Terminator to Legalize Pot?

Black Swan

"LOS ANGELES — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Tuesday that the discussion over whether to legalize and tax marijuana for recreational use in California would benefit from a large-scale study, including international case comparisons, to show the possible impact of such a change."

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/us/07arnold.html

To steal a lead-in to a joke by Jay Leno: "You know the economy is getting bad when..." A Republican (the party of Bush-Cheney) is so desperate for tax money during the Great Recession that they would consider legalizing pot!

California is one of the five bell weather states associated with predicting future trends in US America. So what would "the possible impact of such a change" be if California legalized pot, taxed it, and made it available to their huge (35,893,799) population as a recreational drug like alcohol? On California? On USA? On Ireland? On the world? Your best guess?

Is this part of the social apocalypse predicted in the final days (as so many Bible believers may proclaim), or just a better way to party and get high without a hangover the next day?

And for you non-smokers, will Martha Stewart have a telly show someday on how pot can be used to spice up your dinner, while at the same time getting a buzz? They cook with wine, why not pot?

ScumLord

I don't know, sounds like he's fulfilling a promise to "look into it" without actually doing anything.

4zn76tysfajdxp

Well he's certainly done his research:

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think this actually a sign he won't be legalising it. There's currently a bill to legalise it and I think this talk of "a study to see what happens" is a prelude to "its a bad idea, no to bill"

rubadub

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

And for you non-smokers, will Martha Stewart have a telly show someday on how pot can be used to spice up your dinner, while at the same time getting a buzz? They cook with wine, why not pot?

People do not get pissed on the food she would be making. People already use hemp oil in cooking, that would be a better comparison.

If adding cannabis to food to get high then a better comparison to food would be people making vodka jellies

Black Swan

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think this actually a sign he won't be legalising it. There's currently a bill to legalise it and I think this talk of "a study to see what happens" is a prelude to "its a bad idea, no to bill"

So a sneaky politician's way to TERMINATE it? Well, he does have some practice doing that!

5318008!

Not only do they have washington to deal with, but i thought the UN had it nicely sewn up so no country could legalise drugs without some sort of change to some treaties. That's why countries that would have legal drugs only have them decriminalised.

How much power do the UN actually have?

Bottle_of_Smoke

5318008! wrote: »

Not only do they have washington to deal with, but i thought the UN had it nicely sewn up so no country could legalise drugs without some sort of change to some treaties. That's why countries that would have legal drugs only have them decriminalised.

How much power do the UN actually have?

I reckon California is powerful enough for the UN to consider changing it, especially if other US states followed suit. Ireland wouldn't be unfortunately

Black Swan

rubadub wrote: »

If adding cannabis to food to get high then a better comparison to food would be people making vodka jellies

How about a nice fresh salad with all the fixings? Dump booze in favour of going GREEN?

4zn76tysfajdxp

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

So a sneaky politician's way to TERMINATE it? Well, he does have some practice doing that!

Well he has to look into it first. He'll be back with more info.

Black Swan

Just think how the legalization of pot could impact on the organic trend in foods? Blue smugly turns to her companion for lunch at the Veggie Grill in posh Irvine, "The pot salads they have here are organic... no paraquat in the dressing."

Debunker

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

How about a nice fresh salad with all the fixings? Dump booze in favour of going GREEN?

Two words: Hash brownies.

Overheal

5318008! wrote: »

Not only do they have washington to deal with, but i thought the UN had it nicely sewn up so no country could legalise drugs without some sort of change to some treaties. That's why countries that would have legal drugs only have them decriminalised.

How much power do the UN actually have?

I'm not sure this is the case. How else would we have medical marijuana? I guess you could argue back with Methadone and Morphine though.

I don't think it would have gotten this far though if there wasn't a way. Amendments and Ratifications can always be made.

I don't think its covered under UN law. At least not for Domestic. Otherwise the Netherlands would be forced to secede.

