California Prop 19, Legalize Marijuana? Vote Yes, or Vote No?

[mike1]

Imagine if it was legalized and taxed we would probably be out of this recession and there would be less crime.

if it is legalized the price would more than likely go way down so im not sure it would help the recession that much because there would be such a surplus with so many people growing it and even growing their own

 

[Vinsanity93]

if it is legalized the price would more than likely go way down so im not sure it would help the recession that much because there would be such a surplus with so many people growing it and even growing their own

Would you agree that something is better than nothing?

 

[mike1]

yeah i definitly agree that its is better than nothing

 

[LickTheEnvelope]

if it is legalized the price would more than likely go way down so im not sure it would help the recession that much because there would be such a surplus with so many people growing it and even growing their own

? I think you are over-estimating the 'green-thumb' of the common man.

 

[copestag]

if it is legalized the price would more than likely go way down so im not sure it would help the recession that much because there would be such a surplus with so many people growing it and even growing their own

yes exactly the same way home brew kits have driven the price of beer way down........ and there are huge numbers of people growing tobacco plants in their backyard which has totally knocked the bottom out of the cigarette market

the only thing legalizing and regulating marijuana is going to do is send the prices through the roof

its not going to stop or even slow down smuggling or trafficking, if anything it will increase these practices as use becomes more accepted and broadens......

think of it this way.... and bare in mind I have no clue what the actual prices are so dont knitpick the numbers....... but if your paying $3 for a joint from your dealer and after regulation and taxation you can now legally buy the same joint for $10 from your corner 7/11...... are you really going to stop using your dealer? are you really going to pay more than 3 times the amount simply because your corner market now sells it?

drug dealers (top to bottom) already have a program up and running for distribution.... they currently do not care that its illegal.... and their business is good....... do you think that when it becomes legal they will simply close down their operations? what incentive would they have?

Im no expert on the subject but I simply do not believe there will be a huge explosion of users suddenly growing their own....... just like theres not a huge explosion of people making their own cigarettes (a very simple and legal process) or people making their own beer (a very simple and legal process)

 

[Bob Maxey]

Im no expert on the subject but I simply do not believe there will be a huge explosion of users suddenly growing their own....... just like theres not a huge explosion of people making their own cigarettes (a very simple and legal process) or people making their own beer (a very simple and legal process)

I have a friend who works in a smoke shop here in Utah and the recent tax increase has caused far more people to roll their own smokes than before the increase. If it becomes legal and if it is heavily taxed, you might find that people decide to save money by growing their own.

Assuming that the law passes, which I am not convinced it will.

Bob Maxey

 

[copestag]

I have a friend who works in a smoke shop here in Utah and the recent tax increase has caused far more people to roll their own smokes than before the increase. If it becomes legal and if it is heavily taxed, you might find that people decide to save money by growing their own.

Assuming that the law passes, which I am not convinced it will.

Bob Maxey

Im not talking about simply rolling their own.... people have been rolling their own cigarettes for centuries.......although buying a tin of tobacco is still cheaper than buying a pack....its still not cheap.... the tobacco is still heavily taxed even if you roll your own

Im talking about growing your own tobacco plants..... which is a very hardy plant and will grow in most regions of the US...... a tobacco garden about 10 square feet will produce enough tobacco equivalent to 1 pack a day for a year.... and the work involved from seed to cigarette is minimal.... with an investment in seeds and fertilizer your cost is less than $50..... if you take the average price of a pack at $5 thats about $1800 per year..... and if you purchase tobacco and roll your own (for cheap tobacco which Im sure your smoke shop friend isnt primarily selling) its about $500 per year

again I dont know what it costs for an oz of marijuana...... or how an ounce even breaks down per joint etc..... but I cant imagine if tobacco users.... a considerably larger group of people..... wouldnt try to save $1800 a year by growing their own tobacco at home..... neither would the majority of marijuana users

Im not arguing that nobody would grow their own marijuana..... of course they would.... many already do despite the law...... I just dont believe it will be a marked increase from those who already do

as for the law passing.... polling shows about 49% against and 44% in favor..... and its been trending unfavorably for a while..... so my guess is youre correct it wont pass..... and even if it does it will be trumped by Federal law...... and for those who believe Federal law doesnt apply unless theres interstate commerce you must consider this....if California doesnt enforce the Fed law Im sure there will be $$ penalties just like laws such as drinking age..... and since California is already bankrupt I seriously doubt theyre willing to lose portions of their federal funding

 

[byteware]

I don't see that as a legitimate reason. They can do a field sobriety test. If you fail, move on to a blood or urine test. If you can pass the sobriety test, then you should not be too impaired to drive.

Actually, a blood urine test will not simply tell you if you are under the influence. It will tell you that you HAVE been under the influence within the last month or so, but it will not tell you if you are CURRENTLY under the influence.

Hence, the problem with MJ and driving.

 

[tommy_ed]

Actually, a blood urine test will not simply tell you if you are under the influence. It will tell you that you HAVE been under the influence within the last month or so, but it will not tell you if you are CURRENTLY under the influence.

