CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Don't hide it ... legalize it!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Don't hide it ... legalize it!

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
I don't smoke weed, but I've never understood how alcohol and tobacco are legal and weed isn't. Now that legalization is potentially on the table in California, I thought I'd bring this subject back.

What say you?



ps. George Washington grew hemp!
post #2 of 26
Weed isn't legal for three main reasons:

1.)It's a plant that can't be patented. Meaning its supply can't be fully controlled ... although I'm sure a healthy commercial market would thrive. More importantly, however, its use would cost pharmaceutical companies and liquor companies billions of dollars, as people would probably prefer weed to their products. Additionally, hemp would put a lot of timber/cotton companies out of business.

2.)We have a puritanical streak in this country that inspires us to tell other people what the fuck they can do with their bodies or in the privacy of their bedrooms.

3.)Older generations have been indoctrinated into a "law and order" mindset. This is due to political and social influences. They tend to vote and contribute in greater numbers, so they need to die off before their influence wanes.
post #3 of 26
I'm not a smoker either but it should be legalized. They should immediately legalize it and then tax the bejeezus out of it. Of course, considering the fact that I can't even buy Beer on Sundays in this damned state (blue laws are the fucking worst) this will never happen.
post #4 of 26
I hope that there are enough adults in California to get this passed.
post #5 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hundred View Post
I hope that there are enough adults in California to get this passed.
We shouldn't waste a dime of precious California money to put something on the ballot that will either be struck down as violating the interstate commerce clause, or irrelevant due to the federal prohibition.
post #6 of 26
Thread Starter 
Your lips to God's ears!

I think Overlord's #1 is probably the dealbreaker. #2 and #3 could both be applied to alcohol and tobacco as well, and yet...

ETA: Overlord, is there a federal prohibition?
post #7 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Your lips to God's ears!

I think Overlord's #1 is probably the dealbreaker. #2 and #3 could both be applied to alcohol and tobacco as well, and yet...

ETA: Overlord, is there a federal prohibition?
Yes. Under Federal law, Marijuana is a Class 1 (the "worst kind") prohibited substance. Marijuana production falls within the interstate commerce clause, so either by de jure (supreme court decision) or de facto (federal agencies will simply enforce federal law as they see fit) means, any marijuana legalization on a state to state basis will fail.

The fact that marijuana is classified with substances like heroin and crack cocaine is beyond laughable. Steroids, by comparison, is a class 3 substance (unless they changed it).
post #8 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
We shouldn't waste a dime of precious California money to put something on the ballot that will either be struck down as violating the interstate commerce clause, or irrelevant due to the federal prohibition.
It was already done, under prop #215.
post #9 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
Yes. Under Federal law, Marijuana is a Class 1 (the "worst kind") prohibited substance. Marijuana production falls within the interstate commerce clause, so either by de jure (supreme court decision) or de facto (federal agencies will simply enforce federal law as they see fit) means, any marijuana legalization on a state to state basis will fail.

The fact that marijuana is classified with substances like heroin and crack cocaine is beyond laughable. Steroids, by comparison, is a class 3 substance (unless they changed it).
Dude, thanks for totally killing my buzz!
post #10 of 26
He's a lawyer. It's expected.
post #11 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overlord View Post
Weed isn't legal for three main reasons:

1.)It's a plant that can't be patented. Meaning its supply can't be fully controlled ... although I'm sure a healthy commercial market would thrive. More importantly, however, its use would cost pharmaceutical companies and liquor companies billions of dollars, as people would probably prefer weed to their products. Additionally, hemp would put a lot of timber/cotton companies out of business.

2.)We have a puritanical streak in this country that inspires us to tell other people what the fuck they can do with their bodies or in the privacy of their bedrooms.

3.)Older generations have been indoctrinated into a "law and order" mindset. This is due to political and social influences. They tend to vote and contribute in greater numbers, so they need to die off before their influence wanes.
Perfectly stated, and in the right order too!
post #12 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
It was already done, under prop #215.
Proposition 215 exempted folks from prosecution under state law. It had no effect on federal law (I believe it went up to the 9th circuit and supreme court several times). Any money spent thinking that we can "legalize" marijuana is a waste of time and funds.

