California voters will decide whether to legalize marijuana

Christian Science Monitor

California voters will decide whether to legalize marijuana

The first state to legalize marijuana for medical purposes, California leads the country in decriminalizing the sale and use of cannabis. Other states are considering the issue, too, but critics warn of the impact on young people.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Daniel B. Wood Staff writer
posted December 18, 2009 at 5:30 pm EST

Los Angeles â??

California continues to stay at the nation-leading edge of legal activity concerning marijuana use.

In 1996 it passed the first national initiative to make marijuana available by prescription to relieve pain, nausea, and other physical maladies. In July of this year, Oakland became â?? by a wide margin (80 percent to 20) â?? the first US city to assess a tax on the sale of marijuana.

Now, a new initiative that will allow local governments to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales â?? and to determine how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold within area limits â?? will be on the November 2010 ballot. National advocates say that regardless of the vote â?? signature gathering went fast and easy, according to reports â?? a major corner has been turned in national acceptance of marijuana use.

â??Regardless of what the voters decide in 2010, the genie is not going back in the bottle,â?� says Paul Armentano, deputy director for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). â??A majority of west coast voters, and an estimated one-half of the national public, are demanding that we replace our nationâ??s seven-decade-long policy of marijuana prohibition with one of controlled regulation, taxation, and education.â?�

Armentano says the citizenâ??s initiative is evidence that despite the growing public support for marijuana reform, a majority of elected officials still perceive the issue to be a political liability rather than an opportunity.

â??As a result, it will be the voters, not the politicians, who will ultimately determine the direction of our nationâ??s modern marijuana policies,â?� he says.

Other states take up the issue

The California initiative comes amidst a flurry of activity nationally in the past two months after nearly two-decades of inactivity, according to Bruce Mirken, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington D. C., which advocates legalization of marijuana. California has a legislative bill in the offing, he says, as does Washington State while New Hampshire has recently introduced a bill and Rhode Island has adopted a commission to study ideas.

â??There are signs all over the place that this has reached critical mass,â?� says Mirken, citing the photograph of Olympic superstar Michael Phelps last summer. He also says that law enforcement agencies have begun to realize the high cost of arresting, trying, and incarcerating marijuana users â?? money that could be better spent elsewhere.

â??There is growing recognition that through our policies of prohibition, we have not stopped people from using marijuana, but rather handed this lucrative consumer market to some rather unsavory characters, including Mexican gangs,â?� says Mirken. â??Thereâ??s a reason you donâ??t see Mexican wine cartels planting fields of cabernet sauvignon in Sequoia National Park, and people are beginning to understand that there really is a fundamental irrationality to laws that tolerate the far more dangerous substance of alcohol.â?�

Substance abuse activists say the headlong rush to legalization in this initiative has other motivations that ripple out in negative ways.

â??Proponents of the proposed legislation are using the California fiscal crisis to say this will be a revenue-generating solution,â?� says Jim Hall, Director of the Center for the Study and Prevention of Drug Abuse at Nova Southeastern University in Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. â??What has been largely ignored in the legalization meta-debate, however, is the impact the legislation could have on young people.â?�

â??We have developed a clear model with alcohol, but when we debate the legalization of marijuana, we donâ??t address the potential lifelong impact that earlier and easier access will have on young people,â?� says Hall. â??While the proposed legislation might generate a few tax dollars, we need to ask what the cost to society will be for a whole generation exposed to the risk of lifelong substance abuse.â?�

'Right of passage' for adolescents?

He says there needs to be a better way to change patterns of marijuana use as a rite of passage for adolescents. â??Clearly, affording legal access distorts the message of why young people should not use marijuana. If itâ??s legal, whatâ??s the big deal? So goes the mindset.â?�

Hall points out that for the last 20 years, nearly two-thirds of all first-time marijuana users have been below the age of 18. Statistics also show that the younger a person begins marijuana use, the greater the risk of substance abuse later in life, he says. Therefore, itâ??s important to ask a host of questions: Who is going to determine or regulate how marijuana is produced and distributed? Who will it be distributed by? How is the state going to collect the taxes? Will it really have an impact on the illicit trafficking and production of marijuana? Will this lead to proposals to legalize other drugs?

