Marijauna Legalization on California Ballot
From The AP
So far, the most outspoken groups on the issue are those affiliated with California's legal medical marijuana industry and law enforcement officials who vehemently oppose any loosening of drug laws.
But the campaign that unfolds before the November election could yield some unusual allies: free-market libertarians joining police officers frustrated by the drug war to support the measure, and pot growers worried about falling prices pairing with Democratic politicians to oppose it.
Others believe legalizing and taxing the drug could improve the state's flagging economy.
"We spend so much time, our police do, chasing around these nonviolent drug offenders, we don't have time anymore to protect our people from murders and child molesters," said Jack Cole, president of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, a group that plans to champion the California proposal between now and the election.
The initiative, also known as the "Tax Cannabis Act," received enough signatures this week to qualify for the November ballot. If it is approved, California would become the first state to legalize marijuana for recreational use by adults. The measure would also give local governments the authority to regulate and tax pot sales.
According to campaign finance records, nearly all of the more than $1.3 million spent on the campaign to qualify the question for the ballot came from businesses controlled by the proposal's main backer, Oakland medical marijuana entrepreneur Richard Lee.
Lee operates a medical marijuana dispensary and cafe in downtown Oakland and is the founder of Oaksterdam University, which trains people to run their own medical marijuana businesses. According to the school, more than 5,000 students have completed their programs.
The largest donations from an individual not connected to the marijuana business came from George Zimmer, founder and chief executive of the men's clothing chain Men's Wearhouse.
Television viewers know Zimmer as the Fremont-based company's longtime pitchman in commercials. But he is also known as a longtime supporter of efforts to liberalize the nation's drug laws.
Opponents contend that the legalization effort will pit a few wealthy individuals against regular Californians who will provide the groundswell needed to defeat the measure.
"You have rich dilettantes who want to legalize drugs and ordinary people who consider the ramifications of legalization on their communities and their families," said John Lovell, a lobbyist representing several law enforcement groups opposed to the initiative.
Lovell pointed to the lopsided defeat of a 2008 ballot issue that would have pushed treatment instead of prison for drug offenders as a sign of voters' leanings. Supporters of the measure heavily outspent opponents, but it was defeated 59 to 41 percent.
The anti-legalization campaign has not reported any contributions yet, but workers are reviewing what they believe are major flaws with the ballot initiative. They say the proposed law would allow pot to be grown in public parks and fail to prevent people with prior drug convictions from selling pot.
Meanwhile, some well-known liberals have come out against it, including the state's presumptive Democratic nominee for governor, Attorney General Jerry Brown.
Brown, who was seen in the 1970s as an icon of California's counterculture, told the San Francisco Chronicle earlier this month that he was "not going to jump on the legalization bandwagon."
"We're going to get a vote of the people soon on that, but I'm not going to support it," he said.
Legalized marijuana in California, the nation's most populous state, would represent a sea change in the nation's drug laws and put the state in direct conflict with the federal government because pot is still illegal in the eyes of federal officials.
On Thursday, a Department of Justice spokeswoman said it was too soon to speculate on whether federal authorities would sue to keep the measure from becoming law.
The administration relaxed its prosecution guidelines for medical marijuana last year, but President Barack Obama's drug czar has said the White House strongly opposes any efforts to legalize pot.
"Marijuana legalization, for any purpose, remains a non-starter in the Obama administration," Gil Kerlikowske, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, said last year. "It is not something that the president and I discuss. It isn't even on the agenda."
California in 1996 became the first of the 14 states that have legalized medicinal marijuana. Many jurisdictions around the country have also decriminalized marijuana to the point that low-level possession offenses are not prosecuted.
States such as California and Colorado have also been struggling to deal with an explosion in the number of medical marijuana dispensaries in recent years, a trend that has made pot readily available to the public.
A decision by California to legalize pot could lend momentum to the entire legalization movement, just like its historic 1996 law did for medical marijuana.
Legislators in Rhode Island are considering a plan to decriminalize pot, and a group in Nevada is pushing an initiative that marks the state's fourth attempt in a decade to legalize the drug.
Lawmakers in Washington state recently killed a plan to legalize the sale and use of marijuana, though lawmakers there did expand the pool of medical professionals who could prescribe the drug for medicinal use.
The ballot measure in California would allow people 21 years and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana, enough for dozens of joints. Residents also could grow their own crop of the plant in gardens measuring up to 25 square feet.
The proposal would ban users from using marijuana in public or smoking it while minors are present. It also would make it illegal to possess the drug on school grounds or drive while under its influence.
Proponents of the measure say legalizing marijuana could save the state $200 million a year by reducing public safety costs. At the same time, it could generate tax revenue for local governments.
