Movement on recreational marijuana legalization in California

Marijuana is legal in my state, Michigan, for medical uses.

I noticed this on a local news site this afternoon. Not a consumer myself, but given our budget crisis, cutting the costs of enforcement and adding tax revenues seems appealing to me.xaos

Marijuana is legal in my state, Michigan, for medical uses.

sonicare

$50/oz seems really high to me, I'd hate to see the total price with the tax and the base price. Part of the argument for legalization is that you undercut the price of the illegal dealers and take business away from them and you generate revenue by imposing reasonable taxes on that market. If you're trying to deter people from smoking at all, which it seems like this tax is trying to do, then you're just going to continue driving people to the underground market and the tax revenue from legal drugs is going to be slim to non-existent.

It's illegal still because of all the industries that could be affected by it's legalization and much widerspread usage. For example, hemph can be used for many purposes that we currently use all those cut down rainforests for. It's easy and cheap to grow and makes great paper. If we switched most our paper manufacturing to hemph many many logging companies would suddenly be in danger (as well as paper making companies). Also, it's becoming more and more apparent all the time just how useful of a medicine marijuana is. It is much more effective for many ailments than the pharmaceutical corporations would have us believe, and it could endanger many of the prescription drugs they make so much of their money on. A lot of wealthy and powerful people don't want to see it legalized, but it's the only logical course of action. It's no more dangerous than other narcotics that are legal (including the vast array of prescripton pills out there) and it's already widely usedin many parts of the world. The benefits of legalizing it at this point outweigh the cons of keeping it illegal.

I don't understand why it is illegal in the first place.xTheExploited

Exactly how can this be done if the recreational use of marijuana is prohibited by federal law? The states do not supersede the feds. All this bill would do (if it were passed) is create an impossible-to-win conflict between California legislature and the Supreme Court, which has ruled at least twice in the past (the latest being in 2005) that the federal government has the right to prohibit and criminalize marijauna; they're not going to change their position now.

Exactly how can this be done if the recreational use of marijuana is prohibited by federal law? The states do not supersede the feds. All this bill would do (if it were passed) is create an impossible-to-win conflict between California legislature and the Supreme Court, which has ruled at least twice in the past (the latest being in 2005) that the federal government has the right to prohibit and criminalize marijauna; they're not going to change their position now.

Theokhoth

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Exactly how can this be done if the recreational use of marijuana is prohibited by federal law? The states do not supersede the feds. All this bill would do (if it were passed) is create an impossible-to-win conflict between California legislature and the Supreme Court, which has ruled at least twice in the past (the latest being in 2005) that the federal government has the right to prohibit and criminalize marijauna; they're not going to change their position now.

xaos

Perhaps, but that's just Schedule 1.

[QUOTE="xTheExploited"]I don't understand why it is illegal in the first place.-Sun_Tzu-

Exactly how can this be done if the recreational use of marijuana is prohibited by federal law? The states do not supersede the feds. All this bill would do (if it were passed) is create an impossible-to-win conflict between California legislature and the Supreme Court, which has ruled at least twice in the past (the latest being in 2005) that the federal government has the right to prohibit and criminalize marijauna; they're not going to change their position now.

Theokhoth

States do technically supercede federal law, the Constitution says that states are supposed to be able to make their own laws concerning most issues and that federal law is only supposed to be used for select issues like matters of equality and freedom. The Supreme Court might not change its views right now, but given enough pressure from teh public and different justices they might in the future. Also, marijuana use isn't restricted, possession, cultivation, and sale is.

I think it should be treated the same as alcohol, cigarettes, cigars, etc.

I think it should be treated the same as alcohol, cigarettes, cigars, etc.

Jamiemydearx3

This. Kinda dumb that it hasn't... I mean look at the tax revenues of all those things.

medical mary jane is awesome. rick james felt so too.trialedbyfire

[QUOTE="trialedbyfire"]medical mary jane is awesome. rick james felt so too.xaos

I don't understand why it is illegal in the first place.xTheExploited

[QUOTE="xTheExploited"]I don't understand why it is illegal in the first place.PannicAtack

Hearst sympathized with Harry J. Anslinger in his war against marijuana. Between 1936 and 1937, Hearst associated marijuana with hemp in his newspapers and published many of the stories that Anslinger fabricated.[10] Hearst played a major part in aiding the anti-marijuana movement, leading to its prohibition in the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937,[11] a law which also effectively outlawed hemp.

Jack Herer and others argue that Hearst's paper empire (he owned hundreds of acres of timber forests and a vast number of paper mills designed to manufacture paper from wood pulp) in the early 1930s was threatened by hemp, which: 1)like wood pulp, could also be used to manufacture paper[12] and 2)also had an advantage over wood pulp, because it could be regrown yearly as well.[12]

Other commentators have subsequently pointed out that the Hearst chain was one of the biggest buyers of newsprint in the U.S.[13] As buyers of newsprint, the Hearst chain had a strong interest in a low price for newsprint. If anyone could produce large amounts of cheap newsprint from a new crop it would lower Hearst's purchasing cost for newsprint. These commentators conclude that Hearst had no relevant financial interest in a ban on hemp cultivation.[13]

This pretty much says it all. Hemp is fareasier to use as paper and would save millions of acres of rainforest. He owned a paper empire so of course he had a vested interest in keeping hemp and marijuana for that matter illegal.

