Legalize marijuana is a fine concept but guess what, there won't be anywhere
you could smoke it. Places we can smoke cigarettes are dwindeling down so by
the time the legalize pot there will be nowhere you can smoke it.
ain't that the truth By the time big brother gets done we will have to smoke
in a cave,not before we spend thousand of dollars in hepa filters, ect lol in
Ontario Canada where i live , u now cannot smoke in any motorized vehicle that
has a child under 16 in it ... I see 14 and 15 year olds standing in front of
the high school puffing away every morning lmao
You cannot wear, exude or produce anything that might be offensive to another
person.
If I were to take offence to men's deodorant I would be in a minority and not
get anywhere. But if I could get enough people to joing me I could have some
legislation brought into effect.
In practice this means that anything legislated against (smoking in clubs, cars
with minors etc) should have only come about due to a well supported campaign by
persons who are seriously offended. This is not the case, most of these laws
come into effect becasue the government is doing what it claims is "in the
best interest of the people".
Rather than have my elected officials do what they think is best for me, I would
rather vote on such things (Even though I despise smokers).
I saw a guy refused his seat on an aeroplane because his shirt read "fuck
off" or something to that effect. I have read about this on several
occasions and this is just the beginning.
i was wearing this one time, a lady walks up and says, "i know what that
means, and it's extremely offensive". i just laughed and said, "i'm
glad the right person was able to translate that".
Something needs to be done. We are getting less free everyday. It is not just
Odamna's fault either, although he is working hard for socialism, this has been
happening for decades. These laws are brought about by people who allowed
political correctness to run amuck. I will be curious to see what 2012 brings
about with our next presidential election and all. When I go to the polls in
2010 I intend to vote against every incumbent and I advise everyone to do the
same, we need to send a message.
Wow - you guys are even more stupid than I gave you credit for!
If you vote out all the incumbent politicians you will send a message alright -
a message that the general population is too stupid to actually look at the
issues in order to decide how they are to be governed.
If this campaign was successful all of the newly elected officials will believe
they were elected because of their campaigns and act accodingly, whereas in
reality they would have been elected because people were trying to 'send a
message'. The problem is they have no idea what that message is because your
message, or at least your motivation behind your message, is different to your
neighbour's, to the guy who lives 3 blocks away, to the woman at the checkout at
your local supermarket.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2009 03:59PM by GAK67.
wobby - try and keep up. NZ parliament may have had a stoner rastafrian with
dreads, a transgendered ex stripper and a female PM with a manly voice and a
face longer than a horse, but they are all gone now. Our current PM does like
women, but is not one himself (John Key).
Your point is well taken and certainly one I've pondered in calculating the
effectiveness of such a campaign against the incumbents GAK. With that having
been said it seems no matter how you look at it a thorough house cleaning is
about the only reasonable course available to the American people in trying to
make their message heard.
The largest 2 issues hotly debated within the US in recent years have been
illegal immigration and the financial bailouts. While both issues were
continuously polled by multiple sources, impartial and otherwise, the public
outcries by Americans were pretty strong in how John Q Public felt about them
both. Both issues had the offices of our Representatives and Senators phones
ringing off the walls, their fax lines jammed and their email boxes stuffed to
overflowing with what John Q had to say and it was clearly AGAINST what was
voted in in regards to the bailouts and the vote on the amnesty for illegals
just barely squeeked by as a victory for the forces against the amnesty the
legislation proposed.
When the elected government refuses to do their job, which is to represent their
constituants wishes in their stead, what recourse is really left to us but to
simply unseat them? The American public by and large on both sides of the
political fence are beginning to feel as if no matter what is said or done by
the people that elected them, their elected officials simply refuse to act upon
the desires made known by the people themselves.
If this (unseating all incumbents) were to occur there would surely be current
elected officials unseated that DO work for the people that seated them, while
MANY more who do not would also be unseated which would seemingly be the greater
good in the long run.
