Nick, an SCVTalk reader, has a great read on the issue:
Recently, Field Poll released new results on California’s November ballot measures. One of most attention-grabbing findings was the trending support for Proposition 19- the marijuana legalization prop. Among likely California voters, Field Poll suggests that 49% support the prop while 42% are opposed.
Other pollsters, including SurveyUSA and PPP, agree that supporters of the prop might have something to celebrate this November. Moreover, Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight thinks there could be a ‘reverse-Bradley effect’ taking place and that under certain polling conditions, black and Latino voters are less inclined to indicate their support for Prop 19- meaning that certain polls may have actually understated the prop’s support.
It seems, with the election just a little over a month away, it might be time to consider what, if anything, will happen should Prop 19 pass.
The proposition itself does two major things: (1) it allows Californians (21 and older) to possess, use, and cultivate up to an ounce of marijuana (under certain restrictions) and; (2) it allows local governments to authorize the retail sale of marijuana and collect taxes on those sales.
Of course, Prop 215- The Compassionate Use Act of 1996- already establishes similar rights for patients who use medical marijuana in all of California’s 58 counties. Prop 19 is different though. It would ostensibly allow cities and counties to ‘opt-out’ of regulating or taxing marijuana. In other words, little would probably change in Orange County while cannabis retailers might crop up all over Oakland. Whatever local governments might choose to do about retail marijuana, individuals 21 and over would still be able to grow and consume marijuana in their home.
To all this, add a wildcard. The US Department of Justice recently intervened in Arizona after SB 1070, the controversial ‘immigration’ bill, was deemed incongruous with federal law. Enter marijuana. Cannabis is a Schedule I controlled substance and illegal to cultivate, use or possess under federal law. This begs the question: would Prop 19, if passed, be subject to similar federal intervention? Many observers on both sides of the cannabis issue think so.
If Prop 19 does pass and the DOJ does intervene, it’s unclear if any local governments would move forward with allowing local pot retailers while the legal battle plays out. What’s also unclear is whether or not individuals across the state would begin to exercise their new rights to grow marijuana in their homes.
And those are only the major legal issues. Supporters and opponents of the proposition each point to dozens of beneficial or detrimental effects Prop 19 could produce. Some supporters argue passing Prop 19 would improve California’s economy and bankrupt cartels south of the border. Opponents say Prop 19 would lead to greater drug addiction and endanger schoolchildren.
The only thing that we can really be confident about at this point is that if Prop 19 passes in November it will be the beginning and not the end of the discussion.
Jeff’s note: I think the other thing we can be confident about is that if Prop 19 passes, Santa Clarita will definitely not allow local pot retailers. Thanks to Nick for the great analysis.
Loading ...
I think people are going to be stunned at the vote on this one. BTW, I’ll be Orange County beats down Oakland for most tokers. They just won’t admit it.
I picked out Oakland because they’ve been the first to OK the “big box” cannabis operations. It was actually San Bernardino and San Diego counties that resisted Prop 215 back in the day. Still, the OC is an easy go-to for examples of conservative California areas.
I thought with the City’s “business friendly” approach they’d welcome the retailers and take advantage of all that sales tax revenue!
Several issues, future Federal Administrations, can decide to make drug laws a priority. Also, even if SCV bans pot shops, people can still go to LA or even the unincorporated areas, buy it (good-bye tax revenue) and then bring it to their domicile within the city…All I know, is if this prop passes, Im buy an ice cream truck and a taco truck and parking in front of these locations!
Let’s compare the little supported ‘war on drugs’ with a problem which has widespread support, the elimination of dandelions.
It is apparent that even with most of the country behind erradicating this pesky weed, it just keeps coming back. Of course gardeners and homeowners continue to spend millions in an attempt at control.
We can see that even with widespread support, a weed cannot be beaten regardless of the amount of money thrown at it.
Now marijuana has been around for thousands of years as a popular, relatively harmless recreational drug which enjoys widespread support and use. Any educated person will tell you that the government lies when spreading fear over pot. There are too many first hand counters to the misleading statements.
Cheech and Chong joke about weed, not heroin. One is funny, the other not.
