Feds reply to Cali Prop 19
- Thread starter Grendelkhan
- Start date
Do you buy your beer from unlicensed dealers?
It only tastes like beer if it's legal.
Sure do. I know quite a few home brewers of both beer and fine spirits... more of beer but hey it takes real patients to be a distiller... lol. When was the last time you had to buy ginseng from a licensed dealer, what about tomatoes? Cucumbers? Radishes? How about tobacco? Never bought tobacco from a farmer? Might want to try it. Tastes much different. No need for licensing or arresting people for buying from their local farmer either.
Like it or not...If prop 19 passes, MJ will be treated like a PRODUCT. (OMG!!) If it has to be regulated to start the path to being accepted than so be it. Besides, they could certainly grow their with own, in a legal manner if this law gets passed. And the feds ain't looking for them type of people...Right?
Maria_Vanessa
Member
Actually they were pretty much split down the middle. Alexander Hamilton was in favor of a strong central government, with James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and William Giles opposing his views. Hamilton and his allies called themselves Federalists with the opposing party refering to themselves as Jeffersonians. Too bad none of them listening to poor Washington who tried to warn them about political factions.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
OMG you don't have to vote for a law that turns you buying pot from your local grower into a crime. Bad laws are bad laws and you seem to be resigned to accepting them. Regulation is two steps short of the freedom we deserve in regards to marijuana and you know it. You also know the results of voter initiatives passed by Californians, they are never repealed and rarely modified. So you proposed we sign into law regulations that would make it illegal to smoke with a minor in the house? That would force you to buy from licensed sellers?
Buying beer from a home brewer is illegal. I imagine iT will carry the same penalties.
Also, it is illegal to give your children sips of beer or wine but everyone does it. I even see people do it in restaurants.
Laws that dilute our sense of personal responsibility are detrimental to our society. This isn't as bad as say, unemployment or welfare, but it is a factor.
I would say detriment to our freedom is first and foremost in my mind. As to unemployment, public housing, and welfare, I have no qualm with short term aid from the government. Having been the child of a less than wealthy home and having earned my degree through a scholarship of full tuition I have seen the need for charity and have seen its intentions fulfilled. I would have to say that I don't think people should be able to exist long term off of such institutional aids but I do not thing that they should not exist. I am as in favor of personal responsibility as the next guy but myself and Ms. Rand would certainly have differences of opinion.
Im so fucking sick of these people acting like it's a travesty to buy weed from liscensed shops or that if they can't blow smoke in their children face or give their 12 year old a blunt it's not worth voting for 19. What are you guys 16 years old? Grow the fuck up. It's time to get some sort of legalization on the books and well hammer out the details later...
I agree that short term aid is part of a functioning, compassionate society. But I do know that people (not all by any means) feel they dont have to save because if they get fired, they'll "just get unemployment". Or someone who can work but chooses not to and run on disability or welfare and food stamps and on top of it, not even take care of their children or teach them responsibility. It breeds terrible behavior.
I'm glad we can/do offer aid, but there are too many abusing the system and it doesn't look like it will change. When kids see their parents abuse the system, more often then not, they will as well. I have a friend who has made some new friends in recent years. Most of them claim disability, just like their parents. Yet they are all very capable of working (even most of the parents, dont know about all of them), instead they just buy drugs (mainly prescription pills) and do them all day long. Thats American's hard earned money going right down the drain. Pisses me off. Poor people aren't the only ones struggling. Things are relative and people with a house, kids, savings, are facing hard stressful times as they see their hard earned future dwindle down and then have to pay huge taxes on top of it.
Its obviously a very complicating, dynamic issue.
Does prop19 have a true amendment clause? If not, see Kelly. If so, I'm sure its pretty difficult to get that stuff amended since its directly voter approved.
Its not about blowing smoke in your kids face, its about freedom, the very principle this country was founded on.
I want to hear your reasoning as to why a "free man" should have to buy his bud from a licensed distributor when he lives down the block from a clean, organic farmer. Call me picky, but I'd rather buy my products from the source. I'm sure the bud from the licsenced place is "fine" in most aspects. But I want the freedom to buy from whoever I want. But we dont have that freedom. Not because it will hurt somebody, but because the government wants their cut. I dont support moneyholic's greedy grubby hands in my pocket, and neither should you.
Its not the biggest example of an infringement of freedoms, but it is to a degree (however small one wants to deem it)
BTW: Sacramento doesn't have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. Extra money NEVER fixes a spending problem, may just make it worse.
Back on topic.....
