Proposition 19: Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

Black Swan

California will vote on this ballot proposition during the 2 November 2010 mid-term elections.

"Official summary: Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired."

Where do Independents, Democrats, or Republicans (or Tea Party Movement) stand on this issue, which may spread to other states if it passes in California? Why?

If you were a registered California voter in November, would you vote for, against, or abstain? Why?

What will happen if California passes a law that is opposed to the current Federal law that prohibits the recreational use of Cannabis (i.e., Marijuana)? Will the Obama administration challenge the state's rights to self-govern in this issue, just like they challenged Arizona over their recent anti-illegal immigration law?

Sources:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/west/view/20100729if_california_legalizes_marijuana_not_clear_what_obama_administration_would_do/srvc=home&position=recent
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/25/california-pot-legalizati_n_512788.html#
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_19,_the_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative_%282010%29

Overheal

I'm in support of the issue. It's long overdue that we tax what should be a perfectly legitimate substance, as much as alcohol is. Numerous benefits to this, like reducing the prison population (bearing in mind this will not likely act retroactively) and regulating the quality and hence the safety of it.

If the Federal Government was going to challenge the issue they wouldve done so when medical cannabis was introduced.

kev9100

As long as its well regulated, I'm fine with it. At the end of the day, people will always want to smoke it and the government may as well draw some revenue from it.

zenno

cannabis is a naturally grown herb, it's part of nature and is not tampered with by man as it grows out of the earth in it's natural form and should not be called a drug under any circumstance. it's like making onions illegal. governments do not like anything that makes a persons awareness enlightened they are afraid you might actually use your mind.

jank

What is the likely hood that this will pass?

zenno

jank wrote: »

What is the likely hood that this will pass?

QUOTE: California will vote on this ballot proposition during the 2 November 2010 mid-term elections.

the likelyhood that this will pass is, imo a guarantee i'm very sure of that. it will definately pass.

amacachi

Independent, liberal/libertarian type, it's about bloody time somewhere legalised it.

charlemont

will be great if they do it.. other nations will follow suit and relax their laws on it, (but not ireland..of course)
images cowen.jpg

ynotdu

It is legal in Holland and is widely smoked in Ireland.
The Medic's say in its smoken form it is even more dangerous than a plain cigarette because people take a deeper inhale to get the full effect.

I know people who drank and were great company without being stupid,when they switched to weed they are funny only to themselves.
agree it makes more sense to legalise and tax it than deny what is a naturally occuring substance[but then Opium +derivatives fall into same category]

Weird thing is there never has been any Tribe discovered anywhere that did not have some substance that relaxed or bent the mind.
It's tempting to think it is Natures way.

Mjollnir

ynotdu wrote: »

It is legal in Holland and is widely smoked in Ireland.
The Medic's say in its smoken form it is even more dangerous than a plain cigarette because people take a deeper inhale to get the full effect.

If there's a medic who says that, that medic is a moron, given that water pipes are available, and one smokes far less of a joint per person than a cigarette, in any case.

Overheal

Mjollnir wrote: »

If there's a medic who says that, that medic is a moron, given that water pipes are available, and one smokes far less of a joint per person than a cigarette, in any case.

Arguing that you can smoke marijuana differently to a cigarette is a moot point. When smoked in the same manner as a regular cigarette, it is in fact more harmful to your health per joint than per cigarette.

Mjollnir

Overheal wrote: »

Arguing that you can smoke marijuana differently to a cigarette is a moot point. When smoked in the same manner as a regular cigarette, it is in fact more harmful to your health per joint than per cigarette.

Go ahead and cite the data that supports that.

zenno

Overheal wrote: »

Arguing that you can smoke marijuana differently to a cigarette is a moot point. When smoked in the same manner as a regular cigarette, it is in fact more harmful to your health per joint than per cigarette.

"Overheal" what planet are you living on ?

quote: it is in fact more harmful to your health per joint than per cigarette. end quote/

I am sick of uneducated people making comments on a subject they know nothing about.

cannabis has never caused 1 death and cannabis has many healing properties. if you bothered to take the time to do some research on this herb you will finally understand that what you say is utter garbage.

this is from 2001 and is a bit old. http://cannabis.net/health/index.html

quote: from the observer...Cannabis is a 'wonder drug' capable of radically transforming the lives of very sick people, according to the results of the first clinical trials of the drug.