In any event, nothing California can do will have any effect on Federal law. We should just remove all marijuana criminal laws from the books entirely (except those that deal with common sense issues like smoking weed and driving). That way we'd save money on legal enforcement. The feds want to make a big fucking deal out of weed? They can pay to enforce their laws and jail them in federal prison.
post #13 of 26
While outright legalization is sadly unlikely, we can always be thankful that California has taken major steps towards decriminalization:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
On January 1, 1975, Senate Bill 95 made possession under 28.349 grams (one ounce) of cannabis for non-medical use punishable by a $100 fine; stricter punishments exist for amounts exceeding 28.349 grams, possession on school grounds, or subsequent violations or for sale or cultivation. If the offender is under the age of 21, his or her driver's license may be suspended for up to one year.

On November 7, 2000, Proposition 36 was passed by 61-39 percent. The proposition allowed first and second time non-violent simple drug possession offenders the option to receive drug treatment and legal probation instead of incarceration.

In April 1973, Berkeley passed The Marijuana Ordinace I (BMI I), which forbid law enforcement from arresting persons for cannabis related crimes unless cleared by the City Council. In the case Younger v. Berkeley City Council, an Alameda County Superior Court Judge Lionel Wilson struck down BMI I because it violates city code that states the City Manager has discretion over police personnel.

In 1979, Berkeley passed The Marijuana Ordiance II (BMI II), which made the enforcement of cannabis laws--including cultivation, sale, and transport—-the lowest priority for law enforcement, banned the expenditure of funds for enforcement of cannabis statutes, allowed residents to grow cannabis and report any theft of cannabis plants to law enforcement, and directed the City Council to lobby in favor of the decriminalization and legalization of cannabis.

In 2000, Mendocino County became the first county in the United States to repeal any type of punishment for non-medical personal use of cannabis when Measure G passed, by a vote of 58-42 percent. The Green Party-sponsored Measure G provides protection from law enforcement for persons possessing no more than 25 adult female flowering cannabis plants or the equivalent in dried cannabis. This measure was however modified in 2008 by Measure B by 52-48%

On November 3, 2004, Oakland passed Proposition Z, by a vote of 65-35 percent. Proposition Z made personal adult use, distribution, sale, cultivation, and possession of non-medical cannabis, the lowest priority for law enforcement. Proposition Z will allow the licensing, taxing, and regulation of cannabis sales if California law is amended to allow so. The proposition states the city of Oakland must advocate to the state of California to adopt laws to regulate and tax cannabis.

On November 7, 2006, Santa Barbara, passed Measure P, by a vote of 66-34 percent. Measure P made non-medical cannabis offenses the lowest priority for law enforcement; this does not apply to the cultivation, distribution, sale, public use, or driving under the influence.

On November 7, 2006, Santa Cruz passed Measure K, by a vote of 64-36 percent. Measure K made adult non-medical cannabis offenses the lowest priority for law enforcement; this does not apply to cultivation, distribution, sale in public, sale to minors, or driving under the influence. The measure requests the Santa Cruz city clerk send letters annually to state and federal representatives advocating reform of cannabis laws.

In 2006, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a cannabis ordinance, by a vote of 8-3. This ordinance made adult cannabis offenses the lowest priority for law enforcement; this does not apply to the sale in a public place or driving under the influence. The ordinance states that the San Francisco government will urge state and federal authorities to enact similar laws.

On November 7, 2006, Santa Monica passed Measure Y, by a vote of 65-35 percent. Measure Y made cannabis offenses the lowest priority for law enforcement. The measure states the city clerk of Santa Monica will encourage state and federal authorities to adopt similar laws.

