Topic: CA Prop 19 Failed to pass!

[BAMF]

Sparkplug, I'm not arguing your ability to swing a hammer, turn a wrench or do backflips to your hearts desire, hell, you might actually perform such tasks better while smoking a little of the devils lettuce.  However, your ability to judge how far away that on coming car is, how fast it is driving, and exactly how far to swing your vehicle into the next lane of traffic is absolutely impaired.  That that simple calculation when done incorrectly can have unimaginable and detrimental consequences.  And yes, that jackass on the cell phone can just as easily make the same miscalculation.  Yes, it is just your opinion.  Because where you might have a wealth of experience and knowledge in doing wrench turning, 180* hammer swinging backflips while high I'm guessing you've never had to clean up the consequences of that miscalculation of time, speed and distance while listening to the pitiful whining of some driver wearing his rastifarian tee-shirt with a picture of Che Guevara on his hat and a hemp bracelet saying "I don't know what happened! She just ran into me!"  Yes, 5% is a small margin and I bet "we" do win next time.  I hope you do win because I don't think the government should have a right to tell you how to run you life.  Stupid should hurt.  I just know emphatically and with first hand experience, that driving under the influence of marijuana (or any drug) is dangerous and should be illegal, but stupid should hurt for you and your bad decisions, not for the guy driving on the same road as you.

[JanMarie13]

I haven't done the research and don't really plan to because it's late and I need to get to bed.  But I'm curious and "thinking out loud" as to whether or not there is actually any documentation or real statistics out there showing that any accidents have been shown to be caused by persons who are *ONLY* under the influence of marijuana?  I'd personally be willing to bet that, more often than not, there were other variables involved as well.  Just my two cents.

[46&2]

i never have and never will only because i see how bad it can affect your body and your mind..  everyone is different and obviously pot smoking affects everyone different but god man, to say that my opinion isnt valid because i know better to not smoke??   almost half of my adult family smokes pot and i have seen first hand how it affects the situation..  my unkle who has been a smoke doper all his life was just diagnosed with lung cancer 3 months ago.. i dont see smoking pot helping him at all..  no one in my family has anything cancer related in our genes so how come the biggest dope smoker in the family has lung cancer??  his lungs are as black as anyone elses who smokes cigarettes.. to say that smoking dope can have benifit is ridiculous..

So your uncle never smoked cigarettes ever in his life? Only pot?

[BLACKDOG]

I haven't done the research and don't really plan to because it's late and I need to get to bed.  But I'm curious and "thinking out loud" as to whether or not there is actually any documentation or real statistics out there showing that any accidents have been shown to be caused by persons who are *ONLY* under the influence of marijuana?  I'd personally be willing to bet that, more often than not, there were other variables involved as well.  Just my two cents.

In my personal experience, yes.  I've been on 4 or 5, and not just auto accidents either.

[Rockcrawlintoy]

i was in an accident with a  stoned driver as well. 

[fj-rankenstein]

So your uncle never smoked cigarettes ever in his life? Only pot?

my uncle was as hippy and was always the rebelious one between him, my dad and his brother as well...   like most people who smoke pot, he started on cigaretts  when he was in his late teens but by his mid 20s he tried to quit so his solution was to quit smoking and just smoke pot with not as much frequency as smoking..  i am sure he has done both but as long as i have known him he has always been an avid dope smoker..   his house smells like dope, his car smells like dope and he smells like dope..  i dont think i ever remember him not being somewhat stoned at all of our family christmas parties and other functions...  i guess its not fair to say that dope smoking caused his cancer but doing it for the last 40 years definitelly doesnt help...

and please watch with the "ignorant" comments sparkplug. it makes you look bad....  i am showing respect to you and i expect the same...    my experiences are all either first hand or of someone that i know personally so my stories are straight.. thanks..