Obama czar wants Prop. 19 smoked
Obama's "drug czar," Gil Kerlikowske, is in Southern California today to campaign against Prop. 19. Speaking at a rehab facility, he will argue that passing Prop. 19 will lead to increased marijuana use and therefor to increased marijuana addiction. This is yet another example of the prohibition syndrome. Endorsing prohibition seems to make people weaker to the point of incapacity at making crucial distinctions or valuing truth over inaccuracy or untested assumptions.
Most addiction experts agree that almost nobody gets genuinely addicted to marijuana; quitting for most people is easy and doesn't entail withdrawal symptoms. However, many contend that there is such a thing as marijuana dependency, though "dependency" is a loose term that isn't often defined the same way in different studies. The 1999 Institute of Medicine report commissioned by then-drug-czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey, noted that dependence was almost always associated with another psychiatric disorder that preceded marijuana use. Various surveys suggest that around 4% of the general population have met the criteria for marijuana dependence at one time or another, compared with 13.7% for alcohol dependence and 36% for tobacco dependence.
The IOM report sums it up this way: "Although few marijuana users develop dependence, some do. But they appear to be less likely to do so than users of other drugs (including alcohol and nicotine), and marijuana dependence appears to be less severe than dependence on other drugs. Drug dependence is more prevalent in some sectors of the economy than others, but no group has been identified as particularly vulnerable to the drug-specific effects of marijuana. Adolescents, especially troubled ones, and people with psychiatric disorders (including substance abuse) appear to be more likely than the general population to become dependent on marijuana."
Kerlikowske transmutes dependence, which is a justifiable concept but maybe doesn't sound scary enough, into "addiction," a concept most experts agree just doesn't apply to marijuana. Here's the statement of the Drug Policy Alliance's Stephen Gutwillig, focusing on Kerlikowske's failure to even address the issue of balancing the costs of prohibition against the projected costs of decriminalization:
“The Drug Czar has come to California to spread outdated “Reefer Madness” hyperbole about the health impacts of marijuana and to influence the vote on Prop. 19. The truth is marijuana prohibition has utterly failed. Marijuana is cheaper, more potent and universally available to any young person who wants it. Banning outright this widely available substance has only fueled a massive black market and enriched the increasingly brutal criminal syndicates that control it. We arrest more low-level marijuana possession offenders every year – half of all drug arrests in this country – and still don’t make a dent in demand or the underground economy.
“From a public health perspective, marijuana is far less addictive than either alcohol or cigarettes. And most people in treatment programs for dependence on marijuana in this country are there because they were caught by the police – 57% according to federal data. Just as disturbing, more than half of those people referred to drug treatment by the criminal justice system didn’t meet the clinical standard for marijuana dependence. In fact, more than a third hadn’t used marijuana in the 30 days prior to admission. Given the choice, wouldn’t you choose treatment rather than go deeper into the criminal justice system?
“The Drug Czar is ignoring for political reasons the longstanding realities of coerced marijuana treatment. People simply caught by the police are taking valuable treatment slots from people who have serious drug problems. Marijuana prohibition itself acts as a barrier to people who need help but are afraid to seek it. Director Kerlikowske claims to care about helping people with drug problems, yet his budget not only underfunds drug treatment, it underfunds prevention, education and harm reduction as well. His budget and strategy are nearly identical to the failed drug policies of President Bush who oversaw enormous increases in both incarceration and overdose fatalities. Instead of wasting taxpayer money travelling across the country to tell Californians how to vote, the Drug Czar should be working with Congress to increase funding for treatment and other services that not only save lives but save money as well.”
I'm not as sure as Stephen about the efficacy of increasing federal funding for treatment, but there's little question that reducing enforcement/incarceration activities would be socially beneficial.
Obama czar wants Prop. 19 smoked
Obama's "drug czar," Gil Kerlikowske, is in Southern California today to campaign against Prop. 19. Speaking at a rehab facility, he will argue that passing Prop. 19 will lead to increased marijuana use and therefor to increased marijuana addiction. This is yet another example of the prohibition syndrome. Endorsing prohibition seems to make people weaker to the point of incapacity at making crucial distinctions or valuing truth over inaccuracy or untested assumptions.
Most addiction experts agree that almost nobody gets genuinely addicted to marijuana; quitting for most people is easy and doesn't entail withdrawal symptoms. However, many contend that there is such a thing as marijuana dependency, though "dependency" is a loose term that isn't often defined the same way in different studies. The 1999 Institute of Medicine report commissioned by then-drug-czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey, noted that dependence was almost always associated with another psychiatric disorder that preceded marijuana use. Various surveys suggest that around 4% of the general population have met the criteria for marijuana dependence at one time or another, compared with 13.7% for alcohol dependence and 36% for tobacco dependence.
