MacJake's "Eye on the Forum": California Prop 19

Professor MacJake

Wikipedia because I'm lazy wrote: »

Proposition 19, also known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, is a California ballot proposition which will be on the November 2, 2010 California statewide ballot. It legalizes various marijuana-related activities, allows local governments to regulate these activities, permits local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorizes various criminal and civil penalties.

Scientific studies show that smoking cannabis is far less harmful to average post-puberty adults than, say, alcohol and tobacco. The illegal sale of cannabis in the United States, however, results in billions of dollars abetting foreign drug cartels that rely upon the restricted-but-reliable cannabis trade to fund far more sinister activities. All the while, our federal and state governments face recession-era declines in tax revenue and struggle to meet our obligations to a wide variety of social services, included overcrowded prisons and resource strapped law enforcement agencies. I think that it is simple common sense to review our marijuana policy and realize the societal and economic potential. I don't believe my position on this surprises anyone here.

But enough about me, but I want to hear YOUR opinions! Where do you stand on legalized laughing grass?

kukopanki

YAY for legalization, NAY for taxation.

X'o'Lore

I don't want anything to do with the stuff myself, but I guess to me it's like a combination of drinking and smoking cigarettes in certain respects. It has an influence on a persons functionality not unlike alcohol and as such it'd have to be treated much like it. Yet it can also be smoked which brings up the second-hand issues that tobacco smoking has. It seems we have systems in place to potentially handle it already, and if the prohibition taught us nothing it's that there no stopping people from getting something they REALLY want and it can be counterproductive to fight it if to many people want something.

Simply put, as someone who prefers to keep his distance from stuff like that, I don't want to have to smell it, and I don't want to see people driving around and crap while under its influence. I'd want to make sure they are set to enforce responsible usage of it. If they are, I might be willing to tolerate it, but I reserve the right to to at least threaten to kick anyone in the shins if they sit and smoke weed while standing next to a sign beside a door that says "No smoking within 50 feet of this entrance".

Mish42

For sure legalize it! But... I don't like spliffs all that much

Yay for legalization, yay for taxation. I think it's pretty appropriate to add weed to the list of sin taxes-- I already pay out the ass for cigarettes, I don't think I'd mind paying a lot for weed if it were legal. Then again, I assume they'd keep the legal consumption age at 21, so I wouldn't legally be able to smoke any for another year.

illithid235

I'm totally for the legalization and enforcement of marijuana. It's so ridiculous to me how big a deal is made over a small plant that makes you feel relaxed when you smoke it. PASS THAT SHIT (yay double entendre)!

TheFlameOfHearts

It gets California the money they need and legalizes it for everyone else, looks like a win-win to me.

Though I also have to agree with X'o'Lore on wanting to be lawfully entitled to kick stupid people in the shins.

bruce

Personally, I support legalising a fair few drugs and taxing them in the same way one would tax cigarettes and booze.

As long as there's an age limit for buying, I have no qualms. Makes it safer for everyone.

shakeycat

GET OFF OF MY ART GALLERY you ridiculous children

mario

I'm all for legalization and taxation. And propositions. And California!

Mish42

XoLore wrote: »

Simply put, as someone who prefers to keep his distance from stuff like that, I don't want to have to smell it, and I don't want to see people driving around and crap while under its influence.

I can't see anyone being okay with it being legal the way cigarettes are legal. I know it's illegal in Texas to consume alcohol in public (outside of a restaurant or similar), and I would assume they'd make it the same for weed. Because, let's face it: weed smells horrible. I would not like to smell weed on my way to something important, just like I wouldn't like to smell alcohol. There's always going to be a jackass who smells like marijuana wherever they go, but I mean, those guys already smell like marijuana all the time. There wouldn't be any difference.

QueenQuinlin

So in Texas is it also illegal to smoke in public? I find the smell of cigarettes to be more potent than that of alcohol. So if thats the basis for the law, one would imagine they would include cigarettes.

As I understand it, marijuana is only more harmful than cigarettes because of its tar content. It has something like twice the amount of tar. Other than that, nicotine is more addictive and its legal. I don't see why marijuana shouldn't be (with the same age restrictions as alcohol and cigarettes).

Mish42

It's not illegal to smoke in public in Texas, but there are a few areas you're not allowed to smoke (public school grounds, for instance). A lot of cities have adopted a smoking ban where you can't smoke inside restaurants or bars, but it varies from city to city.