It’s time to end the futility of this expensive gang funding war and legalize. We can use the biomass for ethanol and paper while enjoying the buds.
What would the founders say? They said you WILL grow hemp!
See? It’s even patriotic!
A note on the comparison with Arizona’s SB1070. SB1070 interfered with an exclusively federal authority–the right to regulate immigration. The constitutional problem with that bill (besides it’s likely racially discriminatory effect) was that states simply don’t have any authority under the Constitution to regulate that issue.
Marijuana is different. It’s actually the federal government’s authority that is shaky in this area. It can only regulate it under the interstate commerce clause, as marijuana can and does (even if not all of it) move across state lines. But regulation of such things also falls within a state’s purview, under its general police power to regulate for the health, safety and welfare of the public. So this is an area of overlapping jurisdiction, rather than exclusive federal jurisdiction.
So the federal government could not directly challenge Prop 215 if it passes. But it could use its own regulatory power to undermine it–charging anyone who tries to grow marijuana under California law with violations of federal law. The fairly recent Supreme Court case, Gonzales v. Raich directly addressed this issue and upheld the federal government’s power to regulate marijuana even when states allowed (medical) marijuana use.
That said, I still hope y’all pass this. Whatever one thinks of pot smoking (I’m a non-smoker myself), our drug laws are causing more harm than good, destabilizing other countries, funneling money to terrorists, undermining our constitutional rights, increasing the costs of our criminal justice system, and causing the militarization of our police forces. It’s madness, that somehow is supposed to save our children from something that tens of millions of people have already successfully survived without serious harm.
Hoosier- thank you for elaborating on the state/federal dynamic. It’ll be interesting to see how things play out.
I didn’t mention it but several (like a dozen or so) ex-DEA directors have petitioned Eric Holder to sue California if Prop 19 passes. I’m not sure what kind of weight that carries but it’s interesting nonetheless.
Nick,
It could carry some political weight, but I don’t really see solid legal grounds for a lawsuit. (Then again, I am not a lawyer; however I did study Constitutional Law enough in grad school to have a fair, if not perfect, grasp of these things.)
I’m not surprised, though. DEA chiefs really seem to buy into the war on drugs rhetoric. I suppose it’s a combination of the selection process, which would most often weed out anyone who doesn’t buy into the rhetoric, and then having that world view reinforced daily in your job.
I haven’t read up on the expected rationale, but I would guess that the Federal Government would go after the state’s new regulatory scheme. I think it would be easier if the state just legalized it outright – wiped the laws off the books.
Well, I guess we may all have to get used to the smell of pot in the morning. Next we can legalize prostitution in California to help balance the books.
Why Cash? Do you plan on smoking pot in the morning?
We may all? Please define this. It seems like an extremist viewpoint meant to elicit some sort of fear response. In reality it’s crap.
Try some truth!
The legal prostitution in Pahrump Nevada does a world of good for the local economy. 2 consenting adults…who’s hurt?
It is difficult enough to not have contend with the smell of cigarette smoke and its health effects, with the passing of 19, pot smoke would be added to the environment. Currently, pot smoking is done behind closed doors, and in most cases out of the public eye. Having pot smoking creep into the mainstream of life is problematic. How does the law protect against unwanted contact highs? Maybe you can help me out. Thinking prop 19 is a good idea is the extreme view Brian.
Pity you have to share the planet with others, huh?
Tell me how more liquor stores is keeping us safe from drunk drivers.
So in Cash’s world, we are all smoking pot around you. Me thinkst you are already high since that scenario would also be banned, like cigarettes, which ARE legal. Go figure that!
Cash you make excellent points. It is the wrong law that sets a very poor example and will infringe on other people’s rights.
Infringes on other people’s rights? That’s a new one.
by the way…
(c) “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this act shall permit, cannabis:
…
(2) Consumption in public or in a public place.
I have seen too much destruction from DUI drivers in my life. There is absolutely no way anyone can prove to me that this new law would not add to these statistics.
Do you have any statistics on traffic deaths related to marijuana, right now?