â??This is a largely unexplored policy that raises important questions and potentially dire social risks,â?� says Hall. â??Before changing policy, letâ??s honestly and thoroughly explore these questions.â?�

Initiative advocates point to safeguards

Dan Newman, spokesman for the proposed Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act, counters that the initiative does includes significant safeguards and controls. For example, it will increase the penalty for providing marijuana to a minor, expressly prohibit the consumption of marijuana in public, forbids smoking marijuana while minors are present, and bans possession on school grounds.

He also says that studies by state tax experts â?? the Board of Equalization and the Legislative Analyst Office â?? show that the initiative will generate billions of dollars in revenue to fund schools, public safety, and other critical needs at a time when the state is desperate for resources.

â??For those reasons, and the fact that most Californians understand that the current drug laws arenâ??t working, several recent polls show the initiative [will win] support from a majority of voters," says Newman. â??Weâ??re building a broad and diverse coalition that includes law enforcement professionals who understand that regulating marijuana will put street drug dealers and organized crime out of business, while allowing police to focus on protecting the public by preventing violent crime.â?�

the centerfold :stoned:

.....but critics warn of the impact on young people. They are worried about the impact on young people????? :S2::S2: If they were so worried about the young people, how come they have indebted them for generations to come. Time for a new catch phrase rightie. What a bunch of two-faced, double talking hypocrites. :D

he probably means well :jointsmile: I personally believe, in the long term, we would see a decline in use overall if it could be obtained safely and legally at will. It would actually make it easier to quit for while. and kids won't start because it will no longer be hip. it would be just another habit that some choose and some don't. :twocents:

"Therefore, itâ??s important to ask a host of questions: Who is going to determine or regulate how marijuana is produced and distributed? Who will it be distributed by? How is the state going to collect the taxes? Will it really have an impact on the illicit trafficking and production of marijuana? "

I think its even more important that we ask: Who determines or regulates it now? who distributes it now? how are the pols collecting their "tax" now? what impact does all this have to society right now? The prohibs can't understand or choose to ignore all this.

Great article, thanks for posting and advising. Nice to know more than one State is working on the issue with legislation, the proper way.

Frankly, I see this getting taxed and regulated the same way tobacco is. It will be (eventually) regulated at that level. Until then, the States will all do different things, some will tie it in with liquor, some will make new agencies to regulate it. (No one seems to see there will be regulation, just like liquor.)

Hah, I like how they are now using racism against Mexicans (one of the main reasons it became illegal) to make it legal...

About the youth: I see it as more of a curiosity issue. I know for myself personally, I tried it for the first time when I was 16, even though I had been exposed to it much earlier. I wouldn't want to try most of the prescription drugs out there because I KNOW what that stuff is and what it does, but with mj (& ciggs when I was young) it was just a "don't do it, because I said so" type of situation. With more education that will come from it being legal and studied more, people will be able to better form their own opinions on it while decided whether or not to try this. If there's ads about possible side-effects and uses like is required on Rx drugs then the public at large will be better informed and realise that it's a good thing, but like any other "drug" there's potential risks associated with it's use.

I strongly agree on the banning of sale to minors from personal experience, but we all know that won't do too much. At a time when our minds are evolving and setting, one should almost never try to use any sort of psychoactive drugs.

I want to see proposed regulation and taxation ideas that they have. I know there's been years and even decades of thought behind it but it seems like the gov is still pretty inefficient in this area, from the various media articles so far.

fuck that.. i dont want them taxing A PLANT I CAN GROW!
and i wont pay for the right to grow a 'weed' either. that is just wrong and i am so not down with the whole tax idea.
now i am all for taxing a box of joints sold in corner stores, just like cigs and beer. both of which can be made at home for personal use FOR FREE (at least not taxed)..
-just my :twocents:-
-MG

Oh, definitely! I'm not for taxing the plant itself, but the finished product being sold in stores sure. I already get taxed on all the equipment, soil, nutrients, etc...I think my city has it right, like you are describing, with the food. In the city limits there's no tax if you buy the ingredients to make your dinner but there's the standard 8.1% tax on already prepared food like tv dinners or McD's...