A great number of the citizenry here are amenable to the concept of term
limitation for elected officials much like what the office of President is
limited to, which is 2 terms. This alone if enacted would have a great effect
on how our national government is run as no elected official could then hold
court in their little fiefdoms as is the case now and would put the legislative
branches back to what they were intended to be where each state received equal
representation in the national government. In todays system every long term
legislator holds more sway in congress than does a junior member, causing an
imbalance in the way things work and this needs to be eliminated.
The problem with getting this to ever become law of course is that the same
legislators would be required to agree to such a change, a majority in the House
and Senate approve it, then be signed off on by the President ...... which is
never gonna happen
If the US government ceased its (totally ineffective) War On Drugs, took the
same $$ it spends now on this worthless pursuit and instead invested it in
education and treatment of addicts as opposed to simply making them criminals,
then paying for years of their incarceration costs it would seem much more
prudent in the long term. If we legalized drugs, oversaw their production and
sales and taxed them (and man they would tax the shit outta DRUGZ!) it would be
a move in a much more positive direction.
I mean really, a fuckin whole pound of cocaine/heroin/opium is no more dangerous
than a gun, a knife or even a stick/rock to humans. HUMANS are dangerous to
humans, plain and simple, the rest are just inanimate objects which become tools
used by humans.
There's an old saw that seems to fit well in this discussion which is "You
can't legislate morality." Anyone who doesn't see the laws against drugs
as an attempt to do exactly that would do well to take a little trip within self
and ask where exactly that thought resides if NOT in some sense of morality, and
of course for the even more inane, in some belief that they are their brothers
keepers and hence know what's best for them .... which is a whole 'nother kettle
of fish altogether
Mrkim - some well thought out responses there. I do take issue with one part
of your arguement though - the idea of not legislating for morality. In actual
fact most (if not all) criminal law is based on morality, albeit more widely
accepted than that relating to the legalization of drugs. Murder, theft
(robbery, burglary, fraud, etc), assault are all morality based laws. It's just
that when we get to things such as drugs the morality is not as clearly defined
in social norms depending on which part of society you are in at the time - i.e.
you would struggle to find people in society that would say cold blooded murder
was ok, but you would easily find people that say recreational drug use -
particularly marijuana - was acceptable. As we live in a democracy (I am
assuming that most people visiting here do) it should come down to what the
majority of us say.
The "people" here haven't even been asked about what they thought
about drugs in years, nor will they be. Of course that's the way
"they" want it, so it's kinda like ....
There needs to be a way for the people to make their feelings known on any
issue so that our representatives hear it rather they want to or not. If there
was a national campaign started and promoted in the media before the election
for a clean sweep election then the newly elected politicians would know full
well why they were elected. They would then know to either preform properly or
lose their jobs next election. A clean sweep can work but it will have to be
handled nationally and publicly with full knowledge of what it means.
There will never be legalization of drugs nor any aid for drug users. All you
have to do is look at what is being done to smokers to see that there is no
desire in this country spend money to help any form of addiction. All they want
to do is tax the problem and if they help the people with the addiction then
they lose that tax base and the money it brings in. Does anyone really believe
taxing the issue will cure the problem.
The "media" is about as firmly in the pockets of the demofaggic party
as they can be at this point. With many of the incumbents being newly elected
or re-elected demofags who have now secured not only the majority in the House
and Senate, but in the grand puppetmasters office (and cabinet) too, I certainly
wouldn't be expecting much help from the "media" in getting behind any
such major unseating operation in the coming elections.
The good ol www is the best thing going these days as a rallying point for
individuals and it did play a major hand in defeating the illegal immigrant
amnesty measure as people emailed, faxed and even actually called their
representatives from a call to arms that rang out on both sides of the issue,
but was hammered out almost daily on the net in forums, news groups, etc..
Then again, our new puppet also used the www to his advantage during the
campaign as did many others as they all saw the writing on the wall and came to
realize it was cheap and easy marketing posturing that could reach audiences
asleep during the day, not mindful of the printed news sources and for lots of
other reasons.