I am definitely with Cash and Samuel Adams on this. It’s bad enough out there with drunk drivers and teen age drivers… we certainly don’t need more pot heads behind the wheel. But I have to say, it’s not one bit surprising to me that the majority of scvtalk regulars (30ish crowd) favor this proposition.
Do you have any solid factual evidence that legalization would lead to more DUIs?
Consider for just a second what the penalties are for driving under the influence and that argument goes away.
As for teenage drivers, let’s see. TEENS!
This is for adults! What happened to the ‘less government’ mantra.
Brian… just stating my opinion here. In my life time I have seen what mary jane does to diminish responsibility and impair ambition and I don’t want to see it legalized. I will vote no.
I have seen the same with alcohol.
Shall we bring back prohibition?
I respect your choice but wish it was made on a better footing. We are spending billions of dollars and destroying more lives keeping up the pretense of illegality than if we just legalized. BTW, this is for adults. The kids can get whatever they want while grown-ups have lost the access.
Jailed for weed. Will you support increased taxes to sustain this lost ‘war’?
Brian, sorry Dood, but I am voting NO and every adult that I know, and believe me, I have many contacts, is voting NO. Legalizing marijuana is a terrible idea for our society.
Billz got mad contactz, ya heard!
Try making sense, Fung Gang.
I don’t see any statistics to back the hyperbole.
Got stats?
Are you making this up as you go along to elicit yet more fear?
Less Liberty is good thing… right Mr. Teabagger?
Look… I realize that you pot smokin’ youngsters want it legalized. Sorry, but I have a different view. I will Vote No and I do not have to explain my vote to anyone….
And if we’re older non pot smokers?
Then, GROW UP!
I wish I could grow pots cause I always end up spending too much on All-Clad, Le Creuset and the occasional standard cast-iron pot. Wife gets really pissed with me.
I can’t imagine how you would go about it in the first place? What (?)…do you plant a handle from an old one? Or just bury ….
What? Oh “POT,” like … marijuana …. Oh … hmmm.
Never mind.
(PS-My sister had a teacher at her Catholic HS named Sister Mary Juana … true story.)
I saw a National Geographic report that stated 68% of Mexico’s drug cartel revenue comes from marijuana. SIXTY EIGHT PERCENT! It stated also that pot is the major source of violence stemming from those cartels as well. This is pot we’re talking about causing the majority of cartel funding and violence, not heroin or cocaine…but good old reefer.
It would seem to me that if we can take a chunk out of their business by legalizing it on this side, there’s a win-win aspect in that we ‘grow’ our own tax revenue while reducing the effectiveness and organization of those cartels who are the ones providing the smokers with the ‘good sh*t’ anyway.
I think we should legalize selling of pot by illeal alien prostitutes.
LOL
You people make everything so complicated. You need to light up.
Re: Jeff’s note: I think the other thing we can be confident about is that if Prop 19 passes, Santa Clarita will definitely not allow local pot retailers.
Does the city really think that a sales outlet in the industrial park will bring down Awesometown? Such blind ignorance.
Who do you think has the access to marijuana now? Check the kids of Santa Clarita’s elite! They have the best and oh yeah, it’s illegal.
Bill Hicks and I share the same viewpoint on these matters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFHU1X1PED4
@3:37 is for Bill, Cash, etc….
Yeah that’s it, lets have faith of “hope” and join with an idiot comedian for our our beliefs and our vote. Fung Gang, how old are you?
Hicks and I share a view on why some drugs are legal and some aren’t. When I saw him do this routine, it was almost everything I believed on the subject encapsulated in comedic form. Maybe you can find a similar situation in your life, perhaps with Jeff Foxworthy, Larry The Cable Guy, or another pillar of intelligence?
Old enough to know when a man is craving a slice of me, you sweet thang you. Stop buttering me up, I’m starting to blush over here.
Oh… I should have realized you were just 13 years old. At least you’re acting your age. Grow up, Fung Gang.
Americans should be able to put whatever they want to in their body.
Voting no on 19 makes you a communist, Bill!
Yeah right, Dame Genie. Such brilliance ya moron.
I guess Ron Paul is a Moron.
