcohol? It's all the same stuff but alcohol is worse for our bodies than marijuana is. I hope the same people that are against legalization are against drinking alcohol and caffeine since it only makes sense.

 

[bamacre]

What is wrong with you. The government is corrupted by people, the same people who without government would screw people with the market which is why government regulation was invented in the first place.

Government is corrupted by people, or government is people? BTW, your last point, are you sure about that?

 

[DrPizza]

Bernstein was so curious that on Oct. 13-14, the campaign ran side-by-side polls - one using live questioners, the other using automated voices. When a live person asked, 41 percent of the respondents favored legalizing pot, but when asked by an automated questioner, 56 percent said they supported legalization, according to the internal poll.

Among men, 42 percent told a live interviewer they backed legalization - but 61 percent backed legalizing dope to an automated questioner.

Seems like another poll where it's discovered that when not anonymous, people tend to reply toward what they think they *should* answer, not what they actually believe. i.e. polls of "have you gone to church in the last month" result in much higher numbers than in reality.

 

[Moonbeam]

Seems like another poll where it's discovered that when not anonymous, people tend to reply toward what they think they *should* answer, not what they actually believe. i.e. polls of "have you gone to church in the last month" result in much higher numbers than in reality.

Just more evidence that the root cause of this is self hate. What other reason better explains denial and dishonesty.

 

[LunarRay]

Just more evidence that the root cause of this is self hate. What other reason better explains denial and dishonesty.

But that's why God created 'Confidence Levels' in Statistical Analysis... We simply say that 'it' considers this denial/dishonesty factor and the margin for error is capable of capturing the right number... hehehehehe. In this case our margin for error is +/- 50%... So there it is..

Just cuz Nicolaus Copernicus didn't take a Poll to determine what went round what he was still Polish..

 

[airdata]

*cough*
I'll just leave this here. Maybe some people will connect the dots and see that alcohol is legal, loved, and widely accepted in america.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Article/201009115788906

Alcohol 'Causes More Harm Than Crack'




8:46am UK, Monday November 01, 2010
Graham Fitzgerald, Sky News Online
Alcohol causes more widespread harm than drugs like heroin or crack cocaine, according to a study published in respected medical journal The Lancet.


The research evaluates recreational drugs on a wide range of factors, weighing up the mental and physical damage users suffer alongside crime and costs to the community.
It found the most dangerous drugs to individual users were heroin, crack cocaine and crystal meth.
But when all factors were taken into account alcohol was found to be most harmful, followed by heroin and crack.
Ecstasy and LSD were found to be the least damaging.
The study ranks alcohol as three times as harmful as cocaine or tobacco and eight times more harmful than ecstasy.
It also contradicts the Home Office's decision to make so-called legal high mephedrone a Class B drug, saying it is only one-fifth as damaging as alcohol.

If you take overall harm, then alcohol, heroin and crack are clearly more harmful than all others.
​

Professor David Nutt
The study was led by drugs expert Professor David Nutt, who has hit the headlines before for arguing that the current approach to regulating recreational drugs is fundamentally flawed.
He was sacked a year ago from his post as the Government's top drugs adviser for criticising ministers' decision to upgrade cannabis from class C to class B.
His comment that "you are more likely to die riding a horse than you are by taking cannabis or ecstasy" was widely reported at the time.
Since then he has formed the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs (ISCD), and is urging ministers to do more to tackle alcohol abuse and change the way recreational drugs are regulated.

According to Prof Nutt drinking alcohol is even worse than taking heroin
"What a new classification system might look like would depend on what set of harms to self or others you are trying to reduce," he said.
"But if you take overall harm, then alcohol, heroin and crack are clearly more harmful than all others."
His study's findings run contrary to the Government's long-established drug classification system.
But the authors argue their system - based on the consensus of experts - provides an accurate assessment of harm for policy makers.
"Our findings lend support to previous work in the UK and the Netherlands, confirming that the present drug classification systems have little relation to the evidence of harm," the paper says.
"They also accord with the conclusions of previous expert reports that aggressively targeting alcohol harms is a valid and necessary public health strategy."