[Sparkplug]

When you go against cold hard facts its "IGNORANT" sorry. You said there is no medical benefit, well this is totally and completely false. You said your uncle either got, or had help from marijuana getting cancer, well this is false also, because countless studies have yet to tie marijuana to any sort of cancer. People say it wont make money. This is false also, its been proven to make money, people willingly pay the tax. It can be grown, distributed, and sold in a very respectable manner, as has been proven by higher end co ops. It would effectively END the black market for marijuana in california. No longer would most pot go through 15 hands before it got to the consumer. It would be regulated and tested, and quality controlled, just like most high end co ops do now. YES they send their pot in to have ti tested for EXACTLY what is in it. Sure it will be easier to get, kids can have grown up buy it like booze, but at least there is a lil more tape in front of them. As has been stated by what sound like LEOS, they can tell if you are stoned through a FST, tho if the dude is failing a fst from pot, I want some of that stuff. Its sad when our federal government has put marijuan as a schedule 1 narcotic, and meth and cocaine as a schedule 2. Which ones would you guys like to see off the street more? Well our govt feels quite differently. If you did histroy you would know that it was amde illegal because of immigrants, mexicans, smokin it way back in the day. RACISM is what founded marijuana prohibition. Not to mention how it would have hurt the timber industry. I dont know, maybe this is one of those things thats a generation thing, new age has broguht on new ideas and thinking.

[Sparkplug]

The typical stoner has changed. the documentary pointed out that studies show the biggest age group for marijuana is middle aged men and women 30-45, middle class, hard working Americans. Sure there are still dudes wearin hoodies, blood red eyes, eatin cheetos on the corner. But there will ALWAYS be that guy, even if pot was somehow erradicated off the face of the planet. There will always be slackers, dumbasses, dip shits, and plain old idiots in the world. We have become to civilized to allow darwin to actually weed them out. But this is not a good argument to waste billions of dollars, jail millions of people, take homes, take kids away from loving providing parents, or flat out just be IGNORANT. Yes I use that word alot in these discussions, thats the only word that I can find to describe the laws on marijuana. It has been proven in other countries that decrimalization, and treatment, HELP far more than criminalization. I think 14 billion dollars a year, plus some more jobs could really help our country out. Not to mention all of us gettin together and legally sparkin one up

[fj-rankenstein]

ignorant is me for getting sucked into an arguement that could really be a cool debate and instead is getting personal because this is what happens when the other team has nothing left to say..  i feel like i am arguing with a 20 year old kid..

Ignorant is not reading the full post before posting your own propaganda..  not once anywhere did i say that there was no medicinal benifits to smoking pot... what i did say though is that there are other alternatives to healing pain then breathing in carcinogens...  which in turn can present other potential other problems..

ignorant is having no other "facts" other than quoting links from biased studies done that are for the use of smoking dope... i have had this conversation many a time in the last 15 years and its funny that its always the same links, the same quotes, the same references to the same books, the same arguements, the same twisted ideals, the same propaganda that all chronic drug smokers use..  is there no other info out there that can support any other arguement for a real reason to support dope other than to use it to ultimatally get high??

if medical use is such a big priority for you then i will agree..   there can, and obviously is benifit then to using this when all other options are exhausted..   really though, i am sure we can admit that medical dope really is more of a weak leverage point for the arguement of legalizing pot so you can get high...  nothing more...    really now, whats the point of even bringing it up when its legally perscribed anyways??  i can respect a persons wishes if that they were in extreme pain and nothing else will ease their pain than sure.. do what legally makes you feel better..  why is this  of any importance to you sparkplug??    is it because the person in constant pain gets to smoke dope legally and you are jealous..   of course you are..

