^ thats cool but this thread is about a new Proposition in California that will legalize the sale of bud. :greenthumb: There are other forums here about religion. but anyways, welcome.
Printable View
^ thats cool but this thread is about a new Proposition in California that will legalize the sale of bud. :greenthumb: There are other forums here about religion. but anyways, welcome.
yes.. then i like it's chances. because it focuses on the proper arguments. Such as the prop will actually decrease use among children and such. Rather than weaker arguments. Just like when alcohol was prohibited... sales increased. It doesn't preach to the choir so to speak... it speaks to the opponents' desires. I like it, cause it's not "well it's safer than OxyContin" lol, which doesn't really convince anyone but people who already believe it should be legal.
^ yeah, I like its chances too, it has been winning strong in the California polls so far, but we'll see. I don't think many of the people on here that actually live in Cali have much faith that it will really pass but I guess we'll see. I can't wait until Nov. :pimp: My guess is if the numbers stay stong some cities will jump the gun pre-nov. :smokin:
Ventura County Star
Marijuana supporters ready for likely vote in November
By Timm Herdt
Sunday, January 10, 2010
OAKLAND ?? Richard Lee, California??s best known marijuana entrepreneur, says he knew he was onto something back in 2007 when he took out an ad in an East Bay alternative newspaper asking people to contact him if they had an interest in learning about California??s medical marijuana industry.
??The phone rang off the hook immediately,? he said. ??Within three or four days we had 100 people on a list.?
Oaksterdam University was born that fall, launched with the mission of delivering ??quality training to the cannabis industry.?
Within two years, more than 6,000 students had attended classes, additional campuses were opened in Los Angeles and Sonoma County, the original campus in downtown Oakland had moved into a new, 30,000-square-foot headquarters and winter quarter enrollment had sold out months in advance.
These days, Lee is thinking even bigger. He and his partners have shelled out more than $1 million to gather sufficient signatures to qualify for this November??s ballot an initiative that would legalize the adult possession of up to one ounce of marijuana anywhere in California.
It??s hardly a new idea. At least 17 times since 1971 someone has submitted an initiative to either legalize or decriminalize the possession of marijuana in California. Sixteen times the measures failed to qualify for the ballot, and the one measure that did advance, Proposition 19 in 1972, was rejected by two out of every three voters.
Lee believes public perceptions have evolved since then, and that the political climate is now ripe for legalizing marijuana.
He points to California??s burgeoning medical marijuana industry. ??The reality is,? he said, ??people have already accepted it.?
The Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday is scheduled to vote on, and likely approve, a bill by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, that would legalize marijuana possession in California.
Although Ammiano says his bill would pass the Legislature if lawmakers ??took the vote in the hallway,? it is unlikely the measure will advance this year much beyond the committee that Ammiano chairs.
??No one??s holding their breath that marijuana prohibition is going to end at the hands of the Assembly, Senate and governor,? said Stephen Gutwillig, California director for the national Drug Policy Alliance.
In the people??s hands
Instead, the real action could come at the ballot box this fall.
Lee and his team have collected about 700,000 voter signatures and intend to submit them to elections officials later this month, making it a virtual certainty that California voters will have the issue before them in 2010.
The coming campaign will not be a ragtag operation run by volunteers working out of a local head shop. Its chief political strategist predicts supporters will spend $10 million or more to try to win voter approval, and notes the measure was strategically drafted in an attempt to address concerns that swing voters expressed in a series of focus groups organized by the sponsors.
The resulting document is not a pot-lover??s pipe dream, but rather a political document designed to win votes: It sets the legal age at 21, enhances criminal penalties for sales to minors, prohibits the use of marijuana in public places and in the presence of children, gives every city the right to decide whether to allow marijuana sales, and emphasizes the ability of local and state governments to regulate and tax all sales.
Explained Doug Linney, the Oakland-based political consultant who is heading the campaign, ??We??ve tried to make this not just a ??wouldn??t it be cool, dude,?? effort.?
Polls show a shift
The effort comes after a Field Poll conducted in April showed 56 percent support among likely California voters for legalizing and taxing marijuana. That result, Lee said, is nearly identical to a private poll he commissioned before launching the initiative.
Lee believes voter concerns about the economy and state budget are responsible for shifting public sentiment in favor of the idea.