In 2006, West Hollywood City Council passed a cannabis resolution, by a vote of 4-0, which made West Hollywood the first city in Southern California to adopt a lowest law enforcement priority law for cannabis offenses. The resolution stated “it is not the policy of the City or its law enforcement agency to target possession of small amounts of cannabis and the consumption of non-medical cannabis in private by adults."
Additionally, medical Marijuana licences are extremely easy to obtain, and the variety and potency of the medical grade pot is pretty excellent.
post #14 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
It was already done, under prop #215.

Medical Marijuana is legal now in California. What does this mean in reality?

You pay a doctor $100-$200 to get a certificate (after a 'checkup' which consists of Q&A session focused on your 'conditions' *cough*, taking your blood pressure, etc.). With this certificate you can immidiately buy marijuana and hashish for about $15-$25 a gram from a number of different 'stores'. There's even edibles like cookies. Here in Los Angeles there's over twenty places to buy from within a 5 mile radius of where I live in central LA. A medical marijuana card with your picture comes in the mail one to two weeks after your 'checkup' with information that can be verified through 24-hour hotlines & websites that are in business for this sort of thing.

California is a great model for other states if they want to legalize.
post #15 of 26
I didn't say it was legalized under #215. What I meant was that Overlord said California would not waste the time or money to do any kind of legalization. This is when I brought in #215.
post #16 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
I didn't say it was legalized under #215. What I meant was that Overlord said California would not waste the time or money to do any kind of legalization. This is when I brought in #215.
No. I said California SHOULD not waste the time or the money. They should repeal all the laws focused on prohibition, rather than regulation of use, and be done with it.

As to what California will do ... we'll probably do this in a piecemeal, county by county, law by law basis and therefore waste a lot of time and money.
post #17 of 26
If you are referring to propositions or initiatives. Those are pretty much funded by rich people. (It's a real abuse of the process). I'm sure someone can pay enough signature gathers to get it on the ballot box.

And as for wasting time and money. Well, efficency and common sense are not going to be found in state government.
post #18 of 26
I think it's classifed as a Class 1 prohibited substance because when they made that ruling, they didn't know a lot about marijuana. Today we know far far more. There are still many misconceptions people have though, especially from people who have never tried it.

Also, a big difference between marijuana and tobacco/alcohol is the hallucinogenic quality of it. I'm pretty sure it's the main point those people push. However, alcohol in high doses has a hallucinogenic effect, due to a study they did on Absinthe. They found that the bark or whatever they *thought* was responsible for the effect wasn't. It was actually the high alcoholic content.

A few studies show that your lungs can get more damaged by marijuana smoking than cigarette smoking. But this is primarily due to the lack of filter and the heat of the smoke entering your lungs. But get this, lung cancer was shown to shrink in marijuana smokers. You have far less chance of getting lung cancer from marijuana than you do cigarettes.

There's tons of freaking studies out there.
post #19 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radb707 View Post
There's tons of freaking studies out there.
Don't you bring rational thought and scientific accuracy into our drug laws, mister. This is about ensuring you don't GO TO HELL !!!
post #20 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radb707 View Post
You have far less chance of getting lung cancer from marijuana than you do cigarettes.
I think that might have something to do with all the shit that's put in cigarettes.
post #21 of 26
Why isn't it legalized?

Because organized crime doesn't want it to be.
post #22 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by SneakyPete View Post
Why isn't it legalized?

Because pharmaceutical, liquor, tobacco, and timber companies don't want it to be.
Fixe....

Actually, you know what ... I'm not so sure I did anything but swap synonyms.
post #23 of 26
Interesting news as far as "medical mary-jane."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MN2016651R.DTL
post #24 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by yt View Post
Your lips to God's ears!

I think Overlord's #1 is probably the dealbreaker. #2 and #3 could both be applied to alcohol and tobacco as well, and yet...

ETA: Overlord, is there a federal prohibition?
Um.... TOMATOES are fucking legal?!
post #25 of 26
What you COULD do though, is set up a "weed growing license" and tax the shit out of that.
post #26 of 26
Whatever happened to that "legalization" law out in Denver I heard about a few years ago?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Don't hide it ... legalize it!