So it has a number- California to vote in November to legalize weed

[faceking]

LEGALIZE IT!!!! My hometown which used to be a pleasant little town has become a haven for thugs and hippies. Furthermore when we had all of those wildfires in the national forests the firemen were met with AK47s and told to GO BACK or get shot. I hope to god they legalize it.

In that case, legalize everything.

 

[faceking]

Werd. It's supposed to only be for medical conditions, but it's so vague as to be de facto legal. I have a lot of friends who have a prescription for weed for stuff like "anxiety" and "general headache". Marijuana dispensaries have popped up all over the place. I have several within walking distance of my apartment.

Me thinks the number of glaucoma prescriptions would plummet. And potheads... please stop equating pot to alcohol a la prohibition.

 

[Zeuhl34]

please stop equating pot to alcohol a la prohibition.

Why? Pot is considerably less harmful than alcohol and has a less severe high. Why do you think it should remain illegal? Legalization/decriminalization always eases drug problems. Alcohol prohibition here in the US created more alcoholic than there were pre-Prohibition. In 2002 (I think), Portugal decriminalized possession of all drugs. Portugal now has the lowest numbers in Europe in relation to addiction and drug-related deaths. Straight-up prohibition simply makes the problem worse, especially with mild drugs like marijuana.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

And potheads... please stop equating pot to alcohol a la prohibition.

There are obvious similarities between the trials and tribulations of Prohibition and the current drama surrounding marijuana. A product heightens in demand when it is told by society that it is wrong or forbidden. That's one of the main reasons why there was such a demand for alcohol during Prohibition and why people are drawn to use certain recreational drugs for the first time. With such a demand in place, people willing to break the law took it upon themselves to supply the product. The end result is a rise in crime as criminals start to fight for "turf", similar to the way current drug dealers fight for it now to sell their substances. History always repeats itself with a twist.

And I don't smoke weed.

 

[dreamer20]

Violence will increase significantly after it passes...
You take the same number of gangs, and SIGNIFICANTLY lessen the size of the turf for which to fight over (only coke and meth).... good night. The border towns, both North and South, will be a further bloodbath.

I don't see why that increased violence would happen in the region where marijuana is legalized, for marijuana is neither coke nor meth, and is already used there legitimately for medical reasons.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I don't see why that increased violence would happen in the region where marijuana is legalized, for marijuana is neither coke nor meth, and is already used there legitimately for medical reasons.

Ideologically speaking, it wouldn't.
"Turf" for people pushing their illegal goods have already been established regardless of the product. If every marijuana plant was to die out now and never be grown again, another banned substance would take its place and the drug dealers will continue to use the same venues they always have to push it. That's because in the end, it's all about the money to them. Not the product. Their turf doesn't get smaller just because they can no longer sell one particular item.

If they could make the same quick money selling Girl Scout Cookies on a street corner they would.

 

[faceking]

I don't see why that increased violence would happen in the region where marijuana is legalized, for marijuana is neither coke nor meth, and is already used there legitimately for medical reasons.

So... gangs specialize in illegal goods... if you take away half of their business model... hmmm... it's called scarcity.

 

[faceking]

Why? Pot is considerably less harmful than alcohol and has a less severe high. Why do you think it should remain illegal? Legalization/decriminalization always eases drug problems. Alcohol prohibition here in the US created more alcoholic than there were pre-Prohibition. In 2002 (I think), Portugal decriminalized possession of all drugs. Portugal now has the lowest numbers in Europe in relation to addiction and drug-related deaths. Straight-up prohibition simply makes the problem worse, especially with mild drugs like marijuana.

You don't get drunk after one wine.

You do get stoned after one doobie.

No such thing as "pot in moderation".

 

[ColoradoGuy]

Bingo. It will allow the Feds/State to focus more on the hard drugs.

From an economy-centric viewpoint, it seems there is a three-dimensional benefit to de facto legalization:

1. Funds spent on enforcement activities relating to current marijuana laws are freed up. (This includes education, investigation, prosecution and, in some cases, incarceration.)
2. Sales and income taxes derived from the legal production and sale of marijuana can flow into State and Federal coffers.
3. Revenues, and therefore taxes, from the supply chain increase.