do yourself a favor and read some real world stats on what exactly leagalizing pot has done in some parts of the world..  i agree that there has definitelly been some favorable results that have come out of it but other than some of the biased places that you are getting your info you will see that there is another whole ugly side of the matter that some times comes from legalizing pot...  i have first cousins in holland and they give me the real info on what is actually happening over there and its quite sad really... its what you dont hear in the news.. ...  sure the violent crimes and other related crimes associated have gone down but what you dont hear are the  problems with not enough rehab facilities or enough manpower to help the ones that are chronically addicted that want to get off the drugs...   i suppose you are going to tell me now that you have "proof" that dope isnt in any way shape or form a  potential gateway drug to something worse??    probably not because your sources  have proof that this isnt true..  well, it is true and its rediculous to think otherwise..   i would agree definitelly that a lot of people who start drinking usually only drink, unless they become one of those trendsters that feel they have to start smoking because they are drunk...  and then there are the people that only smoke cigarettes and never try dope.. and then you have the people that  smoke cigarettes and feel that sinse they smoke already, they may as well up the buzz a bit and try dope....  now what about those people that are smoking dope and are chronically addicted (oh sorry, i forgot that there are absolutely no  addicting substances in dope according to your sources and that physical or mental addiction plays no part in smoking  )  and they feel they need that better high??   they go onto the next most accessable drug.. everything is potentially a gateway for something worse.. .  this probably isnt you or a lot of the people you know but it happens by the thousands and the problem is getting worse...  it was bad when i was helping kids and young adults in rehab years ago and its way worse now..   i hear the same story from a lot of the severe addicts  that i have worked with and its almost unanamous that they all started drinking or smoking, then dope, than it progressed from there..  this isnt everyones reality but its definitelly some peoples reality and this is why the government doesnt want to take a chance on legalizing dope.. for the common doper, they just want to get high and do what they want in the confines of their own home but its that percentage out there that cant help but use dope as another platform for something worse..  i have seen it, i have worked with it and i have dealt with it on a family level, a friend level and a rehab worker to junkie level...  this is what ruins the arguement for legalizing dope..

once again, the only use there is to any sort of legalization of pot is to use the plant to produce ropes and clothing and for medicinal purposes.. other than that, chronics just try to twist these good and proper uses for this plant as leverage to why they should just legalize dope in general and when the ultimate reason is really just to get high, and that doesnt fly...  there has to be a better set of arguement than the biased ones you or any other chronic have posted..

[RP-Zuki]

Breathalyzer:

As I stated, the company Phillips has designed a road side "breathalyzer" of sorts for cannabis.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/06/philips-to-unveil-saliva-based-roadside-drug-test-later-this-yea/

As effective as an alcohol breathalyzer.

DUI driving while high:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration would disagree with many here:

a 1992 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration review of the role of drug use in fatal accidents reported, “There was no indication that cannabis itself was a cause of fatal crashes” among drivers who tested positive for the presence of the drug.

More:

A more recent assessment by Blows and colleagues noted that self-reported recent use of cannabis (within three hours of driving) was not significantly associated with car crash injury after investigators controlled for specific cofounders (e.g., seat-belt use, sleepiness, etc.

A 2004 observational case control study published in the journal Accident, Analysis and Prevention reported that only drivers under the influence of alcohol or benzodiazepines experience an increased crash risk compared to drug-free controls. Investigators did observe increased risks – though they were not statistically significant – among drivers using amphetamines, cocaine and opiates, but found, “No increased risk for road trauma was found for drivers exposed to cannabis.”

Two recent case-controlled studies have assessed this risk in detail. A 2007 case-control study published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health reviewed 10-years of US auto-fatality data. Investigators found that US drivers with blood alcohol levels of 0.05% – a level well below the legal limit for intoxication – were three times as likely to have engaged in unsafe driving activities prior to a fatal crash as compared to individuals who tested positive for marijuana.30 A 2005 review of auto accident fatality data from France showed similar results, finding that drivers who tested positive for any amount of alcohol had a four times greater risk of having a fatal accident than did drivers who tested positive for marijuana in their blood.31 In the latter study, even drivers with low levels of alcohol present in their blood (below 0.05%) experienced a greater elevated risk as compared to drivers who tested positive for high concentrations of cannabis (above 5ng/ml). Both studies noted that overall few traffic accidents appeared to be attributed to driver’s operating a vehicle while impaired by cannabis.

The above review illustrates the need for further education and understanding regarding the effects of cannabis upon driving behavior. While pot’s adverse impact on psychomotor skills is less severe than the effects of alcohol, driving under the acute influence of cannabis still may pose an elevated risk of accident in certain situations. However, because marijuana’s psychomotor impairment is subtle and short-lived, consumers can greatly reduce this risk by refraining from driving for a period of several hours following their cannabis use.