Law enforcement officials are promising a vigorous fight to ensure that marijuana never becomes legal in California. They believe legalized marijuana would increase crime and violence, deepen the nation's drug culture and lead teenagers to abuse pot.
The California Police Chiefs Association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and groups such as the youth-oriented Drug Abuse Resistance Education also plan to oppose the idea.
Not everyone in law enforcement is opposed to the measure, however.
"We believe by voting for that initiative you can actually save lives," Cole said.
If California approves this, I'd almost be willing to take back all my nasty comments about the state, including wishing for it to be buried beneath the waves. My home state of Washington recently killed a number of bills in the legislature that would have accomplished the same thing, but we didn't put it to a popular vote. On another local interest note, drug czar Gil Kerlikowske is my former police chief, his autograph graces my concealed weapons permit, while his predecessor as Seattle's police chief Norm Stamper is a vocal member of LEAP, the anit-prohibition group made up of current and former law enforcement officers. Just sort of a funny coincidence I suppose.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Last edited by Dox47 on 25 Mar 2010, 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
Hey, I just thought of another side benefit; if all the Californians are stoned, they might give the NIMBY stuff a break and forget to ruin their own economy! Man, this bill just gets better the more I think about it.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
I was 14 when being a Calfornia hippie was brand new, when beads and bell-bottoms were radical and scary to our parents. Now us old fogies will dodder back to California to tune in, turn on, and drop out (again), scaring the living daylights out of our grandchildren. The first thing we need to know is how cannabis and Alz interact, does it feel good?
I honestly think legalization is a good thing. Not because I use, which I don't, but how many years has has our country had to stop the import and use of illegal substances? Obviously the war on drugs has failed. The only way to succeed would be to crack down like fascists. Make it legal, and fight the addiction. Stronger people can do many things that strong borders cannot. (Not that we shouldn't have strong borders too... that would be stupid.)
_________________
When I allow it to be
There's no control over me
I have my fears
But they do not have me
There's one reason I want marijuana legal. It'll get all the marijuana smoking zealots to shut up, mind their own business, and smoke their pot without everyone hearing about it. My thought is if marijuana is legalized, then it should be taxed and regulated like cigarettes and alcohol are.
The state has a duty to protect children and to protect the freedoms of adults to pursue happiness and liberty within the bounds of the individual obligation of each citizen to not interfere with the liberty of others. Criminalization of cannabis is contrary to these obligations.
It criminalizes people who have not interferred with the rights or property of others, it creates a profitable black market not subject to state oversight where there is a significant profit motivation to sell to minors, and seeks to apply the state's monopoly on legitimate use of force to arbitrarily deny freedom (liberty and pursuit of happiness) on the basis of dubious and counter factual speculation and subjective moralizing.
I find it odd that someone would wish the laws should be changed so that consumers of this substance would mind their own business. I suggest where a group is subject to having the state arrest and imprison them on the basis of their personal choice to consume substances (without interferring with any other person or their property), that it is not this group that needs to be told to mind their own business, but rather wider society who needs to learn what is and is not its business.
For the record, I am in favour of the legalization of the possession, use and cultivation of marijuana. I think that the experiment with prohibition demonstrates the futility of such a public policy, and the principle of harm reduction argues strongly for legalization.
But while pandd and I agree in form, we don't agree in substance. I am not at all sure that the idealistic formulation
[quote=pandd]The state has a duty to protect children and to protect the freedoms of adults to pursue happiness and liberty within the bounds of the individual obligation of each citizen to not interfere with the liberty of others.[/quote]
is an accurate description of the realpolitik of a contemporary state. As an ideal concept it is attractive, but like Plato's Republic or More's Utopia it provides little instruction to those who would shape public policy in a modern, pluralist state.
If we conceive of the, "liberty of others," writ large, we must include their liberty to contract for the labour of the individual, and their expectation of a fair exchange of value. In that context, marijuana most certainly intereferes with the liberty of others, if only in so far as it represents a drain on productivity. In this sense, it is no different than alcohol or tobacco, and the correct regulatory framework might well be to tax it sufficiently to replace fiscally the losses created monetarily.
I see non-therapeutic drug use on a spectrum, with caffeine on one end and heroin on the other (I am picking psychotropes out of a hat here, there may be more harmless ones than caffeine and more harmful ones than heroin). These bracket, between them, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, etc. I see two important questions:
Is there a justification for a public policy permitting, regulating or prohibiting any or all of these substances?
If so, what is the public policy framework for identifying the boundaries between what is unregulated, what is permitted subject to regulation, and what is prohibited?