Bill R = Liberty Hating Commie
Dame Genie =
Irrational Liberal
Give us a kiss, sweet soldier! Just a peck, no one will see…..
You’re waisted…
I spent a few summers working in Yellowstone National Park, where every summer thousands of seasonal employees, the great majority of them in the 19-25 year old range are brought in. My brother worked there year ’round for about 15 years. I’m a light drinker and non-pot smoker and my brother neither drinks nor smokes pot.
We have agreed that in our experience, alcohol is far more damaging than pot. Nearly all of the major disciplinary problems stem from alcohol consumption–the fights, the vandalism, and the sexual assaults particularly. These things never result from the use of marijuana.
My brother is a strict teetotaler, but as a manager he much preferred to manage pot-smokers than drinkers. Having smoked pot a couple times in my youth–unlike Prez. Clinton, I did inhale, but I didn’t like its effect so I quit trying it–as well as having engaged in binge-drinking a few times in my youth, and having worked with both types of people, I find pot-smokers far less damaging to society than heavy drinkers (even though, were pot legalized, I would remain a drinker and not a pot smoker myself).
Of course driving under the influence of intoxicants will still be penalized, so from a public policy perspective that’s not really the issue. Nothing would change on that count.
Does anyone know how this initiative would affect the employee and employer relationships? For example, would an employer still be able to test for the ganja in their drug screenings?
I would also like to know, how are the standards for field sobriety going to be set. right now its .08 BAC. How will they test for DUI for pot?
BTW, i am voting yes. I would like to see the Mexican drug cartels implode.
Actually DUI offenders are written up for two infractions:
VC 23152A: It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.
VC 23152B: It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.
It is technically against the law to drive while impaired, period. BAC tests do test for pot and other controlled substances, and people are convicted under current DUI laws for pot.
On that note, the current medical marijuana cultivation laws are already cutting into the pot cartels albeit marginally. The US has spent trillions of dollars in our disastrous 40 year drug war that has netted no downturn in drug use or illegal cultivation or smuggling. For the morality police out there, studies going as far back as the one Mayor La Guardia of New York (Known as The La Guardia Committee Report: The Marihuana Problem in the City of New York) conducted by the New York Academy of Medicine in the 40s to counter the false claims sensationalized by then prohibition officer Harry Anslinger drew some fascinating conclusions:
The practice of smoking marihuana does not lead to addiction in the medical sense of the word.
The use of marihuana does not lead to morphine or heroin or cocaine addiction and no effort is made to create a market for these narcotics by stimulating the practice of marihuana smoking.
Marihuana is not the determining factor in the commission of major crimes.
(PS: Yes, the spelled pot with an “H” back then!)
The full report is here for you history buffs: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/lag/lagmenu.htm
It is time to take a more realistic approach to this issue. In my view the pluses outweigh the minuses in that you put criminal pot dealers out of business, you take away the sting from the Mexican drug cartels, which possibly alleviates at least some of our illegal immigration issues, and better regulation and taxes can lead to better enforcement. And if we educate our children on the LEGAL use of drugs like we educate them on alcohol, cigarettes and gambling, I don’t see it as having any more of a damaging effect on society than we already face with our insincere moral approach to the problem. As a matter of fact, it might be a big relief that we can focus on other more dangerous social problems plaguing our society.
Legalizing it will cut out the drug cartels. For proof, just look at the norcal counties that claim they will go bankrupt if they can’t grow the now-illegal weed. How much more damage will it do the the organized crime sources south of the border?
I say, bring on the weed, fight crime, strengthen our borders, make “Made in the USA” mean something again! Yay, America!
Why is marijuana a class 1 drug? Why is it even illegal?
Greed and racism. It has nothing to do with its pharmacology.
http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/
Excerpt: You’ll also see that the history of marijuana’s criminalization is filled with:
Racism
Fear
Protection of Corporate Profits
Yellow Journalism
Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators
Personal Career Advancement and Greed
Let’s discuss this honestly and with the facts. Please read the link.