By contrast, motorists should never be encouraged to operate a vehicle while smoking cannabis. Drivers should also be advised that engaging in the simultaneous use of both cannabis and alcohol can significantly increase their risk of accident compared to the consumption of either substance alone. Past use of cannabis, as defined by the detection of inactive cannabis metabolites in the urine of drivers, is not associated with an increased accident risk.

Educational or public service campaigns targeting drugged driving behavior should particularly be aimed toward the younger driving population age 16 to 25 – as this group is most likely use cannabis and report having operated a motor vehicle shortly after consuming pot. In addition, this population may have less driving experience, may be more prone to engage in risk-taking behavior, and may be more naïve to pot’s psychoactive effects than older, more experienced populations. This population also reports a greater likelihood for having driven after using cannabis in combination with other illicit drugs or alcohol. Such an educational campaign was recently launched nationwide in Canada by the Canadian Public Health Association and could readily be replicated in the United States. Arguably, such a campaign would enjoy enhanced credibility if coordinated by a private public health association or traffic safety organization, such as the American Public Health Association or the AAA Automobile Club, as opposed to the federal Office of National Drug Control Policy – whose previous public service campaigns have demonstrated limited influence among younger audiences.

Finally, increased efforts should be made within the law enforcement community to train officers and DREs (drug recognition experts) to better identify drivers who may be operating a vehicle while impaired by marijuana. In Australia, efforts have been made to adapt elements of the roadside Standardized Field Sobriety Test to make it sensitive to drivers who may be under the influence of cannabis. Scientific evaluations of these tests have shown that subjects’ performance on the modified SFSTs may be positively associated with dose-related levels of marijuana impairment. Similarly, clinical testing for cannabis impairment among suspected drugged drivers in Norway has been positively associated with identifying drivers with THC/blood concentrations above 3ng/ml.

[gnob]

fj, you need to post less and live more.

you specifically said that the "medical use is a sham"

read your own bull crap posts.

[kneedownnate]

Without reading his post, could he have meant it like stoners abuse a system put into law to help those with legitimate health issues that could be helped by marijuana?

[fj-rankenstein]

sorry..     i didnt mean to imply that medical pot was an outright sham in the sense that its all a lie or something.. just that chronics tend to think that this is some sort of leverage point for them when its an already legally perscribed drug so whats the point in including it with the fight for pot legalization?? is it so they can do this without a perscription??  sounds nice for them but a drug is still a drug and for the most part, when things are free or easy to abuse, self indulgance is abundant. its human nature...there is a reasons why things need to stay illegal..

i am going to back off from this..   a few of you definitelly have your opinions and i definitelly have mine and i dont think we are going to see much common ground here....  i better go "live life" and such. .. doctors orders.  (but not too many...)

[BAMF]

RP-Zuki I appreciate you’re ability to have an earnest discussion involving the subject matter without getting emotional and irrational.  However, points of your argument are flawed, notably your citation of the NHTSA study done in 1992.  In 2007 NHTSA conducted a review with significantly different results.  Here is the full 148 page report if you want some light reading.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/811249.pdf

There are numerous studies that show marijuana negatively affects ones motor skills particularly the ones that affect driving.   An interesting study involving pilots is here http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/bandopubs/cannfly/cannfly.html complete with nice colored graphs for those who don’t like to read.

To summarize in a nutshell, you’re highest level of impairment is directly after smoking (duh) but is still significant 24 hours later.  It is still measureable 48 hours later but at a point that doesn’t drastically impair drivers.

Interestingly, there is also evidence showing that, unlike alcohol, marijuana enhances rather than mitigates the individual’s perception of impairment.  So when you’ve been smokin’ on the wacky grass you might think your wrench turnin’, hammer a’swingin’, back flips are better when in fact you’re ability to judge them is reduced.



I think a lot of the frustration people have with the marijuana use is the efforts to legitimize its legalization under the banner of medicinal.  Whereas there are undisputed instances where marijuana has a legitimate medical benefit, the grand majority of users and proponents to legalization simply enjoy getting high.  There is nothing wrong with this admission; after all it is the primary reason why people drink.  Prop 19 at lest dispelled with the ridiculous sham of medicinal use.  However, prop 19 was flawed, and failed, mostly due to the language in it where it attempted to classify marijuana users as a protected class and therefore untouchable by employers.  That combined with the realization of all the illegitimate growers out there who recognized that it would ultimately put them out of business.