Tests sanctioned by the Government are proving far more successful than doctors, patients and cannabis campaigners ever dared hope. Some of the patients are simply calling it a 'miracle'

amacachi

Overheal wrote: »

Arguing that you can smoke marijuana differently to a cigarette is a moot point. When smoked in the same manner as a regular cigarette, it is in fact more harmful to your health per joint than per cigarette.

Really? I'm pretty sure tea has more caffeine than coffee but which is more useful due to preparation? The habits and methods of consumption is certainly not a moot point.

ynotdu

Mjollnir wrote: »

If there's a medic who says that, that medic is a moron, given that water pipes are available, and one smokes far less of a joint per person than a cigarette, in any case.

Hi Mjollner there is without doubt a hugh benifit to some people who use it for genuine medical purposes.You have to bear in mind that most people mix it with tobaccco from a broken up cigarette and then roll it in paper without even a proper filter,the Younger and poorer people are the more likely they are to use this method.

http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

Those links are just two of many examples of the harmful effects of weed to lungs,heart and mental health [the second one might even be from a more respected source]

bottom line though if You are against drunk driving or want Your pilot to fly Your plane unstoned it is a law people would have to vote against based on the best available medical evidence.
It's half life in the body is far longer than Alcohol,it is at least as cancer causing and the Jury is out as to whether it cause's depression or is taken to sooth depression.

It seems to be a Myth that it is non addictive[i know from experiance of people i used to hang out with that it certainly is and has turned them into zombies]

Cavehill Red

I'm seeing plenty of the usual pro-prohibitionist gibberish on this thread.
Bottom line is: cannabis has been used for millennia by man, had never once caused a single death, can be used to treat a series of serious medical illnesses, and it's psychotropic properties are caused by it containing the same 'reward' chemicals used by the human brain.
Calif is just the start. This proposition will romp home, putting even greater pressure on the federal state to legalise and thus help bail its way out of its current shocking deficit.
Since our prohibition stems from theirs, I expect that Dermo Boot Boy Ahern's current stance against headshops will look ridiculous in a matter of years, when the tide of legalisation forces him or his successor to do exactly what Calif are seeking to do now.

ynotdu

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm seeing plenty of the usual pro-prohibitionist gibberish on this thread.
Bottom line is: cannabis has been used for millennia by man, had never once caused a single death, can be used to treat a series of serious medical illnesses, and it's psychotropic properties are caused by it containing the same 'reward' chemicals used by the human brain.
Calif is just the start. This proposition will romp home, putting even greater pressure on the federal state to legalise and thus help bail its way out of its current shocking deficit.
Since our prohibition stems from theirs, I expect that Dermo Boot Boy Ahern's current stance against headshops will look ridiculous in a matter of years, when the tide of legalisation forces him or his successor to do exactly what Calif are seeking to do now.

Cavehill it is not a matter of being Pro-prohibitionist,but is not really something people can sit on the fence over either.
To follow it to its logical conclusion then drink driving laws should be abolished too and let it be fine that People drive after drinking 12 pints not to mention all the legal drugs that slow down peoples response times.

How on Eath can anybody say a joint has never killed anybody?.In the case of driving it was only alcohol that was ever tested for.

Cavehill Red

Tell you what, how about you find me a single instance in the entirety of human history where cannabis was demonstrated to have caused a single death.
My advice: don't bother looking. It never happened.
This is a plant which cures serious illness, which inspires an intoxication which rarely if ever leads to violence (unlike alcohol) and which is not physiologically addictive.
I personally don't smoke weed but I know plenty who do. They're lovely people and they don't cause any crap.
I don't see a downside to replicating what California is seeking to do, by legalising it, taxing it and using the resulting income to dig us out of the hole we're in.

Manic Moran

This is a plant which cures serious illness

Does it? I thought it really was more of an anaesthetic, to allow people with those serious illnesses to continue with their daily lives.

Either way, the current California law on the matter covers this, and quite liberally: Hemp-Con is on around the corner from me next week!

It is also interesting to note that the main MJ producing area of California, Humboldt County, is voting against the proposition: If weed were to become far more commonly grown, the amount of dollars going into the place are expected to drop radically. You also have the side-effect that that tax boon people are expecting won't nearly as significantly happen due to the plummet in prices which would follow.