^ yeah, I agree, MG. This will only tax non medical adult retail purchases. no plants will be taxed. personally, I would also hope they never tax medical purchases, either, just non med sales to adults would be okay to tax. Given the choice I would grow my own but if I had to buy it and did not have a med card (or want to have to get one) then I'd gladly pay a reasonable tax for legal access. :twocents:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boaz

... This will only tax non medical adult retail purchases. ...

---

correction: this prop will not tax anything. the only tax in this prop is in the title. :jointsmile: all this prop does is gives the counties and local communities of California the legal right to legalize non medical sales to adults and gives them the right, but not the requirement, to tax it. in reality, this may never actually turn into any tax even if this prop is passed. :twocents:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boaz

the centerfold :stoned:

---

Hindu Kush x Skunk? Sounds like you're trying to breed your own highrise (Master Kush).

"Therefore, itâ??s important to ask a host of questions: Who is going to determine or regulate how marijuana is produced and distributed? Who will it be distributed by? How is the state going to collect the taxes? Will it really have an impact on the illicit trafficking and production of marijuana? "

These questions are very relevant in my opinion. This could also set the precedent for many other states to follow so how it is done once it voted into law is vitally important.

I think it would have an impact upon illicit production and trafficking; Why buy what is offered when one can either grow their own and grow better than whats available? The consumer will have market choice and economic freedom, which results in lower prices, increased product selection, and increased technology creation. When the consumer has that choice they tend to "vote out" inferior products by not purchasing them.

The smuggling of pot into the U.S. could possibly drop altogether when the demand is satisfied by production here by those who grow organically and more cleanly, and care more about their product than the large grows in say Mexico. The costs and risks associated with growing over there and then smuggling in wouldn't be worth it when someone can simply utilize their back yard (property they already own and are taxed upon), a spare room, attic, etc.. to grow superior stuff.

Think about the grows being done in our national forests and parks by illegals that are creating so much environmental damage. That could go away as well.

The state is going to collect taxes and profit from the following I think;
The amount of cash currently dedicated to the ridiculous law enforcement agency effort towards God gift to us all can be used in either other law enforcement areas or better yet, dedicated to the education system to assist our youth into becoming better as a generation and helping them pull their heads out of their asses.

The additional money received from increased sales taxation upon grow equipment would add in to a small point. The tax money created from over the counter sales much like buying a pack of cigarettes, and we know for sure those little bastards kill you.

The only reason tobacco isn't illegal at this point is control of production = tax monies. That could be a huge source of income based upon those who either don't have the space, knowledge, desire, time, or want to grow and the convenience to pick up a pack of joints is more valuable. (There are WAY MORE mj smokers than mj growers out there I'm thinking.)

Speaking of control, think of how many prisoners are locked up for simple possession, growing, and/or selling who shouldn't be there? The costs of locking up someone is not cheap and releasing those prisoners could further fund locking up the baby rapers, molesters, and other sociopaths.

The extra jobs that could be created just like those dispenceries that sell in Cali right now, the grow shops, and related product sales would increase accordingly and they are all required to pay sales and income taxes as well.

I think the benefits of legalizing and decriminalizing outweighs the cost of fighting a war against something that God gifted us, a shift in the flow of tax monies from every department at the state and federal level would be more rational and practical going towards education, help and healthcare for our veterans, etc...

The first immediate change would prove to be a challenge but a most important example for the rest of the states.

^ great points. I had not thought of that, even if over the counter sales of cannabis are never directly taxed by the counties, this prop, if passed, would still likely generate sh*#loads of tax dollars from the assumed spike in grow supplies sales. :rasta: and, as you, said the huge savings in the prison costs for the state.

