PDA

View Full Version : Proposition 19



Stretch
11-02-2010, 02:18 AM
The mid term elections? Pfft, i wanna know if California's dept crippled economy is going to cash in on legalizing pot. St.

pooltchr
11-02-2010, 06:47 AM
If they were smart, they would.

I don't think they are that smart.

Steve

Gayle in MD
11-02-2010, 07:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The mid term elections? Pfft, i wanna know if California's dept crippled economy is going to cash in on legalizing pot. St. </div></div>

They should, but I doubt it can happen, even in California, there are too many RWers to allow for any broad, reasonable change in stupid laws, that actually create more strife, in the long run. Remember Reagan'[s Amnesty????

You know how impossible it is in this country to blow the RW ideologists off their damaging, inefective, ideologies, that only serve to make everything worse.

Remember the Neocons and Iraq?

G.

Deeman3
11-02-2010, 07:48 AM
I don't think the biggest oppostion to this is from the right. Most of us don't care if california makes pot legal or not. Right now, the big push is from California growers, not a far right group, that fear legalization will make prices drop drastically.

I believe is will only increase the incidents or automobile accidents a few percent and that most kids already have easy access to drugs there as in most places anyway.

Is it a gateway drug, yes, but most who will head down that path will do so if grass is the start or not. Besides, if the dope growers in california go broke there are plenty of Mexicans there growing it on public land to make up the shortfall. Any other needed will continue to come in through the border.

Gayle in MD
11-02-2010, 08:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think the biggest oppostion to this is from the right.

<span style="color: #FF0000">You don't? What makes you think it doesn't come from the right.

I have quite a few California friends, who tell me all the time, it's the Republoicans who keep blocking it out there, the Repubs, and the religious fanatics.... </span>

Most of us don't care if california makes pot legal or not.

<span style="color: #FF0000">I'm afraid I don't agree with that, Dee. Just imagine, if it passes, what will be flowing out of Beckistan, and the Bible Belt, on all of the RW Fearjock programs!

OMG, I hate to think about it! </span>


Right now, the big push is from California growers, not a far right group, that fear legalization will make prices drop drastically.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> The California Growers, are growing medical MJ, and they are already paying taxes, under oversight scrutiny, and getting a good price for their product. </span>

I believe is will only increase the incidents or automobile accidents a few percent and that most kids already have easy access to drugs there as in most places anyway.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> LOL, it's all of the very young, and the verey old timers on alohol, who are dangerous. The only thing you an complain about the pot smokers, is more noise pollution, horn blowing, beause they drive too slow, LOL. </span>

Is it a gateway drug, yes, but most who will head down that path will do so if grass is the start or not.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> You're saying two things that contradict. If it is only a gateway drug for those who would end up on hard drugs anyway, then it isn't a Gateway Drug, is it?

IMO, most druggies gateway drug, was suger, and Similac! LOL </span>



Besides, if the dope growers in california go broke there are plenty of Mexicans there growing it on public land to make up the shortfall. Any other needed will continue to come in through the border. </div></div>


<span style="color: #FF0000"> HUH??????

This doesn't make any sense to me. Legal MJ would devastate the entire illegal drug problem, and probably and turn it into a money making proposition for the government.

Imagine all the time and money that is totally wasted by jailing people for smoking pot, and paying ageints who are flying round the countryside, looking for illegal growers.

People could grow their own MJ, in their own homes....

The medical MJ wpouldn't be impacted, according to what I've been told by friends out there, because it would still have to be monitored by the FDA, for safety....

And interesting British study was released today, or yesterday, about how much more dangerous alohol is, than most other drugs.



G. </span>

Deeman3
11-02-2010, 08:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD [/quote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


<span style="color: #FF0000"> HUH??????

This doesn't make any sense to me. Legal MJ would devastate the entire illegal drug problem, and probably and turn it into a money making proposition for the government.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> It would have impact but not to devastate the entire illegal drug problem. It would help california but have limtied impact elsewhere.</span>

Imagine all the time and money that is totally wasted by jailing people for smoking pot, and paying ageints who are flying round the countryside, looking for illegal growers.

<span style="color: #FF0000">I agree here. We waste too mush money and hire too many police and jailers for this problem. I am not opposed to adults smoking it up when they want to. I am not a user but see the rediculous money we spend to prevent it. </span>

People could grow their own MJ, in their own homes....

The medical MJ wpouldn't be impacted, according to what I've been told by friends out there, because it would still have to be monitored by the FDA, for safety....