So if you look at the arguments, the medical argument is irrelevant beacuse CA already allows it, the financial argument is limited because the experts expect a massive drop in price not countered by an increase in demand (Face it, most people who want to smoke weed already do illegally anyway), employers aren't going to drop their prohibitions and drug tests, the only rationale left for legalising it for social use is, well, social: Because some people want it.

Then us voters have to wade our way through the morass of exaggerated or unsupported yet diametrically opposing claims from both sides. It will probably end up coming down to polling dynamics: Though the majority in CA supports legalisation, the main demographic in support is of the younger voters, who tend to be less likely than the older ones to come out and vote in mid-terms. This will probably be countered by the amount of people who want it to be legalised as opposed to the amount of people who, frankly, couldn't be arsed to look up the specs. Were I to guess, I'd say the prop will pass, but by a fairly low quorum of voters. Still, a pass is a pass.

NTM

Cavehill Red

Yes, it cures illness.
It also resolves nausea during cancer treatment and reduces the symptoms of multiple sclerosis.
It's a pretty useful plant, all in all, and it's staggering that it's illegal. One can only assume that the tobacco lobby are behind it.
I concur with your assessment of the voting. I suspect however that younger voters will come out strongly in support. It's a bit like X Factor. They'll vote for things they find relevant quicker than they'll vote for parliament.

ynotdu

Tell You what cavhill.
Try debating an issue seeing there is usually two sides to almost everything.
Fine Your experiance of People on weed is good,mine is not.
Fine hypocrysy is everywere as is people trying to push their version of morality down other peoples throats.
You find some links showing weed has done no harm if You wish to.
That is Your right.
G.nite

Manic Moran

For the record...

Tell you what, how about you find me a single instance in the entirety of human history where cannabis was demonstrated to have caused a single death.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/20/1074360762037.html

A man aged 36 is believed to have become the first person in Britain to die directly from cannabis poisoning.

Lee Maisey smoked six cannabis cigarettes a day for 11 years, an inquest heard. His death, registered as having been caused by cannabis toxicity, led to new warnings about the drug, which is due to be reclassified this month as less dangerous.

"This type of death is extremely rare," Professor John Henry, a toxicologist at Imperial College, London, said after the inquest at Haverfordwest, west Wales. "I have not seen anything like this before. It corrects the argument that cannabis cannot kill anybody."

Or

http://www.itsallaboutcoventry.co.uk/newsstory_stevedullaghan.shtml

EIGHTIES indie rocker Steve Dullaghan was killed by a rare cannabis overdose, an inquest has ruled.

<snip>

A toxicology report revealed he had high levels of cannabis in his blood but no other drug or alcohol.

Pathologist Dr Steve Ferryman, based at University Hospital, Coventry, said in a report: "He possibly experienced one or more of the toxic effects of cannabis at the time of death, a fast heart rate and hyperventilating, and this can lead to heart failure."

Dr Ferryman said this resulted in severe pulmonary oedema – an abnormal build up of fluid in the lungs.

Now, I won't go using that as an argument against cannabis per se: After all, people die of alcohol poisoning and I'm not going to argue that drink should be banned because of it.

But I do point it out as an example of the 'exaggerated or unsupported' arguments that us voters are being subjected to. It only took thirty seconds on Google to find the original claim false.

NTM

Cavehill Red

You're asking me to prove a negative. That's not how things work. If you believe a positive exists (in this case, that cannabis causes death) it's up to YOU to prove it.
You won't either, because it hasn't, not in the entirety of 5,000 years of recorded human history.
Of course there are caveats. No one wants stoned people to be driving cars or operating heavy machinery. That's a given. They're intoxicated.
Equally, I'd like an age qualifier, so that the issue of cannabis exacerbating the possibility of schizophrenia in teens was eradicated.
Those caveats granted however, I don't see a problem other than the inherited pro-prohibitionist stance of certain aspects of society.

Manic Moran

You're asking me to prove a negative. That's not how things work. If you believe a positive exists (in this case, that cannabis causes death) it's up to YOU to prove it.
You won't either, because it hasn't, not in the entirety of 5,000 years of recorded human history.

Post 25 should prove interesting, given post 22.