But ..... beware, the move is on globally to limit what can be done and said on
the www and the intended censorship/taxation that will come of it all in the end
will most certainly be pointed in a fashion to limit what is acceptable, what is
to be considered "hate speech", and all manner of restraints that will
be used by the politically correct powers that be to limit its effectiveness in
the future.
One really need look no further than the extreme examples of outright
governmental censorship and another form of it through service denials going on
in China, Iran and North Korea as these places are attempting to squash the cell
phone and internet mediums when it's to their advantage to do so to get a look
at where this could all be headed with -> as their goal.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2009 06:10PM by Mrkim.
I just read three different articles about California legalising pot but remain
clueless as to what is actually proposed or has in fact happened. Internet news
journalism leaves a lot to be desired...
How much of the "value" of illegal drugs derives solely from their
being illegal? 75%? Drugs are "Darwin's Little Helpers", and I would
like to see them not only legal, but essentially free. All of them.
Everywhere. Time to thin the herd, folks.
If anyone over, say, 15, could walk into any Wal-Mart or pharmacy and get as
much of any drug they want, you take all the insane profits out of the whole
business. The drug cartels would be fucked. There's no point in it, anymore.
If you round up 5 million stupid people and gas them to death, you're a
"monster", but if you give them the means to do it themselves and then
walk away, that's a whole different thing, ain't it?
I have long held that a core part of the attraction in drugs is that they ARE
illegal, it's somethin to get away with, thumb your nose at the system and all
that. If they were legal I don't think they'd have the same appeal or
following.
Your point is also correct in that the current cost of ma druggies are
inherently tied to the illegal aspect of 'em. Make 'em legal and the price
would drop to their knees like a priest in front of a crowd of naked alter
boys!
Legalize, 'em, tax the begeebers out of 'em and let the fools take care of
themselves. That's a thinning of the herd few of us would likely miss much
anyway
i heard california is considering legalizing and plan to tax $50/once.....there
will be an even larger black market as a result. who will pay $200/ounce when
they can get it for 100?
Controlling behavior though punitive taxation is morally repugnant and
inherently unjust, the last refuge of scoundrels who wish to control others, but
lack the mental acuity to make a sufficiently compelling case. Fascists.
Actually it was a seldom seen variation called panama red toad, ever heard of
it?
BTW, here's one just for you. Are you really so like your buddy madnez that all
you're capable of is nifty lil zingers or is it too much to ask for you to
actually connect the few dots floatin around inside your head and formulate real
thought, then communicate it in a sane and logical manner in something
consisting of more than 2 or 3 sentences?
I'm not tryin to stretch your abilities to the breakin point or anything dude
.... just wonderin
I'm guessin that was a bit of sarcasm FA. If not I gotta tellya there's
already plenty of that pugnation in circulation. A lil more is just a drop in
the bucket comparatively
By MARCUS WOHLSEN and LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writers Marcus Wohlsen And
Lisa Leff, Associated Press Writers – 1 hr 28 mins ago
SAN FRANCISCO – A drug deal plays out, California-style: A conservatively
dressed courier drives a company-leased Smart Car to an apartment on a weekday
afternoon. Erick Alvaro hands over a white paper bag to his 58-year-old
customer, who inspects the bag to ensure everything he ordered over the phone is
there.
An eighth-ounce of organic marijuana buds for treating his seasonal allergies?
Check. An eighth of a different pot strain for insomnia? Check. THC-infused
lozenges and tea bags? Check and check, with a free herb-laced cookie thrown in
as a thank-you gift.
It's a $102 credit card transaction carried out with the practiced efficiency of
a home-delivered pizza — and with just about as much legal scrutiny.
More and more, having premium pot delivered to your door in California is not a
crime. It is a legitimate business.
Marijuana has transformed California. Since the state became the first to
legalize the drug for medicinal use, the weed the federal government puts in the
same category as heroin and cocaine has become a major economic force.
No longer relegated to the underground, pot in California these days props up
local economies, mints millionaires and feeds a thriving industry of startups
designed to grow, market and distribute the drug.
Based on the quantity of marijuana authorities seized last year, the crop was
worth an estimated $17 billion or more, dwarfing any other sector of the state's
agricultural economy.