Hence, the problem with MJ and driving.

very good point i don't know what i was thinking there haha

but i will stand by my statement: if you can pass a field sobriety test, you should be sober enough to drive.

 

[jamor]

Actually, a blood urine test will not simply tell you if you are under the influence. It will tell you that you HAVE been under the influence within the last month or so, but it will not tell you if you are CURRENTLY under the influence.

Hence, the problem with MJ and driving.

Yea.. but the same can be said with dangerous medications that millions of people drive with that make them drowsy, loopy, dizzy, etc..

Yet no one cares about that.

There are a few symptoms including colored/spots on tongue and eye symptoms that you can check. But it's not nearly as good of proof as a breathalyzer so lawyers would have field days having them dropped.

All I'm saying is that the system isn't perfect. And there are only a few drugs, including alcohol, than you can prove are being used at the time and hindering driving performance.

 

[jamor]

Not sure if this has been stated yet. I haven't read every post. But this is sweet. The future is getting even better.


Marijuana Soda Provides a High Without the Smoke : Discovery News

 

[byteware]

very good point i don't know what i was thinking there haha

but i will stand by my statement: if you can pass a field sobriety test, you should be sober enough to drive.

I agree, but there are plenty of non-drug/alcohol related reasons why you might fail one.

So, failing one doesn't mean you are high or drunk, it just means you shouldn't be driving.

 

[byteware]

Yea.. but the same can be said with dangerous medications that millions of people drive with that make them drowsy, loopy, dizzy, etc..

Yet no one cares about that.

More like we aren't going to make life saving medicines illegal because someone shouldn't drive with them, and we can't tell when they are.

 

[jamor]

More like we aren't going to make life saving medicines illegal because someone shouldn't drive with them, and we can't tell when they are.

That's not true. I.E. So someone had their wisdom teeth removed. A doctor gives them a large amount of vicoden for a 3 week period.

You really want to be on the road with that person? And it's certainly not life saving.

Examples are endless. Not to mention the amount of doctors and pharmacists that abuse the system.

And that just proves my point that drug use is not regulated for driving.

 

[byteware]

That's not true. I.E. So someone had their wisdom teeth removed. A doctor gives them a large amount of vicoden for a 3 week period.

3 weeks? Don't you think you are exaggerating a little bit there? If you have to stretch the truth to make your point, then maybe your point doesn't stand on it's own.

You really want to be on the road with that person? And it's certainly not life saving.

They are also instructed NOT to drive. Are you going to give that same instruction to everyone who smokes marijuana?

Examples are endless. Not to mention the amount of doctors and pharmacists that abuse the system.

And that just proves my point that drug use is not regulated for driving.

So, your point is let's make it MORE dangerous? Really?

If you cannot prove that marijuana is safe without pointing out similar DANGEROUS situations, then what is your ultimate objective?

Is your ultimate objective to prove that it's safe?

Or

Is your ultimate objective to just prove that it's not as dangerous as other legal stuff?

 

[jamor]

3 weeks? Don't you think you are exaggerating a little bit there? If you have to stretch the truth to make your point, then maybe your point doesn't stand on it's own.

Not stretched at all. Some cases are severe and some doctors will prescribe a lot of medicine if the pain lingers. I've seen it before. You just don't have the experience in this field unfortunately.

This doesn't include just wisdom teeth but other surgeries as well. Sometimes not even surgeries, sometimes it is just severe back pain. You need to think outside of the box and extrapolate my facts when you read them to understand them.

They are also instructed NOT to drive. Are you going to give that same instruction to everyone who smokes marijuana?

This proves my point again. Instruction is a lot different then cops doing anything about it and actually giving people DUIs for driving under the influence of those drugs which doesn't happen.

So, your point is let's make it MORE dangerous? Really?

If you cannot prove that marijuana is safe without pointing out similar DANGEROUS situations, then what is your ultimate objective?

Is your ultimate objective to prove that it's safe?

Or

Is your ultimate objective to just prove that it's not as dangerous as other legal stuff?

Now you are putting words into my mouth.

The point I'm making is that drugs, illegal or not, have little to no regulation besides alcohol when it comes to being behind the wheel.

So my ultimate objective is it to prove that it's just as dangerous as lots of the legal stuff. Yet most cops don't do anything about people driving under the influence of them. Which proves my point that their is a different agenda going on.

Am I saying we should allow people to drive high on marijuana? Absolutely not. What I'm trying to tell you is that people trying to turn down PROP19 are using this as an excuse - when it's an awful excuse because dangerous driving drugs like vicoden and a very long list of others are prescribed daily to people who drive every day but no one cares about it.

 

[tommy_ed]

I agree, but there are plenty of non-drug/alcohol related reasons why you might fail one.

So, failing one doesn't mean you are high or drunk, it just means you shouldn't be driving.

which reaches the objective of the field sobriety test, correct? to determine if the person shouldn't be driving.

 

[dmodert66]

3 weeks? Don't you think you are exaggerating a little bit there? If you have to stretch the truth to make your point, then maybe your point doesn't stand on it's own.