However, we should recall the repeal of Prohibition set into motion the creation of various new or expanded government agencies charged with the policing and enforcement of liquor laws. So, while tax revenues will undoubtedly go up, there will be a necessary proportional expenditure of new money to create and govern the infrastructure created to oversee it.

Because Gonzales v. Raich [the Supreme Court case establishing Federal authority to enforce bans of home grows even for medicinal use] still looms out there, I expect full legalization will necessarily invite a legal challenge from the Federal Government. With that, we'll have opened Pandora's box and we'll be talking about 10th Amendment interpretations for years to come. Despite Eric Holder's edict in 2009 affirming that medicinal use would be a low law enforcement priority, the law is still the law.

 

[TomCat84]

Violence will increase significantly after it passes...

You take the same number of gangs, and SIGNIFICANTLY lessen the size of the turf for which to fight over (only coke and meth).... good night. The border towns, both North and South, will be a further bloodbath.

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but American border towns are hardly bloodbaths. Cities like El Paso and San Diego (the two largest American border cities) are registering crime rates at or below record lows. Legalizing weed will allow law enforcement to stop enforcing laws against a relatively harmless drug (relative to crap like cigarettes and alcohol- never heard of a dude beating his wife because he was so stoned he couldnt help it), and focus their attention on more harmful drugs like meth, heroin, and cocaine.

 

[TomCat84]

From an economy-centric viewpoint, it seems there is a three-dimensional benefit to de facto legalization:

1. Funds spent on enforcement activities relating to current marijuana laws are freed up. (This includes education, investigation, prosecution and, in some cases, incarceration.)
2. Sales and income taxes derived from the legal production and sale of marijuana can flow into State and Federal coffers.
3. Revenues, and therefore taxes, from the supply chain increase.

However, we should recall the repeal of Prohibition set into motion the creation of various new or expanded government agencies charged with the policing and enforcement of liquor laws. So, while tax revenues will undoubtedly go up, there will be a necessary proportional expenditure of new money to create and govern the infrastructure created to oversee it.

Because Gonzales v. Raich [the Supreme Court case establishing Federal authority to enforce bans of home grows even for medicinal use] still looms out there, I expect full legalization will necessarily invite a legal challenge from the Federal Government. With that, we'll have opened Pandora's box and we'll be talking about 10th Amendment interpretations for years to come. Despite Eric Holder's edict in 2009 affirming that medicinal use would be a low law enforcement priority, the law is still the law.

Wouldn't taking marijuana laws off the books be de jure legalization?

 

[TomCat84]

From an economy-centric viewpoint, it seems there is a three-dimensional benefit to de facto legalization:

1. Funds spent on enforcement activities relating to current marijuana laws are freed up. (This includes education, investigation, prosecution and, in some cases, incarceration.)
2. Sales and income taxes derived from the legal production and sale of marijuana can flow into State and Federal coffers.
3. Revenues, and therefore taxes, from the supply chain increase.

However, we should recall the repeal of Prohibition set into motion the creation of various new or expanded government agencies charged with the policing and enforcement of liquor laws. So, while tax revenues will undoubtedly go up, there will be a necessary proportional expenditure of new money to create and govern the infrastructure created to oversee it.

Because Gonzales v. Raich [the Supreme Court case establishing Federal authority to enforce bans of home grows even for medicinal use] still looms out there, I expect full legalization will necessarily invite a legal challenge from the Federal Government. With that, we'll have opened Pandora's box and we'll be talking about 10th Amendment interpretations for years to come. Despite Eric Holder's edict in 2009 affirming that medicinal use would be a low law enforcement priority, the law is still the law.