Black Swan

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I reckon California is powerful enough for the UN to consider changing it, especially if other US states followed suit. Ireland wouldn't be unfortunately

"California would have the 7th highest GDP in the world if thought of as a country..."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_between_U.S._states_and_countries_nominal_GDP

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't know, sounds like he's fulfilling a promise to "look into it" without actually doing anything.

"You know, if he stinks, you can't go to the future and send somebody back to stop him." —Jon Stewart on Schwarzenegger, at the Emmy awards. :cool:

5318008!

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not sure this is the case. How else would we have medical marijuana? I guess you could argue back with Methadone and Morphine though.

AFAIK there's a clear allowance for the medical use of these drugs. Any prescription drug that is recreationally useable and has been around for the last 30 years is probably covered by these treaties.

I don't think its covered under UN law. At least not for Domestic. Otherwise the Netherlands would be forced to secede.

Cannabis is only decriminalised there, not legalised. I was under the impression this was largely due to them being bound by other organisations such as the eu and the un.

smellslikeshoes

Couldn't see this happening, it would be political suicide for him to even try to legalize it. His celebrity aside he is still a Republican and gets voted in by the pro gun pro church anti abortion people that would be completely against this.

Black Swan

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

Couldn't see this happening, it would be political suicide for him to even try to legalize it. His celebrity aside he is still a Republican and gets voted in by the pro gun pro church anti abortion people that would be completely against this.

"A Field Poll from April showed 56 percent of the state’s registered voters in support of legalizing and taxing marijuana for recreational use to fill some of the budget deficit."

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/us/07arnold.html

"Schwarzenegger's rating dropped from 40 percent in January to 34 percent among registered voters in the poll that was concluded Feb. 17 (2009)."

Source: http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/020057.html

56% of voters might look good to him now?

Holsten

Hope they do, then more States follow on, then more countrys follow on.

Stoned Hippy

5318008! wrote: »

Not only do they have washington to deal with, but i thought the UN had it nicely sewn up so no country could legalise drugs without some sort of change to some treaties. That's why countries that would have legal drugs only have them decriminalised.

How much power do the UN actually have?

The Americans haven't the best track record of listening to the UN really, do they?

Manic Moran

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

Couldn't see this happening, it would be political suicide for him to even try to legalize it. His celebrity aside he is still a Republican and gets voted in by the pro gun pro church anti abortion people that would be completely against this.

He's being hit by term limits, he can't run again anyway.

Besides, he's considered something or a RINO by the pro-gun, pro-church mob: Not really one of 'the faithful', a little lacking. The reason he's still voted for by most republicans is the realisation that anyone who is really pro-gun, pro church wouldn't have a hope of winning in California, and it's sure as hell better than having a definite anti-gun, anti-church/whatever Democratic governor.

NTM

Overheal

decriminalized then. wahey. Better than the current situation either way.

Black Swan

Stoned Hippy wrote: »

The Americans haven't the best track record of listening to the UN really, do they?

Iraq attack! Iraq attack! Nice Bush sound bite? Goes down well with Freedom Fries when the French wouldn't collaborate?

Back on topic... LONDON -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says in the British version of GQ magazine that marijuana is not a drug -- but the governor's spokesman says the comments were made in jest.

Manic Moran wrote: »

He's being hit by term limits, he can't run again anyway.

"Schwarzenegger could legally seek a third term only if the term limits were to be modified, and lo and behold, he and legislators are talking about doing exactly that. While the public discussion of changing term limits has centered on legislators, there's no particular reason why loosening the limits on constitutional officers couldn't be part of any deal."

Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070203/ai_n17201102/

ScumLord

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"A Field Poll from April showed 56 percent of the state’s registered voters in support of legalizing and taxing marijuana for recreational use to fill some of the budget deficit."

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/us/07arnold.html

"Schwarzenegger's rating dropped from 40 percent in January to 34 percent among registered voters in the poll that was concluded Feb. 17 (2009)."

Source: http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/020057.html

56% of voters might look good to him now?

Obama only got 53% of the vote to get elected. More people want weed than Obama.