NTM

Cavehill Red

Manic Moran wrote: »

For the record...



http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/20/1074360762037.html



Or

http://www.itsallaboutcoventry.co.uk/newsstory_stevedullaghan.shtml



Now, I won't go using that as an argument against cannabis per se: After all, people die of alcohol poisoning and I'm not going to argue that drink should be banned because of it.

But I do point it out as an example of the 'exaggerated or unsupported' arguments that us voters are being subjected to. It only took thirty seconds on Google to find the original claim false.

NTM

Lee Maisey's death was recorded as misadventure, NOT poisoning by cannabis.

Cavehill Red

Manic Moran wrote: »

Post 25 should prove interesting, given post 22.

NTM

Go on. In what way do you find it interesting?

Manic Moran

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Lee Maisey's death was recorded as misadventure, NOT poisoning by cannabis.

By law, taking part in an illegal activity and dying as a result of it is recorded as death by misadventure. The coroner's report, which went unquestioned, stated cannabis poisoning. Casually smoking weed is illegal, hence the misadventure recording.

Your response also fails to address Mr Dullaghan's death.

NTM

Cavehill Red

No, the coroner's report did not state he died via cannabis poisoning.
It's best if we all remain factual.
Lee Maisey died of a heart attack. Many people have died of a heart attack. He had been drinking two days earlier and may have had an underlying coronary problem.

Manic Moran

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No, the coroner's report did not state he died via cannabis poisoning.
It's best if we all remain factual.

http://cannabis.net/uk/mortality.html

Coroner Michael Howells said Mr Maisey was free from disease and had not drunk any alcohol for at least 48 hours before his death in August last year. Post-mortem tests revealed a high level of cannabinoids in Mr Maisey's blood. The cause of death was registered as cannabis toxicity.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article999100.ece

Michael Howells, the Pembrokeshire Coroner, recorded the cause of death as cannabis poisoning

Would you care to try for one out of four?

NTM

Cavehill Red

Manic Moran wrote: »

Your response also fails to address Mr Dullaghan's death.
NTM

Death due to fluid build up on the lungs. Not a recognised symptom of cannabis use at all.
So, shall we play this game all night, or should I at this juncture introduce the concept of 5.4 million people killed by tobacco each year or 50,000 people killed in the UK alone by alcohol each year?

Cavehill Red

Manic Moran wrote: »

http://cannabis.net/uk/mortality.html



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article999100.ece



Would you care to try for one out of four?

NTM

I'm batting four for four. None of the deaths you cite, despite the tabloid headlines, are attributable to cannabis. They're attributable to heart complaints.
It's nice and easy for a coroner (who may not be a medic, incidentally) to find cannabis in the tox report and close the file, but that doesn't at all mean that cannabis is responsible.
But like I said, we can debate your few outlier examples where cannabis was cited in relation to death cause, even as literally millions die from alcohol or tobacco.
If you wish to believe that one or two deaths were caused by cannabis (EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT RECORDED AS CAUSE OF DEATH ONCE) that's up to you.
Tell me how, even in those circumstances, you can justify the ongoing banning of a substance that by YOUR criteria caused a handful of deaths (and by mine none) while substances that cause MILLIONS of deaths annually are legal.

Manic Moran

So, shall we play this game all night, or should I at this juncture introduce the concept of 5.4 million people killed by tobacco each year or 50,000 people killed in the UK alone by alcohol each year?

I am not interested in tobcco or alcohol. As I stated earlier, whether cannabis has actually killed one or two people is a pretty lousy argument given the deaths by alcohol which goes generally unremarked. What I am interested in is the impression that you are giving. (I should then ask how many of those 5.4 million people are killed by tobacco, vs how many are killed by lung cancer, suffocation, or some other direct result, since you are apparently arguing that the cause of the affliction is distinct)

Let me put it this way.

Imagine I'm one of the voters who has a say in whether Prop 19 passes or fails to pass. Indeed, by strange coincidence, I actually am a voter who gets to vote on whether Prop 19 passes or fails to pass.

So far, I have determined a categorical statement from the anti-prohibition side to be false, and the attempts at rebuttal to be at best half-hearted, and at worst, evidentially wrong. Now, it may be that the coroner was incorrect in his conclusion. But then, I am not a doctor or toxicologist. I can only take the word of the person whose job it is to know these things at face value. (That said, doctors and researchers are quoted in the articles). Your argument focusing on factual issues which fifteen seconds on Google appears to me to point to a counter-conclusion is not helping the overall impression of your arguments at large: If you are apparently in denial about this one thing, what else are you in denial about?