Experts say most of that marijuana is still sold as a recreational drug on the
black market. But more recently the plant has put down deep financial roots in
highly visible, taxpaying businesses:
Stores that sell high-tech marijuana growing equipment. Pot clubs that pay rent
and hire workers. Marijuana themed magazines and food products. Chains of
for-profit clinics with doctors who specialize in medical marijuana
recommendations.
The plant's prominence does not come without costs, say some critics. Marijuana
plantations in remote forests cause severe environmental damage. Indoor grow
houses in some towns put rentals beyond the reach of students and young
families. Rural counties with declining economies cannot attract new businesses
because the available work force is caught up in the pot industry. Authorities
link the drug to violent crime in otherwise quiet small towns.
"For those of us who are on the front lines, it's not about pot is bad in
itself or drugs are bad," said Meredith Lintott, district attorney in
Mendocino County, one of the country's top marijuana-producing regions.
"It's about the negative consequences on children. It's about the negative
consequences on the environment."
Still, the sheer scale of the overall pot economy has some lawmakers pushing for
broader legalization as a way to shore up the finances of a state that has
teetered on the edge of bankruptcy. The state's top tax collector estimates that
taxing pot like liquor could bring in more than $1.3 billion annually.
On Tuesday, Oakland will consider a measure to tax the city's four marijuana
dispensaries, which the city auditor projects will ring up $17.5 million in
sales in 2010. The city faces an $83 million budget shortfall, and expects the
marijuana tax to raise $315,000.
Advocates point out that making pot legal would create millions if not billions
of dollars more in indirect sales — the ingredients used to make edible pot
products, advertising, tourism and smoking paraphernalia.
With a recent poll showing more than half of Californians supporting
legalization, pot advocates believe they will prevail. And they say other states
will follow.
Tim Blake is the proprietor of a 145-acre spiritual retreat center which holds
an annual marijuana bud-growing contest in the heart of Northern California's
pot-growing country.
Politicians, he says, are "going to see the economic benefits, they're
going to see the health benefits and they're going to jump on the
bandwagon."
___
On a property flanked by vineyards, Mendocino County farmer Jim Hill grows
marijuana for up to 20 patients, including himself and his wife. He believes
passionately in marijuana's purported ability to treat the symptoms of diseases
ranging from cancer to Alzheimer's; he says his wife suffers from a serotonin
imbalance, and he uses the drug to treat digestive problems and intestinal
cramping.
Hill's plants enjoy careful nurturing in a temperature-controlled greenhouse. On
a recent spring day, his college-age son spread bat guano to fertilize two dozen
6-foot-tall plants.
Hill is 45 years old; he says he spent $10,000 to set up the garden. Patients
receive their drugs free in exchange for helping with his crop.
"It's kind of like living on an apple orchard," Hill said. "You
don't pay for an apple."
Though marijuana is cultivated throughout California, the most prized crops come
from the forested mountains and hidden valleys of Mendocino, Humboldt and
Trinity counties — the Emerald Triangle.
The economic impact of so much pot is difficult to gauge. Authorities say the
largest grows are run by Mexican drug cartels that simply funnel money from
forest-raised crops back into their own bank accounts.
Still, marijuana money from outdoor and indoor plots inevitably flows into local
coffers. Marijuana increases residents' retail buying power by about $58 million
countywide, according to a Mendocino County report. The county ranks 48th out of
58 counties in median income but, by counting pot proceeds, could jump as high
as 18th.
Businesses benefit from mom-and-pop growers who cultivate pot to supplement
their incomes and from marijuana plantation workers who descend on the Emerald
Triangle from all over the country for the fall harvest. Pot
"trimmers" can earn more than $40 per hour.
In Ukiah, the county's largest city, business owners say the extra cash is
crucial. "I really don't think we would exist without it," says Nicole
Martensen, 37, whose wine and garden shop is stocked with bottles from county
vintners.
The skunk-like smell of marijuana hangs over the town of about 11,000 during the
October harvest, when cash registers brim with $100 bills. Sometimes the wads of
cash spent in Martensen's shop come dusted with pot.