Not everyone, even those in the drug-reform community, believes the timing is right. The Drug Policy Alliance, whose deep-pocketed directors include billionaire investor George Soros, declined to support the signature-gathering effort.
??We think that 2010 is slightly premature and that this election cycle is not as auspicious as 2012 would be,? Gutwillig said. ??It??s not clear that there??s going to be big money lined up in support of a California initiative in 2010.?
Lee said he anticipates much of the funding will be generated online from marijuana-legalization advocates around the country who will see California as a potential trailblazer.
Foes plan to push back
At this point, it??s not clear what groups or individuals might provide funding for an opposition campaign, but substantial grass-roots opposition is anticipated.
??We know from our polling that it??s not going to be unanimous,? said Ken Masterson, whose San Francisco-based firm headed the signature-gathering effort.
Law enforcement groups, notably the California Narcotics Officers Association, will be at the forefront of the opposition, which might also include religious groups opposing the measure on moral grounds.
??The pope??s been against this for 500 years,? Lee noted.
Paul Chabot of Riverside, founder and president of the Coalition for a Drug Free California, said opponents will be mobilized from the outset this year, unlike in 1996 when the success of the initiative to legalize medical marijuana caught them by surprise.
??Nobody thought Proposition 215 had a chance,? Chabot said. ??We were all stunned when it passed.?
Chabot, a former naval intelligence officer and a reserve officer in the San Bernardino County Sheriff??s Department, said it??s essential that ??law enforcement not be fighting this by themselves.? He said opponents hope to assemble a coalition that will include church groups, PTAs, doctors and others.
??Wrong message to kids??
Chabot said opponents are eager to debate the health and public safety effects of marijuana, but the principal argument will be against the measure??s symbolic significance.
??Our primary concern,? he said, ??is that it sends the wrong message to kids. The fact is that there??s more harm than good that comes from smoking this stuff.?
If opponents wage a serious campaign, Chabot said, he is confident they will defeat the measure.
??Let??s put it on the ballot and get the information out there,? he said. ??When the truth gets out, people will go out and make the right decision.?
At this early stage, it is unclear whether traditional political interest groups will weigh in, and if they do, to what degree.
Linney said although polling shows much higher support among Democrats than Republicans, the issue may not shape up as strictly partisan. He notes a number of prominent conservative thinkers, including former Secretary of State George Shultz, the late columnist William F. Buckley Jr. and retired Orange County Superior Court Judge Jim Gray, a libertarian, have argued the war on drugs has done more harm than illicit drugs themselves.
??The libertarians are guarding our right flank,? Linney said. ??I look forward to a less partisan debate than we??ve seen on many other issues.? :cool:
A political pickle
It??s unlikely, he said, that many incumbent politicians will publicly support the measure, although it has been endorsed by former Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, now running for mayor of Oakland.
??This is an issue in which the people are leading the politicians, clearly,? Linney said. ??A liberal who wants to not look too liberal to middle-of-the-road voters will have a hard time coming out for this.?
Lee said he anticipates a sharp generational divide. Polling indicates only about 20 percent of voters older than 60 support legalization, while 60 percent of voters under 45 like the idea.
He believes supporters have momentum on their side.
??We have an army now,? he said. ??It used to be we weren??t taken seriously. We couldn??t get any media coverage, and when we did, we??d be the wackos quoted at the end of the story.?
© 2010 Scripps Newspaper Group ?? Online
Richard Lee, president of Oaksterdam University in Oakland, looks over plants in the school??s grow room. Oaksterdam University, established in 2007, has taught more than 6,000 students about marijuana horticulture, legal issues and business management. Lee is a major backer of a proposed initiative that would legalize marijuana.
:bonghit:
:p :smokin:Quote:
Originally Posted by boaz
I thought Mr. Linney makes a real good point here. Good article overall, Ventura is fairly "conservative" on most things. . . and really what could be more conservative than letting freedom grow? :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by boaz
Wall Street Journal
JANUARY 14, 2010
A Doctor's Case For Legal Pot
In most of my substance-abuse patients I am far more concerned about booze than marijuana.
By DAVID L. NATHAN
Most Americans are paying too much for marijuana. I'm not referring to people who smoke it??using the drug generally costs about as much as using alcohol. Marijuana is unaffordable for the rest of America because billions are wasted on misdirected drug education and distracted law enforcement, and we also fail to tax the large underground economy that supplies cannabis.