[BAMF]

feel like i am arguing with a 20 year old kid..

:::ahem::: He's 23.

[RP-Zuki]

No problem BAMF. I enjoy debate, and have no emotions tied into this one, so all is good.  

We can go back and forth all day with studies:

Researchers at Hartford Hospital and the University of Iowa have concluded a study of the effects of marijuana usage on driving skill. They found driving while stoned has "little effect" on driving skills

http://www.insideline.com/car-news/study-pot-has-little-effect-on-driving-skills.html
lol I am sure you have just as many.

We can safely say cannabis affects different people differently.

Now, I may not have been clear, but I never said driving while stoned is safe. I simply provided some facts about the dangers it truly has on us, and the technology to allow police the proper amount of information to make decisions. It is not safe, but the dangers aren't as drastic as many were lead to believe.

I think most would agree, that alcohol impairs your motor skills at a far greater rate, for the average user. We tolerate this drug, and make special rules about operating machinery. Why could we not use this same logic and apply it towards a less harmful substance such as cannabis?

Study after study shows teen use will decline with legalization. Adult use will stay about the same. So legal or not, you have the same amount of people using and driving. I simply do not feel with legalization comes more smokers. Portugal is proof, as they have decriminalized all drugs and did not see a huge increase in auto accidents or other.

But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html  ^^ from Time Magazine about decriminalization in Portugal.




Again:
Even if we acknowledge that stopping drug use is a justifiable social goal, how does the financial cost of our war on drugs appear in light of the other challenges we face?

I would never recommend driving under the influence of any drug.

Cannabis has been shown to improve driving ability of people with severe ADD. So it may have it's place, and further research needs to be done. We currently are limited in research, as it's a schedule 1 drug, more dangerous the cocaine, in the governments eyes. Things are not black and white. Cannabis is neither evil, nor good. It just is. Prohibition is a failed social test. Let's get on with it.

[madhunt]

looks like there has been alot of typing going on here, to much for me to read without falling asleep, good luck with this thread

[46&2]

Cannabis has been shown to improve driving ability of people with severe ADD. So it may have it's place, and further research needs to be done. We currently are limited in research, as it's a schedule 1 drug, more dangerous the cocaine, in the governments eyes. Things are not black and white. Cannabis is neither evil, nor good. It just is. Prohibition is a failed social test. Let's get on with it.

There are also studies out of Amsterdam that reported out of drunk, sober, and stoned drivers, the stoned drivers did the best. Its not hard to find, they are pretty recent too I believe.

What exactly is bad about Cannabis? In my eyes the good greatly outweighs the bad.

[BAMF]

Yeah, we probably could go on with this for a good long time.  I'm not arguing against legalization, I personally think it should be legal.  I don't care to use marijuana myself but I don't see what right the government has to tell us what we can and can not do as long as you're harming no one but yourself.  I'm just pointing out that marijuana does negatively affect ones driving ability.  I've tried to make this argument using only independent research and citation.  However, I can tell you I have innumerable first hand experience with drivers who are impaired from marijuana.  Both just driving and in collisions.  As Sparkplug implied with some distain, I am a LEO.  Either way, the argument about impairment is a moot point since it is already illegal (in California at least) to drive while under the influence of marijuana.  As for technologies that police can use to test for marijuana, there are a few out there that would would perfectly fine IF the courts (and DA's) would allow their use.

If we do legalize marijuana there are a few issues that need to be ironed out.

1) What are acceptable levels for driving?
2) What are admissible presumptive tests?
3) Should there be an implied consent similar to alcohol use?

Of course there are even more issues when it comes to the concerns of regulation, taxation, importation, quality, etc.  Another big issue is what the legal age should be?  Should it be 18 like for cigarettes or should it be 21 like for alcohol?

BTW, the argument about how legalization will provide 'revenue' through taxation while reducing the cost of enforcement, prosecution, incarceration, etc. never seems to touch on the real financial impact of the current policy concerning marijuana in California.