I'm not so sure that a legal challenge would be forthcoming from the Federal Government. Unless I'm mistaken, all the new initiative would do is legalize pot under CALIFORNIA law, not challenge the federal government's right to regulate it as a dangerous drug. I would expect that if any challenge comes, it would be from someone charged under federal anti pot laws (after legalization in California), challenging again the federal government's right to regulate it. And for what it's worth, to me, the federal government has no right to regulate marijuana (or any drug for that matter), unless it crosses state or international borders. If they want to be able to do so, they should pass a constitutional amendment allowing them that right. If marijuana is grown, sold, and consumed entirely within one state, it seems to me that it's up to the state to regulate that. But whatever. San Diego County, along with a few other conservative counties, already challenged the state's mandating that they issue medical pot ID cards, in contravention of federal law. They lost at every level, if I'm not mistaken- and attempted to appeal to SCOTUS, but the SCOTUS declined to review it. I agree with you that a challenge will be forthcoming, but I don't think it will be the federal government. I suppose they could challenge the state's right to set up the necessary enforcement apparatus, but they can't challenge the state's right to legalize it, unless they wanted to go the drinking age route- perhaps threaten to withhold funds if California didn't make it illegal again.....

 

[Zeuhl34]

You don't get drunk after one wine.

You do get stoned after one doobie.

No such thing as "pot in moderation".

THAT'S your argument? Really? You can absolute just have one or two hits off a joint or pipe and get a slight buzz going, much akin to having a couple beers.

Admittedly most people who smoke don't just have a hit or two, but when the do get high, they generally stay inside and watch a movie or walk to the nearest IHOP. Marijuana's high is very mild compared to alcohol's, and no logical person would support its continued prohibition.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

You don't get drunk after one wine.

You do get stoned after one doobie.

No such thing as "pot in moderation".

LOL... I know people who get drunk after one sip of a Vodka/Cranberry!! :biglaugh:

I sincerely hope this isn't your refute for discrediting any linkage or ties between Prohibition and the current battle for marijuana legalization.

 

[TomCat84]

LOL... I know people who get drunk after one sip of a Vodka/Cranberry!! :biglaugh:

I sincerely hope this isn't your refute for discrediting any linkage or ties between Prohibition and the current battle for marijuana legalization.

HA! You should see my mom after half a Cosmo

 

[ColoradoGuy]

I'm not so sure that a legal challenge would be forthcoming from the Federal Government. Unless I'm mistaken, all the new initiative would do is legalize pot under CALIFORNIA law, not challenge the federal government's right to regulate it as a dangerous drug. I would expect that if any challenge comes, it would be from someone charged under federal anti pot laws (after legalization in California), challenging again the federal government's right to regulate it. And for what it's worth, to me, the federal government has no right to regulate marijuana (or any drug for that matter), unless it crosses state or international borders. If they want to be able to do so, they should pass a constitutional amendment allowing them that right. If marijuana is grown, sold, and consumed entirely within one state, it seems to me that it's up to the state to regulate that. But whatever. San Diego County, along with a few other conservative counties, already challenged the state's mandating that they issue medical pot ID cards, in contravention of federal law. They lost at every level, if I'm not mistaken- and attempted to appeal to SCOTUS, but the SCOTUS declined to review it. I agree with you that a challenge will be forthcoming, but I don't think it will be the federal government. I suppose they could challenge the state's right to set up the necessary enforcement apparatus, but they can't challenge the state's right to legalize it, unless they wanted to go the drinking age route- perhaps threaten to withhold funds if California didn't make it illegal again.....

I don't want to argue with you, but I think you might have missed my point. Although we could get into a lengthy discussion of fiat powers and federalism, let's just go to the SCOTUS issue: SCOTUS has weighed in on the whole medicinal marijuana issue. That's the reason I cited Gonzales v Raich -- it is a 6-3 SCOTUS decision that effectively upholds the Federal Government's right to ban medicinal home-growers DESPITE state laws allowing it. It goes further to explicitly state that where the pot is grown and consumed is immaterial in asserting the Fed's rights.

I posted to suggest that -- all other issues aside -- the 10th Amendment question is going to be bigger than a breadbox. I'm not the only person suggesting that... here's a relevant opinion piece on the Harvard Crimson from Jeffrey Miron (lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Economics at Harvard University). From the article:

The ideal way to legalize marijuana is for the federal government to end its ban, while allowing each state to regulate and tax marijuana as it sees fit. This would circumvent the complicated constitutional issues that will arise if the California initiative passes, as federal law would still prohibit marijuana.