On Monday, the New Jersey legislature passed a bill legalizing marijuana for a short list of medical uses. Outgoing Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine says he will sign it into law. This is a positive step, as cannabis has several unique medical applications. But the debate over medical marijuana has obscured the larger issue of pot prohibition.
As a psychiatrist, I treat individuals who often suffer from devastating substance abuse. Over many years of dealing with my patients' problems, I have come to realize that we are wasting precious resources on the fight against marijuana, which more closely resembles legal recreational drugs than illegal ones. My conscience compels me to support a comprehensive and nationwide decriminalization of marijuana.
Prohibition did decrease alcoholism and alcohol consumption in the 1920s. However, the resulting rise of violent organized crime and the loss of tax revenue were untenable and led to the repeal of Prohibition. By analogy, while the broad decriminalization of marijuana will likely reduce the societal and economic costs of pot prohibition, it could lead to more use and abuse.
The risks of marijuana use are mild compared to those of heroin, ecstasy and other illegal drugs, but the drug is not harmless. A small number of my patients cannot tolerate any use without serious impact on underlying disorders. Others become daily, heavy smokers, manifesting psychological if not physiological dependence. While most of my patients appear to suffer no ill effects from occasional use, the drug makes my work more difficult with certain individuals.
So why do I support decriminalization? First, marijuana prohibition doesn't prevent widespread use of the drug, although it does clog our legal system with a small percentage of users and dealers unlucky enough to be prosecuted. More to the point, legal cannabis would never become the societal problem that alcohol already is.
In most of my substance-abuse patients, I am far more concerned about their consumption of booze than pot. Alcohol frequently induces violent or dangerous behavior and often-irreversible physiological dependence; marijuana does neither. Chronic use of cannabis raises the risk of lung cancer, weight gain, and lingering cognitive changes??but chronic use of alcohol can cause pancreatitis, cirrhosis and permanent dementia. In healthy but reckless teens and young adults, it is frighteningly easy to consume a lethal dose of alcohol, but it is almost impossible to do so with marijuana. Further, compared with cannabis, alcohol can cause severe impairment of judgment, which results in greater concurrent use of hard drugs.
Many believe marijuana is a gateway drug??perhaps not so harmful in itself but one that leads to the use of more serious drugs. That is not borne out in practice, except that the illegal purchase of cannabis often exposes consumers to profit-minded dealers who push the hard stuff. In this way, the gateway argument is one in favor of decriminalization. If marijuana were purchased at liquor stores rather than on street corners where heroin and crack are also sold, there would likely be a decrease in the use of more serious drugs.
The nation badly needs the revenue of a "sin tax" on marijuana, akin to alcohol and tobacco taxes. Our government could also save money by ending its battle against marijuana in the drug war and redirecting funds to proactive drug education and substance-abuse treatment. Hyperbolic rants about the evils of marijuana could give way to realistic public education about the drug's true risks, such as driving under the influence.
Our nation can acknowledge the dangers of cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana while still permitting their use. The only logically and morally consistent argument for marijuana prohibition necessitates the criminalization of all harmful recreational drugs, including alcohol, nicotine and caffeine. We can agree that such an infringement on personal freedoms is as impractical as it is un-American. The time has come to accept that our nation's attitude toward marijuana has been misguided for generations and that the only rational approach to cannabis is to legalize, regulate and tax it.
Dr. Nathan, a psychiatrist in Princeton, N.J., is a clinical assistant professor at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School.
"Many believe marijuana is a gateway drug??perhaps not so harmful in itself but one that leads to the use of more serious drugs. That is not borne out in practice, except that the illegal purchase of cannabis often exposes consumers to profit-minded dealers who push the hard stuff. In this way, the gateway argument is one in favor of decriminalization."
===
I agree with the doctor, but even here, I think he concedes too much. Having no other way until recently, I engaged in "the illegal purchase of cannabis" for almost 30 years, and never in that time did my dealers deal in harder stuff like cocaine. They all had hash on occasion, but hash is cannabis; and some of them had mushrooms every so often, but mushrooms are closer to cannabis than to cocaine.
We tend to lump everything under the category of "drugs," but just like a gin distiller knows nothing about crushing grapes, drug dealers tend not to be interdisciplinarian.