I just looked up the amount of tar in marijuana as compared to cigarettes and I found different amounts... However, almost all of the sources noted that cigarette smokers would still smoke a lot more than stoners, just because you don't chain smoke joints. Unless you're retarded, or you want to be retarded.

Serephel

Overall, I'd like to see it legalized, but it can't have the same levels of freedom that alcohol and tobacco have. At a restaurant you can't get drunk off your neighbors drinking beer or buzzed from smoking tobacco, but you can get high from them smoking pot.

That being said, a regulation I would support is that it can only be smoked in public areas deemed acceptable by the business or establishment. You cannot smoke pot at IHOP, but the owner of a private bar or coffee shop is free to allow it or ban it as he sees fit.

Serephel

Necrothreading because I found this very interesting.

[URL="http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/12/the-marijuana-number-that-was-too-good-to-check/]The Marijuana Number That Was Too Good to Check[/URL]

Over the last few years, supporters and opponents of marijuana legalization have both cited the same statistic to back their cause: 60% of the profits made by violent Mexican drug lords come from marijuana. But now, it seems, both sides have been wrong.

Nearly 28,000 deaths have been associated with Mexico's war on drugs, which shows no signs of slowing. To mitigate the slaughter, supporters of legalization have argued that taking marijuana out of the equation by making it legal would hit kingpins where it really hurts, assuming the 60% figure is accurate. This argument has recently gained new currency with Proposition 19, the campaign to legalize marijuana in California via the state initiative that will be voted on in November. (More on Time.com: Prop 19 Analysis: Will Marijuana Legalization Increase Use).

Opponents of legalization, alternatively, have used the same 60% statistic to argue that marijuana is not a harmless or humorous drug, but one that is associated with all the evils of hardcore drug trafficking.

Where does the 60% figure come from? It was released by the Office of National Drug Control Policy — the federal drug czar —in 2006, but its origins and exact derivation were not made public. With legalization advocates using it enthusiastically, however, the agency officially backed away [PDF] from it in September, claiming that the models on which it was based "are dated and may no longer apply."

To most experts, the number never really made sense in the first place: for one, why would Mexican drug lords be reaping so much of their profits from marijuana, when the country is the source or key transit point for most of America's cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine — drugs that are typically more profitable than marijuana? Nevertheless, the rhetorical use of the statistic kept it popular in the media. (More on Time.com: The Siege of Ciudad Juárez).

Now the Rand Corporation's Drug Policy Research Center offers a more scientific and sensible estimate of the economics. According to its own analysis of drug smuggling across the U.S.–Mexico border, Rand researchers estimate that marijuana accounts for 15% to 26% of illegal drug revenue in Mexico, and say the 60% figure "should not be taken seriously."

This takes some steam out of the legalization debate — on both sides. Given that California makes up an estimated 14% of the U.S. marijuana market overall, legalizing the drug in that state would have minimal impact on Mexican drug profits or violence, cutting drug export revenue by perhaps 2% to 4%.

"Legalizing marijuana in California would not appreciably influence the Mexican drug trafficking organizations and the related violence unless exports from California drive Mexican marijuana out of the market in other states. If that happens, then legalization could reduce some of the Mexican drug violence in the long run. But even then, legalization may not have much impact in the short run," said Beau Kilmer, the study's lead author, in a press release. (More on Time.com: California's First Marijuana Factory?).

What that leaves out, of course, is the impact legalization in California may have on the rest of the U.S. If California legalizes marijuana, other states may follow suit and U.S. drug policy could change dramatically. Whichever direction policy goes, however, good numbers are a better basis for argument than exaggerations — no matter how much they might seem to support your case.

Mish42

I always figured that cocaine was the main profit for drug traffickers. It should be interesting when this election goes through-- I heard the other day that California made it slightly easier to carry weed on you. That is, they'll give you a fine, but it won't go any farther than that. I think the article i read compared it to a traffic ticket.

god

I think the way it worked in California was they only gave you a small fine, but they took you to court over it, meaning it went on your record and the state spent way more on trying to get the money than it ever got. Starting 1/1/11, it's just going to be given out like a traffic ticket.

Behemoth

I thought they raised the amount also, up to an ounce. I recall hearing that number from Stephen Colbert because he made a joke by equating it to how many marijuana cigarettes you could roll with it and pulled out a bowl of joints.