I don't think the questions can be reduced to a simple, "My pot smoking doesn't hurt anyone else." I think it has to be a more nuanced approach that first understands why we seek to regulate or prohibit some non-therapeutic drugs in the first place.
_________________
--James
CockneyRebel
Veteran
Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 116,973
Location: In my little Olympic World of peace and love
This comes under dubious.
The cost of enforcement is high, it's effectiveness dubious, and the losses of the productivity that prohibition prevents is not necessarily negliable (the loss of an easily produced, ecologically friendly manufacturing material with a significant scope of potential applications for instance).
Unless you can demonstrate that prohibition actually produces net productivity benefits as compared to non-prohibition, the argument is obviously fatally flawed.
Freedom is not properly measured by how closely it follows an imaginative but wholly subjective conclusion to a philosophical, political or other ideational principle. It's appropriate measure is the fabric of a person's actual day to day life. Being handcuffed is a true and real constraint on freedom, being summoned to a court of law is a true and real constraint on freedom, not being able to buy yet more consumer crap one does not need, at ever more cheap prices is actually not a particularly real and true constraint on freedom in a society already saturated with cheap and accessible consumer goods. The fact that someone is mooning over Mandy in accounts can reduce productivity. You should research what multi-tasking does to the bottom line of productivity, staying up late is a huge drag on productivity. Should we start arresting people for these things?
I wonder how much productivity is not lost to allowing just anyone to breed? I wonder how much more productive a fit work force will be if we implement mandated dietary and exercise regimes for everyone from cradle to grave? We'd be able to buy stuff at really fair prices, so we'd be super free....right? Well it does not sound right to me.
Somehow the application of your principle really does not look in the least bit like freedom (liberty, pursuit of happiness) to me. I think we are more free if, given an over abundance of cheap stuff to buy as in this society people are,, things do not cost a few pennies less than they current do, and we all get do get to pick our own lunch. Freedom to trade in french fries at a really "fair" price is worthless if I loose the freedom to eat them.
If we conceive of the, "liberty of others," writ large, we must include their liberty to contract for the labour of the individual, and their expectation of a fair exchange of value. In that context, marijuana most certainly intereferes with the liberty of others, if only in so far as it represents a drain on productivity. In this sense, it is no different than alcohol or tobacco, and the correct regulatory framework might well be to tax it sufficiently to replace fiscally the losses created monetarily.
The only tax is (or ought to be) the consequence of having a bad habit. If a person becomes non-productive because of drugs or substances he consumes, he produces less and earns less. Eventually he starves to death. Problem solved.
Root, hog, or die.
ruveyn
The original idea might have had some merit. The Food and Drug Acts. Patent Medicines were fairly loaded with addictive drugs. That was early, 1912?
While it did cause a lot of people to go cold turkey, it did give ideas for Prohibition. This put the marketing of drink outside the law, and provided a ready drug market.
The results established gangs. For that we are rerunning history. The only way to break the gangs was to legalize drink. Now it lost the drug connection.
Marijuana was legal till 1936. It seems that facing unemployment the drink police needed a new drug.
Reefer Madness would destroy America!
It was like the recent discovery that we had no defense against terrorists, or use for federal employees, so they declared the people terrorists, and they the Chosen Ones.
Marijuana was also known as the lawyer and cop relief fund. We had few of either before, and then they grew, and grew.
It was also an excuse for everything, they were on drugs! It was drug related!
It is well documented that during Prohibition the entire governments and police were on the take, and history is back. The police and the courts are demanding to keep their cut.
They are up in arms when it is legal for medical reasons, which include a bad haircut. The gangs that pay them off are against it being legal. The Border Patrol is against it being legal, for they control the border. Mexican farmers are against it being legal. Illegal aliens are too, for how could they fund living in the US without a weed market?
Without weed they lose the market for other drugs, Mexican Black Tar, Speed, Coke, what can they do, go door to door in the suburbs? They need weed like speakeasys needed beer, to market everything else.
Billions of dollars of political payoffs are at stake. If America adults can grow weed in the back yard, the whole system will crash!
The effect on business will be horrible, that restaurant run by the wife of a city councilman, is for laundering the payoffs, no payoffs, it loses money, jobs will be lost! They have already used the extra money to fund their way into commercial real estate, everyone in politics will go bankrupt if weed is made legal!
In California they could kick in the door, shoot the person, toss a bag of weed down, and seize the house, bank account, for it was drug related. How are police forces going to survive!
How can you expect a police officer to do his duty when he knows that a fifty year old couple are taking bong hits and watching a movie, behind locked doors? It makes a mockery of all law.
What about the pursuit of happiness by elected and appointed officals? How are they going to be happy without the money?