<span style="color: #FF0000">Except for falling prices they would see litle impact. However, legalizing it would make the medical use situation moot, as anyone could get it without the pretense of a prescription. I am not opposed ot this as well. </span>

And interesting British study was released today, or yesterday, about how much more dangerous alohol is, than most other drugs.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> I saw that and agree. Of course, i don't drink anymore but it does not matter to me if it is a pothead or an alcoholic that kills a Grandkid, both are just as tragic. IOM</span>



G. </span> </div></div>

I am not sure why you think I ever opposed the legalization of drugs? I am for personal responsibility and people should have the right to destroy their lives or enhance it if dope does that for them. I have been for legalization of all drugs for many years. It will save the taxpayers money as the cost of drugs will come down, the cost of prison will go down and many of the hard core addicts will overdose and not be a burden to the rest of society.

Heroin would be much cheaper than drug treatment programs as well.

pooltchr
11-02-2010, 09:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[
<span style="color: #FF0000"> Legal MJ would devastate the entire illegal drug problem, and probably and turn it into a money making proposition for the government.

Imagine all the time and money that is totally wasted by jailing people for smoking pot, and paying ageints who are flying round the countryside, looking for illegal growers.

People could grow their own MJ, in their own homes....

The medical MJ wpouldn't be impacted, according to what I've been told by friends out there, because it would still have to be monitored by the FDA, for safety....

And interesting British study was released today, or yesterday, about how much more dangerous alohol is, than most other drugs.



G. </span> </div></div>

OMG...Gayle and I actually agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Steve

Gayle in MD
11-02-2010, 09:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD </div></div>


<span style="color: #FF0000"> HUH??????

This doesn't make any sense to me. Legal MJ would devastate the entire illegal drug problem, and probably and turn it into a money making proposition for the government.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> It would have impact but not to devastate the entire illegal drug problem. It would help california but have limtied impact elsewhere.</span>

Imagine all the time and money that is totally wasted by jailing people for smoking pot, and paying ageints who are flying round the countryside, looking for illegal growers.

<span style="color: #FF0000">I agree here. We waste too mush money and hire too many police and jailers for this problem. I am not opposed to adults smoking it up when they want to. I am not a user but see the rediculous money we spend to prevent it. </span>

People could grow their own MJ, in their own homes....

The medical MJ wpouldn't be impacted, according to what I've been told by friends out there, because it would still have to be monitored by the FDA, for safety....

<span style="color: #FF0000">Except for falling prices they would see litle impact. However, legalizing it would make the medical use situation moot, as anyone could get it without the pretense of a prescription. I am not opposed ot this as well. </span>

And interesting British study was released today, or yesterday, about how much more dangerous alohol is, than most other drugs.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> I saw that and agree. Of course, i don't drink anymore but it does not matter to me if it is a pothead or an alcoholic that kills a Grandkid, both are just as tragic. IOM</span>



G. </span> [/quote</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> legalizing it would make the medical use situation moot, as anyone could get it without the pretense of a prescription. I am not opposed ot this as well.

</div></div>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'> That isn't the way it will work, Dee. Unless my friends out there don't know what they're talking about, the medical MJ will continue to require a prescription, and will continue to be overseen, and given out by medical MJ facilities, and require a prescription, by the patient's doctor. </span>

I am not sure why you think I ever opposed the legalization of drugs?

I never said I thought you did, just noticed that some of what you wre sying, didn't make any ense to me, that's all.

I am for personal responsibility and people should have the right to destroy their lives or enhance it if dope does that for them. I have been for legalization of all drugs for many years. It will save the taxpayers money as the cost of drugs will come down, the cost of prison will go down and many of the hard core addicts will overdose and not be a burden to the rest of society.

Heroin would be much cheaper than drug treatment programs as well. </div></div>

I agree. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

llotter
11-02-2010, 01:08 PM
Unfortunately, Steve, you are wrong on this issue and agreeing with Gayle should have been a clue.

pooltchr
11-02-2010, 01:12 PM
I'm not sure why you say that.
Proabition on alcohol was wrong, and the country finally figured it out and corrected it.
How is pot any different?