But Ukiah banker Marty Lombardi says existing businesses cannot compete with pot
industry wages for workers. Lombardi's bank does not make loans to anyone
suspected of trying to fund a pot operation, but he said most growers do not
need them.
"I don't think you or I have any sense for how much money is
generated," he said.
Mendocino County Sheriff Tom Allman says medical marijuana operations that
follow state and county laws will face no hassles from his department. His
deputies left intact 154 marijuana grows they visited last year, he said
"If you're living in the boundaries, I'm not going to mess with you,"
Allman said.
Which is not to say that there is no legal risk to growing, selling or buying
marijuana. Federal laws still apply, and pot dealings not deemed medicinal are
considered criminal by the state.
Local, state and federal authorities pulled up 364,000 plants across Mendocino
last year. And the state Department of Justice reported more than 16,000 felony
arrests and nearly 58,000 misdemeanor arrests for marijuana offenses in 2007 —
the highest numbers in a decade.
Sparky Rose sits in the federal prison in Lompoc, serving a 37-month term. Law
enforcement officials insist he is one of many sellers who have used the medical
marijuana law as a guise for old-time drug dealing. Rose does not disagree,
although he would like to think he helped some legitimate pot patients in the
process.
A one-time Web designer, he started out in 2001 making $15 an hour as a
"bud tender" working the counter at an Oakland club. Four years later,
he was overseeing a dispensary chain with stores in seven cities, 283 employees
and sales reaching $5 million a month.
That's not as much as it seems, he says. Much of the money went to pay salaries,
to purchase equipment and to buy 200 pounds of marijuana each week.
Rose says he was making $500,000 a year before his 2006 arrest, a sum he
considers fair given the chain's volume and the risk he assumed as the company's
public face. Before opening a new location, he would meet with local officials
and police to get their implicit OK.
"We operated out in the open, and the feds knew who we were and they let us
do it for four years, so as time goes on you get this comfortable feeling,"
he says.
"While I was still in the business, a lot people would ask me, 'I'm
thinking about starting a club, what advice do you have?' "And I'd say,
'The biggest warning is sooner or later, you will start to think it's
legal.'"
___
Even people accustomed to buying marijuana over the counter are impressed when
they visit the Farmacy, a dispensary-cum-New Age apothecary with three locations
in Los Angeles. Decorated in soft beige and staffed by workers in lab coats, the
Venice store sells organic toiletries, essential oils and incense along with 25
types of pot stored in glass jars, including strains such as Beverly Bubba and
Third Eye.
Anyone can shop there, but to buy the cannabis-infused gelato, olive oil, soft
drinks and other "edibles," customers must show a doctor's
recommendation, have the information verified by the doctor's office and obtain
a patient identification number for future visits.
During a two-hour span, the dozen or so customers who made a purchase all bought
pot products and paid the 9.25 percent state sales tax on top of their
purchases. The clubs, which are not supposed to turn a profit, call their
transactions "donations."
Allen Siegel is 74; he is dying of cancer and wants to try smoking marijuana to
ease his pain without knocking him out like prescription drugs do. So his wife,
Ina, brought him to the Farmacy for his first visit as a legal pot patient.
"You go in there and they have so many choices," she says.
California's "green rush" was spurred by a voter-approved law 13 years
ago that authorized patients with a doctor's recommendation to possess and
cultivate marijuana for personal use. Although a dozen other states have adopted
similar laws, California is the only one where privately owned pot shops have
flourished.
Los Angeles County alone has more than 400 pot dispensaries and delivery
services, nearly twice as many outlets as Amsterdam, the Netherlands capital
whose coffee shops have for decades been synonymous with free-market
marijuana.
Promoted as a way to shield people with AIDS, cancer and anorexia who use
marijuana from prosecution, the 1996 Compassionate Use Act also permitted
limited possession for "any other illness for which marijuana provides
relief."