Marijuana is a gateway drug and should not be legalized. I see every day the heartbreaking consequences of someone who started by smoking pot, moved on to other illegal drugs, and wound up permanently disabled as a direct result of drug use. There is nothing you can say to me that will ever change my mind. I will vote against legalizing marijuana.
The argument that legalizing this drug will lessen the drug cartel problems is a myth. Those folks will simply move on to the next drug du jour.
Legalizing alcohol did not change the organized crime problems here in the USA either it simply refocused them into gambling, prostitution, and other areas.
I am in favor of stricter control on another drug, alcohol, and much stronger penalties even for a first offense DUI. Because you jerks want to be irresponsible and enjoy your “high”, innocent people pay with their lives.
NO to legalizing marijuana!
You have it backwards. Keeping it illegal means they have to get it from the illegal sources, who want to move the potheads to something with more kick, something with more PROFIT margin in it. So they offer crack, smack, whatever they have that’s far worse than pot.
Make it legal, and they never get exposed to what we called “pushers” in the ’60s and ’70s.
Legalizing weed will LOWER drug addition among our youth, not raise it!
But that’s too logical for the “just say no” non-thinkers out there.
Fine with me if organized crime moves away from pot to prostitution and gambling. I don’t go for gambling or hookers, so my life just got safer and cleaner!
Bertha,
Decades ago, people stopped using the ‘gateway drug’ argument as it confuses correlation and causation.
Once again facts, statistics, and conclusive studies have no bearing on Berta’s version of reality as she swoops in on her moral high horse to stomp on everyone else’s opinion with her non-facts and visions of her new world order.
@YWG I understand better every day why I so frequently disagree with you and others in your altered state of mind. So you are entitled to your opinion but I am not?
It is MY opinion that marijuana is detrimental to its users and society as a whole based upon my observations. Your particular advocacy for its use and legalization is simply one more verification of the negative opinion I have of habitual marijuana users.
Your opinion does not create facts Berta.
Your entire argument is debunked by the reasons this was made illegal.
Like religion, people just accept what was done before they were born often without question.
Perhaps you should question why before denying others their freedoms.
Have a shot Berta, you seem to need it!
@Brian your supposed facts do not change what I have witnessed with my own eyes over a period of many years.
I was a teenager during the Vietnam War and have two brothers one of whom served honorably during the war. Most of my older brother’s friends from Vietnam smoked MJ and none of them went on to have normal productive lives due to their continued drug use. My older brother who did not use drugs came back from the war more mature and cynical but able to have a successful and productive life without drugs. He became disabled a few years ago with Multiple Sclerosis, which is not related to his military service. He is legally eligible to get marijuana for pain and refuses based on what he has observed has happened to his buddies. He would rather deal with the pain than become an addict.
My younger brother who did not serve in the military but used MJ, went on to use other drugs and made different choices. He is permanently disabled because of his drug use so I personally see the results of someone who started off smoking dope every day of my life.
Additionally, my son served in Iraq with friends who continue to smoke dope. He does not. It is called “dope” for a reason. The differences in their successful or unsuccessful reintegration into society upon return are painfully obvious.
Addiction to drugs and/or alcohol destroys lives. Marijuana is a gateway drug.
You can believe whatever you want, make all the nasty comments you choose, I will not back down from my position.
NO matter what you say on this one, Berta Bum, you are dead wrong. We all know you won’t back down from your position, because that would be admitting you have been wrong all of your life.
And for the record, the myth of marijuana as a “gateway drug” is as dated and as wrong as racially separated drinking fountains. The few drug addicts I have known either hated or never even tried smoking weed. I myself can’t stand it either, but I’m not ignorant and stubborn enough to ignore the truth. However uncomfortable it makes my past beliefs.
“You can stop your little internal dialogue, shut the f**k up, you are WRONG” – Bill Hicks
@Gang Fang unlike you, I believe you have every right to have and voice your opinion even when you are wrong.
As I have said many times before, I rely on my own independent research and observations.
Clipboard or it didn’t happen.
Yeah, and my mother was an alcoholic. What’s your point?
Ban alcohol?
I prefer personal choice, not YOUR choice!
@Brian I prefer less drug addicts to have to deal with and support as a taxpayer.