Currently marijuana cultivation is limited only to medicinal use for individual persons and for care givers.  Profit is not 'allowed' and the monetary transactions are suppose to be limited to only the cost of production.  This is all just a farce.  The majority of growers are all for profit and have nothing to do with medicinal use.  Even if growers are legitimate and have all of the required permits they always grow far more than they are allowed.  But lets ignore 'legitimate' growers right now.  Let me paint a scenario for you, something I see on a daily basis.

An individual decides to grow marijuana for whatever reason, usually profit.  With very little effort an individual can easily make $50,000-100,000 profit a year.  One does not need a substantial amount of resources to produce such profits either.  A dedicated grower can easily produce this in a two car garage.  Now lets look at the financial impact this has on the state.  First, since you're not 'allowed' to turn a profit in California that $100k is never taxed.  I'm not talking about the sales tax when it's sold in a dispensary or on the street (this is usually the tax revenue used in pro arguments).  I'm talking about the income tax that the state never sees from the grower.  Second, if you are illegally making your living ($100k/year pays you bills) you're no longer working a legitimate job and filling out a W2 for the IRS to take their pretty penny.  Third, since technically you're unemployed (refer back to not filling out the W2 part) you're probably doing one or more of the following:  collecting unemployment, collecting disability, collecting early SSI, section 8 housing, welfare, food stamps, etc.  So the state is getting ripped off by having to payout entitlements while not collecting taxes.  That means the burden of such entitlements falls on the tax payer.  Thats me .  And trust me, I work very hard for my paycheck and I don't like seeing it taken from me only to be doled out to you.  That little bit of angst was directed to no one specifically, just to leaches of the system in general.

[Sparkplug]

Ever single fact i quoted, was from The History Channel documentray, and they are all FACTS, that they explained on the documentary, just last night, november 2010, not 2007. The most research on pot has been done in the last 3-4 years. You did say medical use is a sham, so i called you on it. You are greatly mistaken when you say that other countries have LEGALZIED MARIJUANA and it failed, as i already stated that marijuana is ILLEGAL everywhere in the world, mostly because of the united states influence. It has been DECRIMINALIZED, there is a difference, in case you didnt know. I would like to know what countries you speak of where decriminalization failed, because according to everything I can find online, that is not the case. Maybe you yourself have been to those countries, and seen tons of people smoking dope
? Everyone has their own opinion on the drving part, I dont know what they will do about that. Im sure they will figure something out. And if it were legal, you dont think people would honestly grow it in their garage do u? Maybe for personal use, but not for sale. I mean come on, would you buy some beer I brewed in my garage, or would you go down to the liquor store, and get some that you know has been under quality control? You guys are right, I am 23, maybe that is why I see these views the way I do, Im younger and more open minded, its the older generations, that had the closed minded thinking that lead to prohibntion in the first place. Please I have read all the anti pot things I can find on the internet, and taken them to heart, fully tried to understand, But when you have 10 other studies done that point to it being positive, for every 1 negative study, well, kinda makes me think. So maybe do yourself a favor and watch the documentary I tried to get you to watch, trust me when I say it will open your mind. Unless you think the history channel is a bunch of pot smoking hippies, out to spread lies and get kids hooked on pot


And BAMF for the record, I have nothing at all against LEOS, they have a job to do, that needs to be done. If I break a law, I know I am doing it, and am fully prepared to accept the consequences. Its funny thought, because all the cops and sheriffs in my town, are sick and tired of busting people for pot, they hate that it is illegal. They feel the same way you do about freedom of choice. I dont want a worldf where everyone and thier mom smokes pot, walking down the street. What i want is for it to be a choice, that i can make for myself, if I want to use a substance that makes me happy, and doesnt affect anyone else whatsoever. You say people crash under influence of marijuana, well there all always gonna be duis, regardless of legality. All I can say is every pot dui I have personally seen in my town, has been thrown out of court. Too much gray area. I personally think the age should be 18, as I believe if you are old enough to fight and die for your country, then you are old enough to enjoy your countrys recreation. People may feel differently, but this is just my opinion, those can be argued, You CANNOT argue cold hard facts that have proven it works to tax, works to lower crime, and has medical benefits, these have all been PROVEN.