The broad language opened the door to doctors willing to recommend pot for
nearly any ailment. In a survey of nearly 2,500 patients, longtime Berkeley
medical marijuana advocate Dr. Tod Mikuriya found that almost three-quarters of
the patients used the drug for pain relief or mental health issues.
Dispensaries began selling marijuana, although they were risking federal
charges. Some operators have become less fearful since U.S. Attorney General
Eric Holder said this year that the Justice Department would not target pot
operations following state laws, reducing the risk of random federal raids that
existed under the Bush administration.
California's pot dispensaries now have more in common with a corner grocery than
a speakeasy. They advertise freely, offering discount coupons and daily
specials.
Justin Hartfield, a 25-year-old Web designer and business student, founded
WeedMaps.com, where pot clubs and doctors who write medi-pot recommendations
list their services and users post reviews. Hartfield says the year-old site
brought in $20,000 this month, an amount he expects to double in August.
Hartfield exhibited at THC Expo, a two-day trade show at the Los Angeles
Convention Center that attracted an estimated 35,000 attendees in June. There
was hydroponic gardening equipment and bong vendors and bikini-clad models
wearing leis made of fake marijuana leaves.
Like just about everyone else connected to the cannabis trade, Hartfield has a
letter from a doctor that entitles him to buy medical marijuana from a
dispensary. But he sees no point in pretending he is treating anything more than
his taste for smoking weed.
"It is a joke. It's a legal way for me to get what I used to get on the
street," he said.
He recalls telling the doctor who provided the referral that he suffered from
insomnia and anxiety, though neither was true. As he signed the paperwork, the
doctor "congratulated me like I was getting my degree from
Harvard."
___
What would happen if marijuana was legal — not just for medical uses, but for
all uses?
Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, wants the state to tax and regulate
all pot as it does alcohol. State Board of Equalization chairwoman Betty Yee, a
supporter, projects the law would generate $990 million annually through a
$50-per-ounce fee for retailers and $392 million in sales taxes. (The state now
collects $18 million each year in taxes on medical marijuana.)
The state would not start collecting taxes on marijuana under Ammiano's bill
until the federal government lifts its restrictions on the drug.
That's not enough for pro-pot activists who want Californians to vote next year
on a proposal that would allow adults to legally possess up to one ounce of pot
and allow cities to sell and tax the drug.
"Local governments are malnourished and in need of revenue badly,"
said Aaron Smith, state policy director for the Marijuana Policy Project, which
advocates legalization. "There's this multibillion-dollar industry that's
the elephant in the room that they're not able to tap into."
Lintott, the Mendocino prosecutor, is not convinced that legalization would put
an end to the underworld's marijuana operations. She argues that big-time
growers would never bother filing tax returns. "Legalizing it isn't going
to touch the big money," she says.
But others predict the black-market business model would fall apart.
Large-scale agri-businesses in California's Central Valley would dominate legal
marijuana production as they already do bulk wine grapes, advocates argue. Pot
prices would fall dramatically, forcing growers to abandon costly clandestine
operations that authorities say trash the land and steal scarce water.
And legalization, supporters insist, would save state and local governments
billions on police, court and prison costs.
But others survey California in 2009 and say the cannabis future is now. Richard
Lee has parlayed a pair of Oakland dispensaries into a mini-empire that includes
a marijuana lifestyle magazine, an "adult consumption" club, a starter
plant nursery and a three-campus marijuana trade school. Oaksterdam University's
main campus is a prominent fixture in revitalized downtown Oakland.
All without legalization.
"It's like here's reality, and here's the law," Lee says. "The
culture has gone so far beyond the law, people have gotten used to being able to
get quality product. They are not going to go back."
Legalizing drugs will not get rid of the drug cartels or the black market for
drugs alone. If it was legal and taxed then the drug cartels would merely lower
their prices and stay in business. The above poster was correct when he said
drugs would have to be free. If they were free then the drug cartels would go
out of the drug business for good. Sure legalizing it and taxing it would be
good for new revenue for governments but it would not bring as much revenue as
would be thought and drug cartels would still be in business. I just wish I
could find a black market for my cigarettes, the cost is outrageous right now.
as their goal.