Riddle101

Arnie: I'm am here by legalizing this substance known as marijuana.
Assistant: Here's you're pot Mr Schwarzenegger
Arnie: I'll be back

Anyway I hope it does get legalized over there, and then Ireland sees how well it's doing over there and legalizes it here.......... and taxes it. Make poverty history, cheaper drugs now.

Black Swan

ScumLord wrote: »

Obama only got 53% of the vote to get elected. More people want weed than Obama.

"When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn't like it. I didn't inhale and never tried it again." –Bill Clinton (Smoked but didn't inhale... Yea right Bill, we believe you, ha!):rolleyes:

Change is slow in the USA....

Way back when (2000): "This week, in an interview in Rolling Stone magazine, President Bill Clinton says he believes people should not be arrested for possessing marijuana. The self-admitted one-time marijuana smoker, who claims he did not inhale, told the magazine which hits newsstands on Friday, "I think that most small amounts of marijuana have been decriminalized in some places, and should be."

And after the big "change" slogan 2008 presidential campaign...

"The legislative battle to legalize pot in California has gained so much attention that President Obama can no longer ignore it. In an online town hall meeting Obama rejected the argument that legalizing, regulating, and taxing marijuana would be a good way to raise money in this recession."

Source: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/risky-business/2009/03/26/obama-marijuana-legalization-not-good-for-the-economy.html

Overheal

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn't like it. I didn't inhale and never tried it again." –Bill Clinton (Smoked but didn't inhale... Yea right Bill, we believe you, ha!):rolleyes:

Perhaps he thought it was like a cigar?

"The legislative battle to legalize pot in California has gained so much attention that President Obama can no longer ignore it. In an online town hall meeting Obama rejected the argument that legalizing, regulating, and taxing marijuana would be a good way to raise money in this recession."

Source: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/risky-business/2009/03/26/obama-marijuana-legalization-not-good-for-the-economy.html

I really don't expect him to make it a cabinet issue, at least until a second term in office.

joey54

Anybody else think that he seems to be declaring everything a "state of emergency"????

Overheal

joey54 wrote: »

Anybody else think that he seems to be declaring everything a "state of emergency"????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency#United_States

Joey the lips

It would dfef make an episode of the terminator more mellow

Terry

This is what happens when you continually inject steroids into you balls.

ScumLord

Terry wrote: »

This is what happens when you continually inject steroids into you balls.

You post about it on AH afterwards??

raah!

I think a poll on how bordsies stand on the legilisation of cannabis would be illuminating. Yes, illuminating. There's probably already one in existence though. I have a stinking hunch that many of those fellows so opposed to it now, due to a negative view of those who take it, would be perhaps be wavered in their resolve somewhat... if the poll turned out correctly that is. Those "think of the children"s are immovable though.

Debunker

raah! wrote: »

I think a poll on how bordsies stand on the legilisation of cannabis would be illuminating. Yes, illuminating. There's probably already one in existence though. I have a stinking hunch that many of those fellows so opposed to it now, due to a negative view of those who take it, would be perhaps be wavered in their resolve somewhat... if the poll turned out correctly that is. Those "think of the children"s are immovable though.

A majority of people probably aren't educated enough to decide properly.
I'm pro legalising, but still don't think I know enough if it came down to a vote.

raah!

Debunker wrote: »

A majority of people probably aren't educated enough to decide properly.
I'm pro legalising, but still don't think I know enough if it came down to a vote.

A modest fellow you are indeed! There's not much to know really, every argument has been ironed out a million times by both sides, have a look at them I suppose.

I searched a poll, more said yes than no, and most said 42. I don't know if that means they want to keep cannabis for current cannabis smokers or.... it could mean anythign really, but considering there is already a yes, it would make some sense if it meant that.

Rented Mule

The problem is that even if California decides to decriminilise/legalise marijuana, it will not hold up in the Federal Courts, as the FDA and DEA will have the final say in the new laws validity.

We have already seen this in many of the medical marijuana clubs that have been formed over the years. They have been raided time and time again by Federal agencies looking to shut them down.

There is far too much money in the pharmeceutical and beer/liquor lobbies to allow anything to cut into their profit margins.