I am truly sorry your mother was an alcoholic. I am sure that fact must have caused you both much suffering. Two wrongs do not make a right…
So all drug use is drug abuse in your opinion?
We’re done here.
@Brian all abusers of any drugs including alcohol, legal or illegal, are a problem for a civilized society. That is precisely the reason there are currently laws regulating whom and under what conditions drugs can be procured. Are there abuses with legal drugs, sure. Making even more drugs legal will not resolve that problem or any other that I can see.
You are right about one thing though, we are done here.
That’s the same as saying that every drinker is an alcoholic.
Quite a stretch!
Berta, you are entirely entitled to your opinion. The issue is that you occasionally phrase your opinions as the only correct ones to the detriment of all else and they come off as attacks.
I’m all for open, intellectual discourse even from an adversarial point of view, but take another look at your response. You simply discounted and ridiculed other arguments that included cited sources and drew your own conclusions without any references other than your own point of view.
You don’t have to agree with anything anyone else says, but when your caustic remarks come off as trying to make us look stupid, perhaps we get a little hot under the collar and don’t take your comments very seriously.
Your assumption that we’re all stoned, especially me, offends me greatly. How dare you make such a narrow minded, conceited assumption when you don’t know a damn thing about me.! Some of us actually make our decisions and opinions based on education and research. It would be an incredible surprise to see you start to do the same.
Using the reasoning (I use that term loosely) seen here, and with the obvious causal link between living in a Republican bastion like the SCV and our high (pun intended) rates of pot use, I say we get at the root cause of the pot problem, and get rid of all the Republicans!
Beer comes out nose!
“Now that’s funny!” Tery Bradshaw
Good Luck…
@YWG I am not responsible for how you take my comments. If you feel my comments are not phrased to your liking, well you are entitled to your opinion. I try to state my opinion as clearly as I can, usually with background information, and that is all I can do. That you obviously do not like my writing style is fine. I do not like yours either and rarely agree with anything you say.
You do not seem to have a problem saying offensive things to me like “How dare you make such a narrow minded, conceited assumption when you don’t know a damn thing about me.! Some of us actually make our decisions and opinions based on education and research. It would be an incredible surprise to see you start to do the same.”
I know all that I want to know about you. My “assumption” is based on your own comments. As I have said before for a “guru”, you are not very enlightened.
I happen to do a great deal of research on this and many other topics but as I have said repeatedly on this topic, I am thoroughly educated. You disagree and I am fine with that. You can belittle and insult me all you like and it will not change a thing. I believe making marijuana legal is a bad idea. You do not have to agree. I do not think we have anything further to discuss.
Oh I see how it goes, Berta. You come in with your elitist morality and assassinate the character of anyone who disagrees with you, then try to claim your brilliance on the topic without providing ONE SHRED of documented evidence to back up your claims which, by the way, sound like you got them out of an old 1930′s FBI comic book.
Rather than display any bit of humanity and accept that you try to demonize and belittle OUR comments by calling us all potheads, you carry on like a cornered victim and lash out because you know you have absolutely nothing to back up your “facts.” If you were merely making an opinion that you are against the legalization, I can respect that. But your ill-conceived comments render the allusion of statements of fact when they actually aren’t. Then you cover them up by attacking us. You make generalizations about all marijuana users that are absolutely baseless, and then wonder why we’re calling you on it?
As for your making assumptions based on my comments, all I did was cite actual studies and examples of one side of the debate. Never once did I promote the use of pot, all I did was make statements as to whether it should be legal. Hey, I don’t smoke, gamble, or drink alcohol either, nor do I actively promote their use, but I support the right for other legal adults to under the law.
But you’re right, we have nothing further to discuss. I’d have better luck having an intellectual conversation with a pot leaf.
@YWG you would have to have good character in the first place in order for me to try and “assassinate” it. You say, “If you were merely making an opinion that you are against the legalization, I can respect that.” So far, I have not seen any willingness on your part to hear my opinion on this subject nor do you respect anything I have ever said on any subject. I guess that also makes you a liar.