[QUOTE="Jamiemydearx3"]

I think it should be treated the same as alcohol, cigarettes, cigars, etc.

MystikFollower

This. Kinda dumb that it hasn't... I mean look at the tax revenues of all those things.

this, it could definitly help us out with this economy

I think it's going to add one more problem for law enforcement.

I can see it now: DWB! Driving While Baked. People are going to get in their cars stoned, cause accidents and generally wreak havoc wherever marijuana is legalized.

Our country already has enough trouble cracking down on drunk driving.

I value human life much more than I do extra tax revenues.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Exactly how can this be done if the recreational use of marijuana is prohibited by federal law? The states do not supersede the feds. All this bill would do (if it were passed) is create an impossible-to-win conflict between California legislature and the Supreme Court, which has ruled at least twice in the past (the latest being in 2005) that the federal government has the right to prohibit and criminalize marijauna; they're not going to change their position now.

theone86

States do technically supercede federal law, the Constitution says that states are supposed to be able to make their own laws concerning most issues and that federal law is only supposed to be used for select issues like matters of equality and freedom. The Supreme Court might not change its views right now, but given enough pressure from teh public and different justices they might in the future. Also, marijuana use isn't restricted, possession, cultivation, and sale is.

That's not right. States do not supersede federal law; if the feds say A and the states say B then the states are overridden.

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 regulates the use of certain drugs, including (and especially) marijuana, a Schedule 1 drug under the Act. Marijuana use is forbidden by federal law.

The Supreme Court does not make decisions based on public outcry.

I think it's going to add one more problem for law enforcement.

I can see it now: DWB! Driving While Baked. People are going to get in their cars stoned, cause accidents and generally wreak havoc wherever marijuana is legalized.

Our country already has enough trouble cracking down on drunk driving.

I value human life much more than I do extra tax revenues.

airshocker

how exactly is keeping it illegal supposed to stop people from driving high? And how exactly is driving high any more dangerous then say women driving.

It is a step in the right direction. But as theone86 said, the tax is a bit high. I think it would be better to undercut the criminal dealers. That's hard to do at a ludicrously high tax.

how exactly is keeping it illegal supposed to stop people from driving high? And how exactly is driving high any more dangerous then say women driving.

links136

Because most people don't drive while under the influence of illegal drugs. Those that do, and I've seen many after being a cop in NY for only a year, tend to wreck and get people killed.

Being high can lead to distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, and difficulty in thinking and problem solving, to name a few.

Is any of that good for someone when they're behind the wheel? I think not.

Pretty much treat it like you would alcohol and cigarettes legally and socially, and you've got no problems. Tax revenues, less violence, less stigma, etc.

I would say 21 as an age barrier, no driving or operation of machinery or firearms (same as alcohol), and obviously regulations and standards within the industry as far as composition and strains.

I think it's going to add one more problem for law enforcement.

I can see it now: DWB! Driving While Baked. People are going to get in their cars stoned, cause accidents and generally wreak havoc wherever marijuana is legalized.

Our country already has enough trouble cracking down on drunk driving.

I value human life much more than I do extra tax revenues.

airshocker

I think it's going to add one more problem for law enforcement.

I can see it now: DWB! Driving While Baked. People are going to get in their cars stoned, cause accidents and generally wreak havoc wherever marijuana is legalized.

Our country already has enough trouble cracking down on drunk driving.

I value human life much more than I do extra tax revenues.

airshocker

Wait what?

"San Mateo Police Chief Susan Manheimer, who is acting president of the California Police Chiefs Association, said she was "disappointed" by the committee's action and said she believes the state's approach for handling marijuana has been effective in keeping young people from using it."

:lol: she can't be serious

depending on the prices before the tax, i would gladly pay a $50 sales tax for some legal dank buds

"San Mateo Police Chief Susan Manheimer, who is acting president of the California Police Chiefs Association, said she was "disappointed" by the committee's action and said she believes the state's approach for handling marijuana has been effective in keeping young people from using it."

:lol: she can't be serious

depending on the prices before the tax, i would gladly pay a $50 sales tax for some legal dank buds

needled24-7

I think it's going to add one more problem for law enforcement.

I can see it now: DWB! Driving While Baked. People are going to get in their cars stoned, cause accidents and generally wreak havoc wherever marijuana is legalized.

Our country already has enough trouble cracking down on drunk driving.

I value human life much more than I do extra tax revenues.

I oppose it and will continue to untill a device equal to the breathalizer is invented to detect Marijuana use. It would need to be illegal to smoke marijuana in public, and to drive while high. The problem with the latter is there would really be no way to prove the person was high while they were driving.