Steve

wolfdancer
11-02-2010, 02:13 PM
I'm not sure about this, but....while the State can legalize pot, it still remains a Federal crime, and you know how the Federales come down on this "devil weed".
Ca. encountered a similar problem, when they allowed pot to be purchased, with a Medical prescription,and in controlled amounts, to ease the pain and sufferings of cancer victims. The Feds raided the non-profit places, manned by unpaid volunteers (for the most part)that were dispensing the medical MJ.
I tried to get a prescription, to combat the pain and major discomfort from the nagging head cold that I had at the time, but....I was discriminated against.

Deeman3
11-02-2010, 02:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unfortunately, Steve, you are wrong on this issue and agreeing with Gayle should have been a clue. </div></div>


<span style="color: #FF0000"> I guess I have to fall in the "don't like it" category but think it is the lesser of two evils. I am always for personal responsibility and while knowing some will make bad choices, most should have the freedom to exercise that choice as, with a few exceptions of possible increased road accidents (as with any drug or alcohol) we just can't and have not been successful at legislating these type bans.

In addition, there is some medical need that has been proven for late stage cancer victims and others. While there will be abuse, wolfie was joking about hs headache, you just sometimes have to fall on the side of compassion for those who suffer. If that can be reduced, the abusers may be worth it.

If i always say to the government, "Get out of my business!" then I have to say that a State should have the right to regulate some things in it's area and the Federal Government should just stay out of the enforcement in that area. I would think if Arizona has the right to determine who is in their state illegally, California should be able to determine by adult vote, how criminal an activity is.

With a reasonable expectation that even a radical state would not, for instance, approve child endangement or abuse, I would seed those things to a sovern state. If, for instance, a state went completely out of bounds in a decison, the Feds could then sue for Federal enforcement of their laws. I don't think this drug raises it to that level.

If and that's a big IF, this law mitigates a lot of the violence in the drug wars, we should then consider it on a more wide basis. I know the slippery slope argument but in this case, we should allow the citizens to do their job and decide the issues. JMHO</span>

wolfdancer
11-02-2010, 03:14 PM
I mentioned this a few years back....but my friend's brother (my friend as well), a regular member of our golfing foursome, came down with terminal cancer, and MJ was the most effective pain relief;... better then all the pain medications they had prescribed.
Nevada was death on MJ, and Ca, while not offering medical MJ at the time, was a little more liberal in the sense that you were merely fined, but not imprisoned, as was the case in Nev.
So it fell on Ev and I to buy some MJ for his brother. They could have sold us oregano, and we wouldn't have known the difference, plus we didn't know where to score. Luckily some of my pool playing friends, and Ev's wife's nieces....got us connected in both SF and Reno.
It was painful to watch Rex try to play a final round of golf, as he was just a month away from death.
As were his wishes...we scattered his ashes on the cliffs of Lincoln Park GC, overlooking the SF Bay. And just like in the "The Big Lebowski" movie...the offshore winds blew the ashes back into Ev's beard.... sort of a seriocomic farewell to a great friend

Gayle in MD
11-02-2010, 03:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unfortunately, Steve, you are wrong on this issue and agreeing with Gayle should have been a clue. </div></div>


<span style="color: #FF0000"> I guess I have to fall in the "don't like it" category but think it is the lesser of two evils. I am always for personal responsibility and while knowing some will make bad choices, most should have the freedom to exercise that choice as, with a few exceptions of possible increased road accidents (as with any drug or alcohol) we just can't and have not been successful at legislating these type bans.

In addition, there is some medical need that has been proven for late stage cancer victims and others. While there will be abuse, wolfie was joking about hs headache, you just sometimes have to fall on the side of compassion for those who suffer. If that can be reduced, the abusers may be worth it.

If i always say to the government, "Get out of my business!" then I have to say that a State should have the right to regulate some things in it's area and the Federal Government should just stay out of the enforcement in that area. I would think if Arizona has the right to determine who is in their state illegally, California should be able to determine by adult vote, how criminal an activity is.

With a reasonable expectation that even a radical state would not, for instance, approve child endangement or abuse, I would seed those things to a sovern state. If, for instance, a state went completely out of bounds in a decison, the Feds could then sue for Federal enforcement of their laws. I don't think this drug raises it to that level.

If and that's a big IF, this law mitigates a lot of the violence in the drug wars, we should then consider it on a more wide basis. I know the slippery slope argument but in this case, we should allow the citizens to do their job and decide the issues. JMHO</span> </div></div>

WOW! I'm impressed. And that's not BS.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/shocked.gif

LWW
11-03-2010, 04:00 AM
Prohibition has always been a leftist policy.

Libertarians do not believe that the state has the ultimate say in what the individual may consume.

LWW