Example:

If you wish to believe that one or two deaths were caused by cannabis (EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT RECORDED AS CAUSE OF DEATH ONCE)

How do you contrast the above statement in bold with the very definitive one-liner of "Michael Howells, the Pembrokeshire Coroner, recorded the cause of death as cannabis poisoning"?

I have a very healthy cynicism for the media, but this strikes me very much as being up to you to prove the newspapers wrong, which will take more than typing in block caps. If you wish me to be sympathetic to your side as an independent voter, you have to actually win me over. Even if you're right.

NTM

Cavehill Red

Manic Moran wrote: »

I am not interested in tobcco or alcohol. As I stated earlier, whether cannabis has actually killed one or two people is a pretty lousy argument given the deaths by alcohol which goes generally unremarked. What I am interested in is the impression that you are giving.

Let me put it this way.

Imagine I'm one of the voters who has a say in whether Prop 19 passes or fails to pass. Indeed, by strange coincidence, I actually am a voter who gets to vote on whether Prop 19 passes or fails to pass.

So far, I have determined a categorical statement from the anti-prohibition side to be false, and the attempts at rebuttal to be at best half-hearted, and at worst, evidentially wrong. Now, it may be that the coroner was incorrect in his conclusion. But then, I am not a doctor or toxicologist. I can only take the word of the person whose job it is to know these things at face value. (That said, doctors and researchers are quoted in the articles). Your argument focusing on factual issues which fifteen seconds on Google appears to me to point to a counter-conclusion is not helping the overall impression of your arguments at large: If you are apparently in denial about this one thing, what else are you in denial about?

Example:


How do you contrast the above statement in bold with the very definitive one-liner of "Michael Howells, the Pembrokeshire Coroner, recorded the cause of death as cannabis poisoning"

I have a very healthy cynicism for the media, but this strikes me very much as being up to you to prove the newspapers wrong, which will take more than typing in block caps. If you wish me to be sympathetic to your side as an independent voter, you have to actually win me over. Even if you're right.

NTM

Because the coroner DIDN'T record the death as cannabis poisoning is why.
Feel free to explain why one might oppose the legalisation of cannabis in the context of tobacco and alcohol when you feel ready. It seems to me that it is impossible to oppose the one while condoning the others, given that cannabis is significantly and demonstrably safer than the other two.

Cavehill Red

Re: Lee Maisey:
The Federal Health Ministry of Switzerland asked Dr. Rudolf Brenneisen, a professor at the department for clinical research at the University of Bern, to review the data of this case. Dr. Brenneisen said that the data of the toxicological analysis and collected by autopsy were "scanty and not conclusive" and that the conclusion death by cannabis intoxication was "not legitimate".

According to the toxicological analysis of a British laboratory (Forensic Alliance) Mr Maisey's blood contained 130 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml) of the THC metabolite THC-COOH. THC could not be detected due to analytical problems. Dr. Franjo Grotenhermen of the nova-Institute in Cologne said: "A concentration of 130 ng/ml THC-COOH in blood is a moderate concentration, which may be observed some hours after the use of one or two joints. Heavy regular use of cannabis easily results in THC-COOH concentrations of above 500 ng/ml. Many people use much more cannabis than Mr Maisey did, without any negative consequences."

Manic Moran

Because the coroner DIDN'T record the death as cannabis poisoning is why.

OK, so you are directly telling me that multiple newspapers are wrong. The Times, for example, is generally considered to be a somewhat reputable newspaper. It is now up to you to support the claim that what has been printed is factually incorrect. Until you do so, I, as a neutral observer, have to presume that the media are right, and that you are wrong. Repeatedly telling me, without support, that Blank is the case when I have evidence to the contrary does not help your position and does not endear me to your 'side' as a neutral voter.

Feel free to explain why one might oppose the legalisation of cannabis in the context of tobacco and alcohol when you feel readly. It seems to me that it is impossible to oppose the one while condoning the others, given that cannabis is significatly safer than the othe two

If you are implying that I am attempting to use the death of a couple of people as an argument in favour of prohibition notwithstanding the effects of alcohol, then you are obviously not bothering to read what I am writing. This is not endearing me to the anti-prohibitionist side either, if you are a typical example of one of their proponents.