This is the American System, the American Way of Life, just as it has been since the Whiskey Tax of 1792.
No one would want a Government job without the benefits of regulating drink, gambling, drugs, women. These industries have been Maintained and Regulated by Government forever.
Ask any Member of Congress, who bring in over a million a year each, in gifts, from friends.
Agrabusiness is against it, for it is a high value crop, that would break their monopoly on food production. The family farm would make a comeback, rural areas would have income, we would lose poverty!
Cotton farmers are against it, for like my National Geographic backpack, made of hemp, next it would be jeans, shirts, and that just a byproduct.
Battlelines are being drawn, the whole of the political machine, all the vested interests, the Mexican Drug Cartels, and nothing on the other side but the people.
Government and big business cannot survive without illegal drugs!
Legal drugs will fall in price, $1 an OZ for the best, and always available, demand will drop.
American grown drugs are more powerful, they will be exported to Mexico!
Mexicans will go back to Mexico, that $5 an hour job was just a cover, they would not live here for that kind of money.
Wages will rise as there will be more jobs. Many in the snack food industry.
In the immortal words of Yogi Berra, "When you reach a fork in the road, take it."
1906. Opium and Cocaine were illegalized in that year.
Do you know why? It was for purely racist reasons. It was commonly believed, at that time, that Negro men under the influence of Opium and Cocaine would ravish white women sexually. That is the year that "coke" was removed from Coca Cola. It was replaced by caffein.
ruveyn
DenvrDave
Veteran
Joined: 17 Sep 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 790
Location: Where seldom is heard a discouraging word
I am for legalization because I think people have the right to chose the of type plants they grow in their garden and the type of substances they put in their body, so long as the practice of those rights doesn't infringe on the rights of other people, which it generally won't so long as these things occur on private property.
I think this ^ is why Initiative and Referendum is a very important freedom, so that citizens have some leverage against the government.
This ^ made me
The cost of enforcement is high, it's effectiveness dubious, and the losses of the productivity that prohibition prevents is not necessarily negliable (the loss of an easily produced, ecologically friendly manufacturing material with a significant scope of potential applications for instance).
Unless you can demonstrate that prohibition actually produces net productivity benefits as compared to non-prohibition, the argument is obviously fatally flawed.
Freedom is not properly measured by how closely it follows an imaginative but wholly subjective conclusion to a philosophical, political or other ideational principle. It's appropriate measure is the fabric of a person's actual day to day life. Being handcuffed is a true and real constraint on freedom, being summoned to a court of law is a true and real constraint on freedom, not being able to buy yet more consumer crap one does not need, at ever more cheap prices is actually not a particularly real and true constraint on freedom in a society already saturated with cheap and accessible consumer goods. The fact that someone is mooning over Mandy in accounts can reduce productivity. You should research what multi-tasking does to the bottom line of productivity, staying up late is a huge drag on productivity. Should we start arresting people for these things?
I wonder how much productivity is not lost to allowing just anyone to breed? I wonder how much more productive a fit work force will be if we implement mandated dietary and exercise regimes for everyone from cradle to grave? We'd be able to buy stuff at really fair prices, so we'd be super free....right? Well it does not sound right to me.
Somehow the application of your principle really does not look in the least bit like freedom (liberty, pursuit of happiness) to me. I think we are more free if, given an over abundance of cheap stuff to buy as in this society people are,, things do not cost a few pennies less than they current do, and we all get do get to pick our own lunch. Freedom to trade in french fries at a really "fair" price is worthless if I loose the freedom to eat them.
You seem to have skipped the part where I rejected prohibition as futile. But no matter...
I think you miss my point on the "productivity" issue. I was looking at the use of marijuana in isolation from the costs that we have layered over it to deal with enforcement. This is a very narrow filter, I know, but I chose it for the deliberate purpose of showing that using subjective lenses to evaluate public policy is fraught with problems. An employer is as entitled to the respect of his liberty within a free enterprise labour market as the individual is entitled to respect of his liberty. So, your productivity argument comes very nicely to my point--which is that liberty is an internalized, subjective concept. As such it cannot be the foundation of a public policy of general application. What you view as your freedom of action, I might view as a constraint on mine.
Which brings us back to my two public policy questions (which you didn't answer). Is there a role for the State in regulating any psychotrope? And if so, what is the framework for making decisions about where the limits lie?
For me, the answer to those questions are: "yes," and, "I have no clear idea."
_________________
--James
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Ballot Boxes in Vancouver, WA, and Portland firebombed |
01 Nov 2024, 4:04 pm |
7.0 Earthquake off Northern California Coast |
08 Dec 2024, 2:44 pm |