These are the people who will spend $3 million for a 60 second advertising spot during the Super Bowl.

Black Swan

Rented Mule wrote: »

There is far too much money in the pharmeceutical and beer/liquor lobbies to allow anything to cut into their profit margins.

But who's going to profit from it being legalized, packaged, regulated, taxed, and sold? Sure, the cigarette corporations could scale up the fastest for smokers (and Big Tobacco has a powerful lobby too), but many like me would never smoke anything, tobacco or otherwise. California cigarette smokers are in the minority and declining:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- California's adult smoking rate dropped to 14.0 percent last year, the state's lowest level on record, State Health Director Sandra Shewry announced...

Source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2006_April_20/ai_n16127992/

I can see the beer/liqueur corporations coming up with drinks that mellow you out and don't leave you with a hangover. I can see the pharm corporations popping out hash pills to relax those stressed out types, without the side effects of many of their current prescription drugs. Could Big Pharm now produce OTC hash drugs regulated by age like cigarette and alcohol purchases to be sold at the local market or petrol station convenience store?

In the long run, the only losers I see are the drug runners and dealers from Central and So America (plus a few hidden producers in California's state and national parks). I've always wondered if there was a black market illegal drug lobby in Washington, DC, that kept pot illegal, just so they could keep the supply and demand ratio in their favour. Naaaaaaa, but it would make for a grand conspiracy theory on that forum?

ScumLord

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

In the long run, the only losers I see are the drug runners and dealers from Central and So America (plus a few hidden producers in California's state and national parks). I've always wondered if there was a black market illegal drug lobby in Washington, DC, that kept pot illegal, just so they could keep the supply and demand ratio in their favour. Naaaaaaa, but it would make for a grand conspiracy theory on that forum?

At the same time it could be great for the farmers that are now producing crops illegally for criminal organisations.

Mr.Lizard

Terry wrote: »

This is what happens when you continually inject steroids into you balls.

Hey hey hey! That's an unfair generalisation to make about body builders! They do nothing of the kind! :mad: Fact is they usually get one of their gym buddies to do the inject their balls because it is impossible for the individual to guide their needle into their own balls.

Nothing homosexual about it either before you say it! Why, hanging out in a gym locker-room after you've showered and concentrating intently at another mans balls is probably the most manly thing you can do .... that and act of putting on fake tan, getting up on stage in the bottom half of a womans bikini and showing off your big muscles to other heterosexual men of course.

Lirange

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

But who's going to profit from it being legalized, packaged, regulated, taxed, and sold? Sure, the cigarette corporations could scale up the fastest for smokers (and Big Tobacco has a powerful lobby too), but many like me would never smoke anything, tobacco or otherwise. California cigarette smokers are in the minority and declining:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- California's adult smoking rate dropped to 14.0 percent last year, the state's lowest level on record, State Health Director Sandra Shewry announced...

Just saw that California was where the smoking ban trend got rolling, prohibiting smoking in all restaurants/workplaces in 1994, extending the ban to pubs in 1998. If they legalise the weed maybe it will be contagious. I don't understand why they shouldn't have different laws in different states like they do for same sex marriage. They don't typically prosecute possession offenders under U.S. federal law do they?

Black Swan

Lirange wrote: »

They don't typically prosecute possession offenders under U.S. federal law do they?

(03-25) 22:05 PDT San Francisco -- "Federal agents raided a medical marijuana dispensary in San Francisco Wednesday, a week after U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder signaled that the Obama administration would not prosecute distributors of pot used for medicinal purposes that operate under sanction of state law."

Double standard between California and Fed?

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/25/BA5B16N9LR.DTL

muboop1

i spent a summer in Santa Barbara beside LA, weed is practically legal there! nobody stops people the cops dont even seem to care.

there is also a bigger fine for being caught drinking then smoking!

Black Swan

Debunker wrote: »

Two words: Hash brownies.

In a Starbucks... I wonder how they'd go with my morning coffee? An upper and a downer combined? Oh well, one must have balance in life?