Not even close to exaggeration. I went to my doctor for arthritis. He gave me some pills that work great if I take it on the onset of a flair up, but doesn't help the pain if it does flair up. I asked for something for the pain when this happens. He prescribed me Vicodin with FIVE refills! For Arthritis! I didn't make it a quarter way through the first bottle though because it tore up my stomach and made me sick.

I am voting yes for Prop 19. I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this (read the first and 3rd pages), but pot is damn near legal already in CA. Governator about 2 weeks ago signed legislation changing possession of under 1 oz to an infraction (it used to be a misdemeanor). This means you can not go to jail now at all for possessing under 1 oz of pot. It is simply a ticket.

This being the case, why not just legalize it and make money on the taxes (we are DEEP in the hole as far as our economy goes in CA). I think it stands a good chance of passing based on poles and general comments by both people I know who do and don't smoke pot.

It will be challenged in court, so we will have to see how that goes. As far as the feds arresting people, it's not likely. The worst they do now is close down medicinal shops once a year (which pop right back up in the same spot).

I would agree with people who say illegal substances (pot & harder drugs) where easier to get in school than alcohol or cigarettes. Now I went to school in the 80s, so things could be different now...

Lastly, I really hope they can find a way to do a field sobriety test for pot (ie breathalyser, blood test). Technology and scientists should be able to find a solution for this eventually. I think pot should be treated like alcohol (ie. drunk in public, drunk driving).

 

[byteware]

Not stretched at all. Some cases are severe and some doctors will prescribe a lot of medicine if the pain lingers. I've seen it before. You just don't have the experience in this field unfortunately.

I didn't say your example was stretched. I said your whole point seems to be... it's not as bad as it could be...

Not a very compelling point.

This doesn't include just wisdom teeth but other surgeries as well. Sometimes not even surgeries, sometimes it is just severe back pain. You need to think outside of the box and extrapolate my facts when you read them to understand them.

And they are prescribed with instructions NOT TO DRIVE.

This proves my point again. Instruction is a lot different then cops doing anything about it and actually giving people DUIs for driving under the influence of those drugs which doesn't happen.

So, because cops can't do anything about medicine we should legalize something for people to use recreationaly that cops can't do anything about?

Horrible argument.

Now you are putting words into my mouth.

No, now I asked a question.

The point I'm making is that drugs, illegal or not, have little to no regulation besides alcohol when it comes to being behind the wheel.

So my ultimate objective is it to prove that it's just as dangerous as lots of the legal stuff. Yet most cops don't do anything about people driving under the influence of them. Which proves my point that their is a different agenda going on.

Legal stuff that is used for medical purposes, not recreation. In fact, every thing you've mentioned is illegal to use for recreational purposes.

Your correlation would indicate that we should refrain from legalizing marijuana for recreational purposes.

 

[byteware]

which reaches the objective of the field sobriety test, correct? to determine if the person shouldn't be driving.

The field sobriety test, absolutely. Are you criminally putting people's lives at risk?

Are you a habitually driving while high? Field sobriety test won't stop you before you kill someone.

 

[tommy_ed]

The field sobriety test, absolutely. Are you criminally putting people's lives at risk?

Are you a habitually driving while high? Field sobriety test won't stop you before you kill someone.

neither will a breathalyzer.... it doesn't mean alcohol should be illegal. Texting and driving, sleep-deprived driving, driving on pain meds, all of those are pretty dangerous. I don't think this is a good enough reason to keep paying the costs of prohibition

 

[byteware]

neither will a breathalyzer.... it doesn't mean alcohol should be illegal.

The first time someone is caught driving impaired by Alcohol, they are jailed, and charged with a crime.

Whether you like to admit it or not, that process (while it doesn't prevent EVERY alcohol related traffic death) prevents deaths.

Texting and driving, sleep-deprived driving, driving on pain meds, all of those are pretty dangerous. I don't think this is a good enough reason to keep paying the costs of prohibition

That may be, but that's a horrible argument for legalization.

 

[tommy_ed]

you are also charged with a crime if caught driving impaired. (pills, marijuana, etc.).... why would that change if they legalized it?

And that's OBVIOUSLY not the only argument for legalization and you know it. You should look into why it was made illegal in the first place, and tell me how justified THAT is

 

[byteware]

you are also charged with a crime if caught driving impaired. (pills, marijuana, etc.).... why would that change if they legalized it?

Because there is no test to determine if someone is currently under the influence of marijuana.

And that's OBVIOUSLY not the only argument for legalization and you know it. You should look into why it was made illegal in the first place, and tell me how justified THAT is

FYI, I support legalizing it.




Listened to an interesting story on NPR this morning. Apparently there are large "stoners" organizations against Prop 19. They are worried about limited growing space, and rising taxes on marijuana.

Apparently, they are worried that many growers will be taxed out of business. Of course, unreasonable taxes is something that California is known for.

 

[tommy_ed]

Because there is no test to determine if someone is currently under the influence of marijuana.

no, but if they pass a field sobriety test they should be okay to drive. if they fail it, it would be handled the same way it is if you're caught driving impaired now. With an OVI charge