NTM

Cavehill Red

Manic Moran wrote: »

OK, so you are directly telling me that multiple newspapers are wrong. The Times, for example, is generally considered to be a somewhat reputable newspaper. It is now up to you to support the claim that what has been printed is factually incorrect. Until you do so, I, as a neutral observer, have to presume that the media are right, and that you are wrong. Repeatedly telling me that Blank is the case when I have evidence to the contrary does not help your position and does not endear me to your 'side' as a neutral voter.

The verdict was misadventure. The death cause was heart failure. No link to cannabis usage was proven in the coroner's report or elsewhere. In fact, it was factually disproven by Swiss and German medics who followed up on the report.

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you are implying that I am attempting to use the death of a couple of people as an argument in favour of prohibition notwithstanding the effects of alcohol, then you are obviously not bothering to read what I am writing. This is not endearing me to the anti-prohibitionist side either, if you are a typical example of one of their proponents.
NTM

Whether you have a vote in California or not, the proposition is going to pass with ease.
I've no motivation to sway your vote one way or the other. I'm simply stating the facts in relation to cannabis.
It is a plant, it cures illnesses, it alleviates symptoms in other serious illnesses, it is a prescribed medication in many countries, it has NOT been demonstrated to have ever caused death (as we've now established) and it remains illegal because of the influence of the tobacco and alcohol lobby in the United States.
Those are the facts. Feel free to do with them as you will.

Manic Moran

The verdict was misadventure. The death cause was heart failure.

Again, from the Times.

Michael Howells, the Pembrokeshire Coroner, recorded the cause of death as cannabis poisoning, although the verdict recorded was death by misadventure because Mr Maisey had died while taking part in an illegal activity.

Contrast with

Because the coroner DIDN'T record the death as cannabis poisoning

I don't care how likely the death was, I don't even much care at this point if the coroner was even correct in his judgement. You are petulantly refusing to either accept or prove wrong a very simple factual statement and are taking a counter-position in the face of evidence to the contrary. Until you can show me evidence that the cause of death was not recorded as cannabis toxicity, then your credibility is shot.

It is further to be pointed out that the verdict for the Dullaghan cased was 'death due to misuse of drugs', so you don't even have the argument of a distinction between inquest verdict and cause of death for that one.

NTM

Manic Moran

Whether you have a vote in California or not, the proposition is going to pass with ease.

And it's that sort of arrogant attitude which may run the risk of the proposition failing. It is people like me, who have a vote in California, who will result in the proposition passing or failing, with ease or otherwise. It is people like me who ultimately will have to be convinced that one situation or the other is the correct one. I am currently inclined to vote in favour of the proposition on the basis of that I am unconvinced that the detrements of social use of the drug are that great that they trump civil liberties. However, you can rest assured that the pro-prohibition people are making their own arguments. Who should I, the humble voter who doesn't use weed, and I'll wager I'm in the largest such group, listen to?

Do not take the electorate for granted, such a policy has been the downfall of politicians. Worse, do not alienate the electorate by saying 'your vote doesn't matter.' I think my vote matters. Indeed, I think my vote matters so much that on issues I may be vaccilating on, I may well choose to vote on principle that I refuse to be sidelined.

NTM

panorton

I think that the criminalization of cannabis has led to the harassment and even jailing of honest people in this country and also led to the establishment of the drugs underworld now terrorizing our urban areas.

Cavehill Red

Manic Moran wrote: »

blah, blah blah
NTM

The Swiss and German medics repudiated the British coroner reports. The press coverage was typically simplistic and wrong.
Neither man died from cannabis. It's incorrect to state so. The toxicity levels required to overdose from THC or CBD would require literally pounds of cannabis to be smoked within a short period.
Perhaps if the cannabinoids were extracted and refined, as they have been for MS medications, it might become possible to overdose on cannabinoids. There's no evidence that such an event has ever occurred either.
You're the classic prohibitionist, refusing to consider the evidence. You're insistent on debating a handful of contentious deaths while hundreds die every hour from alcohol and tobacco. You refuse to discuss the plant's medication properties or its ability to produce sufficient revenue for Calif to reduce and eradicate its deficit.
I don't smoke cannabis and couldn't care less what way you vote. The Portuguese model is coming, to you in Calif (if you're there) and me in Ireland and the rest of the world too. Because of two simple factors: the war on drugs failed (drugs won, hands down) and because there is no coherent argument against legalising, licensing and taxing the sale of cannabis to adults.