For my shred of “evidence”, did you want me to bring you my two brothers, all of their military and civilian friends who smoke weed, my son, his military and civilian friends who smoke weed or what? You really are an ass. I openly talk about my PERSONAL EXPERIENCES and why I feel legalizing marijuana would be a huge mistake, and you want documentation? Really??? So, you are going to follow me around for a few days. OK.
You go on to say “Never once did I promote the use of pot, all I did was make statements as to whether it should be legal.” So let me make sure I am getting this right, you are making statements marijuana should be legal but not that anyone should buy it or use it. If no one were supposed to buy it or use it, why would it need to be legalized? PULEEZ…
You do not make any sense. Perhaps you should go talk to your pot leaf and continue to quote your statistics. I will continue to live my everyday life…
Me thinks Berta may of had an unwanted pregnancy or two, and the aphrodisiac that was behind the fornication was weed? Kind of a fun PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, doncha think?
Berta,
Just because most heroin users started with marijuana doesn’t meant marijuana leads to heroin use. That’s the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. People who are very likely to become addicts are going to end up doing drugs, regardless of whether they’re legal or not. But most people aren’t going to become addicts, and marijuana isn’t addictive. So making marijuana legal isn’t going to increase the rates of hard-core drug addiction substantially.
And you have to keep in mind the costs of drug prohibition. It’s not a free thing with no downsides. So you have to consider the benefits and the costs of marijuana ;prohibition. You’re only considering the benefits. It’s like looking at how nice a car is, but not paying attention to the price tag.
@Hoosier people being able to achieve their full potential and not inflicting unnecessary suffering because of their drug use on themselves and those who love them is more important to me than money.
We will have to agree to disagree on this topic.
We all started on mother’s milk. Using this logic, it must cause all evil in the world!
Correlation and causation are not the same thing. This link has been debunked by all manner of professionals for decades. But the myth persists.
Here here!
@Gang Fang a far more likely scenario is that your mother conceived you after getting stoned on weed and found herself in a predicament. That would explain some of your insecurity issues and hatred of women.
I raised my children with lots of love and attention, and a good measure of discipline too. They always understood they are responsible for their actions and choices in life.
I am very blessed that they are terrific human beings who are intelligent, fair, honest, hard working, and involved loving parents. They are both bringing their children up to respect the same values that I instilled in them.
I do not take credit for the adults they are. I provided the foundation, but we all make our individual choice to be who we are. I am very proud of both of them.
No child of mine would ever have been unwanted. Not even you…
Berta G., I know you understand this, but you cannot reason with pot heads and irrational liberals, of which there are many on this site.
This should generate many more comments. Ha!
You seem to display your ignorance at every turn.
You never have used marijuana yet you’re an expert.
Excuse me, but F*** Y**!
Your ignorance is astounding. I bet you believe in religion though! More crap from preceeding generations.
Less Government my ass!
I think it’s harder reasoning with racists such as yourself.
Don’t tread on me Bilbo Bigots.
Brian, Brian, Brian… too bad that you don’t have a clue… get a grip, sonny.
Are Berta & Bill doing the vertical joyride?
@Gang Fang you are so full of hatred.
I do not know Bill Reynolds personally but wonder what business it is of yours who either one of us spend time with. Are you lonely on yet another Saturday night with no one willing to put up with your nastiness? Are you jealous little fangster? Of me or of Bill? Hum…
I do not think you are just wasted most of the time, I think you are a waste of time, humanity, energy, ink, etc. What a pity…
You are wasted…
Clinical studies show a higher correlation between tobacco acting as a gateway drug, along the order of the 41% of teens who smoke cigarettes, 57 % of them will try alcohol, only 10% marijuana.
http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwche/Cigarette%20Smoking.pdf
Being under the influence of anything while driving, including prescribed and over the counter medictions, is illegal.
Personal, non anecdotal stories do not outweigh the researched benefits of legalization, including freeing up much needed law enforcement resources for more pressing problems, like methamphetamine, a true scourge.
Those who speak out against marijuana, shouldn’t alcohol and tobacco be made illegal? Or isn’t it our right to get cirrhosis and lung cancer?