The IOM report sums it up this way: "Although few marijuana users develop dependence, some do. But they appear to be less likely to do so than users of other drugs (including alcohol and nicotine), and marijuana dependence appears to be less severe than dependence on other drugs. Drug dependence is more prevalent in some sectors of the economy than others, but no group has been identified as particularly vulnerable to the drug-specific effects of marijuana. Adolescents, especially troubled ones, and people with psychiatric disorders (including substance abuse) appear to be more likely than the general population to become dependent on marijuana."
Kerlikowske transmutes dependence, which is a justifiable concept but maybe doesn't sound scary enough, into "addiction," a concept most experts agree just doesn't apply to marijuana. Here's the statement of the Drug Policy Alliance's Stephen Gutwillig, focusing on Kerlikowske's failure to even address the issue of balancing the costs of prohibition against the projected costs of decriminalization:
“The Drug Czar has come to California to spread outdated “Reefer Madness” hyperbole about the health impacts of marijuana and to influence the vote on Prop. 19. The truth is marijuana prohibition has utterly failed. Marijuana is cheaper, more potent and universally available to any young person who wants it. Banning outright this widely available substance has only fueled a massive black market and enriched the increasingly brutal criminal syndicates that control it. We arrest more low-level marijuana possession offenders every year – half of all drug arrests in this country – and still don’t make a dent in demand or the underground economy.
“From a public health perspective, marijuana is far less addictive than either alcohol or cigarettes. And most people in treatment programs for dependence on marijuana in this country are there because they were caught by the police – 57% according to federal data. Just as disturbing, more than half of those people referred to drug treatment by the criminal justice system didn’t meet the clinical standard for marijuana dependence. In fact, more than a third hadn’t used marijuana in the 30 days prior to admission. Given the choice, wouldn’t you choose treatment rather than go deeper into the criminal justice system?
“The Drug Czar is ignoring for political reasons the longstanding realities of coerced marijuana treatment. People simply caught by the police are taking valuable treatment slots from people who have serious drug problems. Marijuana prohibition itself acts as a barrier to people who need help but are afraid to seek it. Director Kerlikowske claims to care about helping people with drug problems, yet his budget not only underfunds drug treatment, it underfunds prevention, education and harm reduction as well. His budget and strategy are nearly identical to the failed drug policies of President Bush who oversaw enormous increases in both incarceration and overdose fatalities. Instead of wasting taxpayer money travelling across the country to tell Californians how to vote, the Drug Czar should be working with Congress to increase funding for treatment and other services that not only save lives but save money as well.”
I'm not as sure as Stephen about the efficacy of increasing federal funding for treatment, but there's little question that reducing enforcement/incarceration activities would be socially beneficial.
This drug Tzar is just trying to justify his huge pay-check.....by keeping cannabis illegal...
Real drugs such as meth, rock coke, and hydrocodone are creating a wealth of dependent, violent addicts. The wort of them probably being prescribed by a so called professional.
The world of coke, meth, and heroin is a bad place...and if one has ever seen it, or have been a part of it, they know it should be fixed immediately.
Prescribed abuse is all around us and creates a far bigger problem than the non-prescribed drugs pose, and there is an immediate need to revamp the system that is prescribing our way into the pit.
Even our methadone clinics have turned into jokes and another avenue of enabling the junkie.
I have no faith that the real problems of drug abuse in the US will ever be addressed properly. Hell, just look at the ignorant shit that is in the head of these so called drug czars and those who advocate so hard against pot. They don't even have comprehensive information concerning the issue. It's no wonder folks who have never used MJ and have never been around it, have such fucked up thoughts and perceptions about it.
For as long as it has been an issue, common folks have been fed a big tub of shit and misinformation concerning pot.
I witnessed a prime example of this bullshit feeding last night.
On Bill O'Reilly he often posts up emails he gets from viewers, and last night one of them was from some leo. I am paraphrasing but it went like this:
"O'Reilly, I have been a beat cop for 27 years and have arrested dozens of hard drug abusers during that time. The vast majority of them started out using pot."
I am sure O'Reilly had no problem posting that up, as it is in line with his position. However, had I been the host of the show, I would not post up such bullshit. First off, did this leo interview each of his collars to find out this information? Surely we know that he was simply putting out his own take on things. His opinion and nothing more. I mean, anyone with any knowledge of leo and how things are done know that this dickhead did not know anything at all about what any of his arrests did when they started using drugs. He really knows no more than O'reilly does about any of them at all. How could he possibly?