Black Swan

26 July 2010 California poll:

Prop 19 PPP (7/23-25)
Support 52%
Oppose 36%
Not Sure 12%

"Democrats are more likely to throw their support behind the prop than Republicans. 62% of Democrats, 37% of Republicans and 55% of Independents support Prop 19."

Source: http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/07/26/yes-on-prop-19-winning-52-36-us-majority-supports-legalizing-marijuana/

It should be noted that there were earlier polls from different sources that dispute these results.

A sample of the USA (not just California) showed that Americans were evenly split on the issue.

"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Adults nationally shows 43% believe marijuana should be legalized. But 42% think it should remain an illegal drug. Another 15% are not sure."

Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2010/43_say_marijuana_should_be_legalized_42_disagree

Amerika

Cavehill Red wrote: »

because there is no coherent argument against legalising, licensing and taxing the sale of cannabis to adults.

Except maybe that the government knows that people are pretty smart cookies. If it becomes legal to own small quantities, people will soon discover just how easy it would be to "grown their own." The government knows this, and knows it will subjugate the "legalizing, licensing and taxing" endeavor. It would be near impossible for law officials to ignore personal use in small quantities, yet enforce law that criminalizes granny for her plant growing in the corner of the vegetable garden. I think it is quite aways off before it is legalized at the federal level. States can do what they want, but the federal government can enforce federal law, when states violate it --- also WHEN THEY WANT (Look at what the Federal Government did to Arizona immigration law, and look at what the Federal Government won’t do to "sanctuary cities, as proof).

Black Swan

Where does the Tea Party stand on the legalization of marijuana? Have they been silent on the issue? If so, why? Would it cause a split between Republicans and Libertarians within the Tea Party Movement?

Is Sarah Palin against legalization, while Ron Paul is for it?

"The former Alaska governor appeared on Fox Business Network last night, along with libertarian-leaning Republican Rep. Ron Paul. Paul is a longtime advocate of decriminalizing drugs at a federal level and leaving the issue to the states, something Palin would not endorse."

"If we're talking about pot, I'm not for the legalization of pot," Palin said, as Politico first noted. "I think that would just encourage especially our young people to think that it was OK to just go ahead and use it."

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008091-503544.html

Mjollnir

ynotdu wrote: »

Hi Mjollner there is without doubt a hugh benifit to some people who use it for genuine medical purposes.You have to bear in mind that most people mix it with tobaccco from a broken up cigarette and then roll it in paper without even a proper filter,the Younger and poorer people are the more likely they are to use this method.

No, that's not how practically anyone over here in the State's smokes it. I have never encountered anyone who does here, only in Europe.

http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

Those links are just two of many examples of the harmful effects of weed to lungs,heart and mental health [the second one might even be from a more respected source]

Yes, and? I have not made the argument that there aren't any potentially harmful effects from smoking anything.

bottom line though if You are against drunk driving or want Your pilot to fly Your plane unstoned it is a law people would have to vote against based on the best available medical evidence.

I'm sorry, that's nonsensical. "Bottom line" of what? It's already illegal to drive drunk of fly stoned, so what are you talking about?

It's half life in the body is far longer than Alcohol,it is at least as cancer causing and the Jury is out as to whether it cause's depression or is taken to sooth depression.

There is no 'half-life' of the active ingredients in MJ. After one or two passes through the liver, THC breaks down into the inert CBD and some other, non-psychoactive metabolites.

It seems to be a Myth that it is non addictive[i know from experiance of people i used to hang out with that it certainly is and has turned them into zombies]

A. It remains unproven if it's physically addictive.
B. "Turned into a zombie" isn't a medical term. I have no idea what it's supposed to mean.

Overheal

I go away for the weekend, mong out on Kirkland Beer and Starcraft 2 and find my posts taken wildly out of context.