I oppose it and will continue to untill a device equal to the breathalizer is invented to detect Marijuana use. It would need to be illegal to smoke marijuana in public, and to drive while high. The problem with the latter is there would really be no way to prove the person was high while they were driving.

Pixel-Pirate

[QUOTE="trialedbyfire"]medical mary jane is awesome. rick james felt so too.xaos

"AND IT'S SUPER FREAKY!!" got me. xD

Marijuana is legal in my state, Michigan, for medical uses.

sonicare

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

I think it's going to add one more problem for law enforcement.

I can see it now: DWB! Driving While Baked. People are going to get in their cars stoned, cause accidents and generally wreak havoc wherever marijuana is legalized.

Our country already has enough trouble cracking down on drunk driving.

I value human life much more than I do extra tax revenues.

matthayter700

Actually, some bands have done experiments on whether they play better when their a little high, or when their clean, and they said that when they were high the THOUGHT they were playing much better but really they were making fools of themselves.

I wouldn't be suprised if the same is true with driving.

I support the legalization of Marijuana simply because I don't think it is the governments job to regulate what people put in their bodies. Legalizing would get criminals off the street, free up jails saving taxpayer money, and help balance our crumbling budget.

....But of course it won't happen. Cigarettes and Alcohol are much more moral:roll:

As someone who does not smoke marijuana, I am deeply against legalization of it for any purpose. I get sick to my stomach when I read so many comments from people saying that legalizing weed is a step in the right direction. It's not. It's a drug and it's poisonous. Everyone who doesn't smoke marijuana is against legalization. How come they don't have a say in anything anymore? matricide01

Joke post? Sarcasm?

There are many people who don't smoke weed that are for legalization, some of them even work for organizations like the Marijuana Policy Project. There are plenty of good reasons to legalize cannabis besides, "Dude, I want to smoke it," and people have been listing them here. Also, weed is less poisonous than any of our currrent legal recreational drugs.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I oppose it and will continue to untill a device equal to the breathalizer is invented to detect Marijuana use. It would need to be illegal to smoke marijuana in public, and to drive while high. The problem with the latter is there would really be no way to prove the person was high while they were driving.

HoolaHoopMan

And these will pinpoint if the person was high at that moment and not a week ago with it still in their system?

Or are we talking about unscientific tests like walking in a straight line, which does not prove anything nor will it hold up. All it proves is you have poor balance.

[QUOTE="xTheExploited"]I don't understand why it is illegal in the first place.-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="matricide01"]As someone who does not smoke marijuana, I am deeply against legalization of it for any purpose. I get sick to my stomach when I read so many comments from people saying that legalizing weed is a step in the right direction. It's not. It's a drug and it's poisonous. Everyone who doesn't smoke marijuana is against legalization. How come they don't have a say in anything anymore? theone86

Joke post? Sarcasm?

There are many people who don't smoke weed that are for legalization, some of them even work for organizations like the Marijuana Policy Project. There are plenty of good reasons to legalize cannabis besides, "Dude, I want to smoke it," and people have been listing them here. Also, weed is less poisonous than any of our currrent legal recreational drugs.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

I oppose it and will continue to untill a device equal to the breathalizer is invented to detect Marijuana use. It would need to be illegal to smoke marijuana in public, and to drive while high. The problem with the latter is there would really be no way to prove the person was high while they were driving.

Pixel-Pirate

And these will pinpoint if the person was high at that moment and not a week ago with it still in their system?

Or are we talking about unscientific tests like walking in a straight line, which does not prove anything nor will it hold up. All it proves is you have poor balance.

or if the officer pulls you over and smells weed/sees you have bloodshot eyes he can take you in and test you there. Breathalizers aren't official tests either, I believe they do have to test you for alcohol level some other way when they take you in.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="matricide01"]As someone who does not smoke marijuana, I am deeply against legalization of it for any purpose. I get sick to my stomach when I read so many comments from people saying that legalizing weed is a step in the right direction. It's not. It's a drug and it's poisonous. Everyone who doesn't smoke marijuana is against legalization. How come they don't have a say in anything anymore? matricide01

Joke post? Sarcasm?

There are many people who don't smoke weed that are for legalization, some of them even work for organizations like the Marijuana Policy Project. There are plenty of good reasons to legalize cannabis besides, "Dude, I want to smoke it," and people have been listing them here. Also, weed is less poisonous than any of our currrent legal recreational drugs.

I guess all these non-smokers on GS must be in Atlantis or riding unicorns now huh?

[QUOTE="matricide01"][QUOTE="theone86"]

Joke post? Sarcasm?

There are many people who don't smoke weed that are for legalization, some of them even work for organizations like the Marijuana Policy Project. There are plenty of good reasons to legalize cannabis besides, "Dude, I want to smoke it," and people have been listing them here. Also, weed is less poisonous than any of our currrent legal recreational drugs.

honkyjoe

I guess all these non-smokers on GS must be in Atlantis or riding unicorns now huh?