See, he was just spouting off his opinion. And since he is a leo, the general public probably figures he is telling it straight. And surely O'Reilly wouldn't post up something that was challengeable without challenging it?
IMO O'Reilly was targeting the voting population of CA with that one. Just ten seconds of bullshit on his show could effect the vote.
But don't be mistaken, it is not just Fox news that spreads misinformation about pot. They ALL do it.
And in the defense of FOX, I have seen some responsible and comprehensive reporting from some of their people of late concerning the truth about MJ.
But for the most part, it's misinformation running rampant.
Ignorance is our most costly commodity, and with this issue there is no exception.
The world of coke, meth, and heroin is a bad place...and if one has ever seen it, or have been a part of it, they know it should be fixed immediately.
Prescribed abuse is all around us and creates a far bigger problem than the non-prescribed drugs pose, and there is an immediate need to revamp the system that is prescribing our way into the pit.
Even our methadone clinics have turned into jokes and another avenue of enabling the junkie.
I have no faith that the real problems of drug abuse in the US will ever be addressed properly. Hell, just look at the ignorant shit that is in the head of these so called drug czars and those who advocate so hard against pot. They don't even have comprehensive information concerning the issue. It's no wonder folks who have never used MJ and have never been around it, have such fucked up thoughts and perceptions about it.
For as long as it has been an issue, common folks have been fed a big tub of shit and misinformation concerning pot.
I witnessed a prime example of this bullshit feeding last night.
On Bill O'Reilly he often posts up emails he gets from viewers, and last night one of them was from some leo. I am paraphrasing but it went like this:
"O'Reilly, I have been a beat cop for 27 years and have arrested dozens of hard drug abusers during that time. The vast majority of them started out using pot."
I am sure O'Reilly had no problem posting that up, as it is in line with his position. However, had I been the host of the show, I would not post up such bullshit. First off, did this leo interview each of his collars to find out this information? Surely we know that he was simply putting out his own take on things. His opinion and nothing more. I mean, anyone with any knowledge of leo and how things are done know that this dickhead did not know anything at all about what any of his arrests did when they started using drugs. He really knows no more than O'reilly does about any of them at all. How could he possibly?
See, he was just spouting off his opinion. And since he is a leo, the general public probably figures he is telling it straight. And surely O'Reilly wouldn't post up something that was challengeable without challenging it?
IMO O'Reilly was targeting the voting population of CA with that one. Just ten seconds of bullshit on his show could effect the vote.
But don't be mistaken, it is not just Fox news that spreads misinformation about pot. They ALL do it.
And in the defense of FOX, I have seen some responsible and comprehensive reporting from some of their people of late concerning the truth about MJ.
But for the most part, it's misinformation running rampant.
Ignorance is our most costly commodity, and with this issue there is no exception.
It is a very complicated issue and I am glad that we have found common ground, something people speaking in topics made about prop 19 rarely find and most often purposefully avoid. I think disability should always be there as a backup for people who truly need it. Perhaps, instead of granting permanent disability, we should put people on temporary disability considering their condition and possible recovery time. In short I think it should not be hard to fleece American once to get disability but that to do so for a lifetime without a legitimate claim to receiving those benefits should be all but impossible. I think this is a perfectly reasonable way to approach such problems of fraud in all social programs. Perhaps a cap on the time you may receive benefits unless you pass a specific exception and are actually granted long term disability. I too have seen far too many people who use my tax dollars in abhorrent ways like selling their food stamps for money to buy cigs or weed or other even less desirable things.
Now to address a topic I see under the surface of your words a feeling of class inequality perhaps? It seems to me that you think that the homeowners bear a disproportionate percentage of the tax burden, is that correct? I am personally no fan of the tax code as it exists today but I do think that the graduated tax model is in theory a good one except for the fact that the rich can find so many ways of not paying theirs. I am not sure that anyone should not pay taxes at all, if you can't make 13 k in a year you are doing the wrong job or not being paid legally anyways. On the other end of the spectrum I don't think that it is fair for a man who is rich to pay less of a percentage of his wealth than the man working his every day normal 9-5. It seems a travesty of justice to think that someone for whom paying taxes is just one less luxury car he will buy this year or one less piece of art, should be able to slip through the legal loopholes and end up paying even less than a teacher or construction worker or brick mason. Perhaps I am wrong but I think it is less of a burden that taxes put on him than on those others I have mentioned.