Calling weed harmless is disingenuous. Thats ALL I said. I wasn't opposing prop 19. Goodness. Some people in this thread clicked into it looking for a fight before they ever read it.

All you need to say is its far less dangerous than Alchohol or Tobacco. No need to go the extra fairy mile and call it the Cure for Cancer and all that crap. "its far less dangerous than Alchohol or Tobacco". That's your mantra: now go get it passed.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Where does the Tea Party stand on the legalization of marijuana? Have they been silent on the issue? If so, why? Would it cause a split between Republicans and Libertarians within the Tea Party Movement?

Do they have a stance? TPP strikes me as a Fiscal Party only. You might be able to ask them from the viewpoint of taxation of cannabis.

Cavehill Red

Amerika wrote: »

Except maybe that the government knows that people are pretty smart cookies. If it becomes legal to own small quantities, people will soon discover just how easy it would be to "grown their own." The government knows this, and knows it will subjugate the "legalizing, licensing and taxing" endeavor. It would be near impossible for law officials to ignore personal use in small quantities, yet enforce law that criminalizes granny for her plant growing in the corner of the vegetable garden. I think it is quite aways off before it is legalized at the federal level. States can do what they want, but the federal government can enforce federal law, when states violate it --- also WHEN THEY WANT (Look at what the Federal Government did to Arizona immigration law, and look at what the Federal Government won’t do to "sanctuary cities, as proof).

Oddly enough, people all over the world grow opium poppies against the law, often without realising. I've always found a disconnect between Gardai raiding houses where people are growing some cannabis, yet have never once stopped garden centres from selling opium poppy seeds for propagation nor arrested a gardener for growing them.
I think the Dutch model indicates that even if people CAN grow cannabis legally, many will choose the convenience of buying from a coffee shop over the inconvenience of cultivation (especially in Northern Europe where expensive lights, etc are required to grow the plant indoors in general.)

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

Do they have a stance? TPP strikes me as a Fiscal Party only. You might be able to ask them from the viewpoint of taxation of cannabis.

What about the issue of Federalism? I thought that the Tea Party was in favour of States rights in most cases over Federal; i.e., the States should decide if MJ is to be legal in their state and not the Feds?

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

What about the issue of Federalism? I thought that the Tea Party was in favour of States rights in most cases over Federal; i.e., the States should decide if MJ is to be legal in their state and not the Feds?

That argument has already been to court and lost.

The Swiss and German medics repudiated the British coroner reports. The press coverage was typically simplistic and wrong.

Dear God, you're incorrigible. If the Swiss and German medics (who, as far as I'm concerned aren't any better than British medics) wish to repudiate the coroner's report and state that it wasn't cannabis, doesn't that indicate that the coroner recorded the cause of death as cannabis poisoning? Otherwise, what would they be repudiating? In which case, how can the press coverage be wrong, if all they're saying is 'The coroner recorded the death as cannabis toxicity'?

You are doing absolutely nothing to help your credibility argument here.

Here's a clue. Try saying "Yes, the coroner did actually record the death as cannabis poisoning, but there is strong argument that the coroner was incorrect." It really isn't that hard.

Further, it seems that the argument against the coroner's conclusion is a wonderful "lots of other people have had levels higher than that and survived'". That argument is like saying that because almost everyone in the world has hiccoughs and survives that it is impossible to die of hiccoughing. Or because most everyone will die when they fall off a twenty story building that it is impossible to survive a fall of 30,000 feet. Some people are just unusually susceptible to things.

NTM

Bottle_of_Smoke

Overheal wrote: »

Arguing that you can smoke marijuana differently to a cigarette is a moot point. When smoked in the same manner as a regular cigarette, it is in fact more harmful to your health per joint than per cigarette.

It is never smoked in the same manner as a cigarette. I mean say take a pouch of golden virginia. I used to go through around 25g in 4-5 days. It would be literally impossible to smoke that much cannabis in the same time. I wouldn't be able to function.

Overheal

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

It is never smoked in the same manner as a cigarette. I mean say take a pouch of golden virginia. I used to go through around 25g in 4-5 days. It would be literally impossible to smoke that much cannabis in the same time. I wouldn't be able to function.

Again thats not what I argued. Gram for Gram.

Mjollnir

Overheal wrote: »

Again thats not what I argued. Gram for Gram.

And that's still what you haven't supported.