Basically, he agrees with you TomCat84... it ought to be a state issue, but the "complicated constitutional issues" he refers to is the 10th Amendment question. Once it's about the 10th Amendment, it's going to be about a whole lot of things: so-called Obamacare, bank bailouts, and all the things tea-partiers, Glenn Beck, and our recently departed Trinity love to go apeshit over.

For the record, I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana because I can view the issue from a purely economic vantage. If I were a medical doctor or an addiction counselor, maybe I'd have a different opinion. However, I am a student of the Constitution and that old proverb "may you live in interesting times" comes to mind when we start talking about the 10th Amendment.

 

[Daisy]

It's very simple, take the profits away from the gang members and tax it.

Consider something else...our jails are bursting at the seams. Imagine no marijuana arrests, what that would do as far as sparing the tax payers court and jail (prison) dollars.

 

[B_crackoff]

It's very simple, take the profits away from the gang members and tax it.

Consider something else...our jails are bursting at the seams. Imagine no marijuana arrests, what that would do as far as sparing the tax payers court and jail (prison) dollars.

I don't think it's marijuana that's keeping California's jails full.

What's staggering is that it costs over $50,000/ head to keep people in jail in CA, compared to $10-20,000 in all the Southern states - who's creaming off the system?

In Your State: Prison Costs . NOW on PBS

I think taxpayers should be a little more concerned with that!

$30,000 less spent * 171,000 inmates = $5.1 Billion savings!

That's more than the revenue they'd make in 10 years taxing the herb.

 

[TomCat84]

I don't want to argue with you, but I think you might have missed my point. Although we could get into a lengthy discussion of fiat powers and federalism, let's just go to the SCOTUS issue: SCOTUS has weighed in on the whole medicinal marijuana issue. That's the reason I cited Gonzales v Raich -- it is a 6-3 SCOTUS decision that effectively upholds the Federal Government's right to ban medicinal home-growers DESPITE state laws allowing it. It goes further to explicitly state that where the pot is grown and consumed is immaterial in asserting the Fed's rights.

I posted to suggest that -- all other issues aside -- the 10th Amendment question is going to be bigger than a breadbox. I'm not the only person suggesting that... here's a relevant opinion piece on the Harvard Crimson from Jeffrey Miron (lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Economics at Harvard University). From the article:

Basically, he agrees with you TomCat84... it ought to be a state issue, but the "complicated constitutional issues" he refers to is the 10th Amendment question. Once it's about the 10th Amendment, it's going to be about a whole lot of things: so-called Obamacare, bank bailouts, and all the things tea-partiers, Glenn Beck, and our recently departed Trinity love to go apeshit over.

For the record, I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana because I can view the issue from a purely economic vantage. If I were a medical doctor or an addiction counselor, maybe I'd have a different opinion. However, I am a student of the Constitution and that old proverb "may you live in interesting times" comes to mind when we start talking about the 10th Amendment.

I was just thinking outloud, then it turned to verbal vomit :redface:

 

[TomCat84]

I don't think it's marijuana that's keeping California's jails full.

What's staggering is that it costs over $50,000/ head to keep people in jail in CA, compared to $10-20,000 in all the Southern states - who's creaming off the system?

In Your State: Prison Costs . NOW on PBS

I think taxpayers should be a little more concerned with that!

$30,000 less spent * 171,000 inmates = $5.1 Billion savings!

That's more than the revenue they'd make in 10 years taxing the herb.

The Prison Guards union is very powerful in the CA state legislature. If any proposed cutting the prison budget, there would be a massive ad campaign to label them as "soft on crime", and the lemmings here would believe it. As it is, the only way we've been able to work on the prison budget is because a federal judge has ordered the state to drastically reduce its population to reduce overcrowding. Because of this, we've reduced the % of the population that has been incarcerated A LOT.