And to call marijuana a gateway drug, is to go against your federal govt that made it illegal in the first place. Being it is a schedule 1 drug, and meth and cocaine are schedule 2, So this means the fed govt calls it a gateway drug, to less harmful drugs, how the hell does this make sense?

[twistedtoy92]

IMO legalizing would be a good thing as far as making money off of it, such as the taxes, offering more jobs involving growing etc. It seems to me that most people that do partake in illegal usage of substances enjoy the thrill of it being illegal more than the high itself- "OMG I cant believe we are getting away with this!" I have also witnessed marijuana make people quicker, smarter, and much more creative. BUT I have also seen it do just the opposite and cause other non users problems who have to be subjected to their idiocy.... Though I would much rather ride with a stoner than with a drunk individual ANY DAY.  What it all comes down to is money, thats the bottom line! Alcohol kills a lot of people and ruins a lot of lives, as do many many over the counter and prescription drugs do.... It will one day be legal, and until then they will continue to waste millions of our tax dollars fighting it when in fact we could be reaping the benefits to potentially bring this country closer to being out of debt(like that will EVER happen though). Those are my thoughts on the matter. so have a beer, its legal 

[kneedownnate]

So this means the fed govt calls it a gateway drug, to less harmful drugs, how the hell does this make sense?

  did you just ask how it makes sense if it involves the government?  Like they never contradict themselves... all the time

[Sparkplug]

A lil humor for the discussion to lighten it up a lil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HM-SumuKIk

[Rocksurfer]

Without reading the entire thread I think there is one very minor detail missed to all of this even if it had passed, this is not a states issue there is a federal law that will trump anything including the medical issue. The medical users should be happy that this proposition did not pass for the feds had already said that they were going to step in and prosecute any and all violators. Plus I'm sure there was a lawsuit ready and waiting.

[gnob]

the feds have weed illegal because there really isnt going to be an effective way for them to produce, sell and CONTROL it.

pretty much all the defense the FED uses to justify it continuing to be illegal is just typical gov't runaround.

the FED wants to continue being the king DEALER.

if every tom richard and harry can grow, its money coming out of the dealers pocket.

i personally would not really be interested in purchasing Mary from the store.  look what the FED did to tobacco, or what they let be done to tobacco.

the feds coming out and saying they were going to come to cali and fight the law is just plain ignorant of them.
do you think it wouldnt piss off people in cali that the fed is wasting money fighting something they just voted for?

until they get the bible out of the white house the states are going to be the ones breaking ground.
they need to get everyone over 55 OUT of office.  old people are clueless about reality, considering you have to leave your house to experience it.

[46&2]

the feds have weed illegal because there really isnt going to be an effective way for them to produce, sell and CONTROL it.

pretty much all the defense the FED uses to justify it continuing to be illegal is just typical gov't runaround.

the FED wants to continue being the king DEALER.

if every tom richard and harry can grow, its money coming out of the dealers pocket.

i personally would not really be interested in purchasing Mary from the store.  look what the FED did to tobacco, or what they let be done to tobacco.

the feds coming out and saying they were going to come to cali and fight the law is just plain ignorant of them.
do you think it wouldnt piss off people in cali that the fed is wasting money fighting something they just voted for?

until they get the bible out of the white house the states are going to be the ones breaking ground.
they need to get everyone over 55 OUT of office.  old people are clueless about reality, considering you have to leave your house to experience it.

Yup. War on Drugs, mainly Cannabis is how they fund all their other wars.

[jrock]

Naw, you guys are just paranoid The fed gov has no interest in making money on drugs 

[fade]

Smoke it, eat it, drink it, shove it up your corn hole for all I care. If your over 18 and you can die for our country in war, you should be able to have a lil fun. Hell the way it is set up right now your 17th birthday you can sign up for the army with parents concent, go to basic a week later, then ait, and be in iraq with a bullet in your head before 18. So you can die to protect the people who voted against it but can not legally buy a lottery ticket or a playboy. Hmmm... America kinda is assbackwards.