I don't really know a whole lot about this prop, I discovered it on this forum from someone else's post last year, but I like it. It gives the power to the counties and communities of the state to decide all these important questions. kinda like Jefferson's ideas of federalism taken to the next level. :smokin:

here is the link to their site ===> :bong:

SacBee
Opinion - California Forum - The Conversation
ShareThis :)

Ballot measure is way to properly police pot

By James P. Gray
Special to The Bee
Published: Sunday, Jan. 10, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 4E

As a retired Orange County judge, I've been on the front lines of the drug war for three decades, and I know from experience that the current approach is simply not working. Our marijuana policy must change in order to achieve the following goals:

â?¢ Reduce marijuana consumption by children.

â?¢ Stop or reduce the violence that accompanies the growing and distribution of marijuana.

â?¢ Stop or reduce the corruption that accompanies the growing and distribution of marijuana.

â?¢ Stop or reduce crime both by people trying to get money to purchase marijuana and by those under its influence.

â?¢ Reduce the harm to people who consume marijuana.

â?¢ Reduce the number of people we must put into our jails and prisons.

California's Initiative to Tax, Control and Regulate Cannabis â?? which will appear on the November ballot â?? will accomplish each of those goals. Our present policy of marijuana prohibition will never accomplish any of them â?? prohibition has been pursued since the early 1970s, and the entire situation has gotten demonstrably worse.

As an added benefit (no small thing during these challenging times) the initiative will generate billions of dollars in revenue to fund essential services, according to studies by the Board of Equalization and the Legislative Analyst's Office.

By allowing each city in California the option to devise a program for the regulated sale of cannabis to adults, marijuana would soon become less available for children. Why? Ask young people and they will tell you that currently it is easier for them to obtain marijuana than alcohol. That's because today's illegal marijuana dealers don't ask for ID!

The initiative contains significant safeguards and controls: It increases the penalty for providing marijuana to minors, expressly prohibits public consumption, forbids smoking marijuana while minors are present and bans possession on school grounds.

Regulating cannabis will put street drug dealers and organized crime out of business â?? just as the repeal of alcohol prohibition put the Al Capones of booze out of business. This will allow police to redirect their resources toward protecting the public by preventing violent crime.

Most of the health risks of the usage of marijuana today are caused by its unknown strength and unknown purity. For example, sometimes the illicit marijuana has been laced with methamphetamines. But the FDA resolved virtually all of these problems with over-the-counter and prescription drugs years ago, just as the repeal of alcohol prohibition virtually eliminated the "bathtub gin" impurity problems.

Under this initiative, all crimes committed by people under the influence of marijuana would still be prosecuted, just like we do today with alcohol-related offenses. Holding people accountable for their actions, instead of what they put into their own bodies, is a truly legitimate criminal justice function.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James P. Gray is a retired judge of Orange Superior Court and the author of "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It" (Temple University Press). Reach Gray at [email protected] or through his Web site at Judge Jim Gray - Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed - End War On Drugs.
.

lmao christian science monitor .... roflmao... never thought id see that trash here. ooooo... click on the link and right beside it you see... "did abortion doctor need to die?" eh... if i wasn't clean now i'd roll one up with a bible page right now. lmao.

^ I don't read CSM but I've found them to be relatively fair about this issue in the past. :twocents: do you hate Christians or something? :wtf:

^ don't answer that. please keep your rants off my thread. thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boaz

^ I don't read CSM but I've found them to be relatively fair about this issue in the past. :twocents: do you hate Christians or something? :wtf:

---

not Christians. Just Christianity... as well as every other organized religion including atheism. I think that when someone has a god on their side, or a god named "theory"... umm, well, they are more likely to ask questions like "does this guy need to die"... no no one needs to die. i think people should believe what they want... if they want to get together fine... but i think it causes unnecessary friction on earth. if there is some afterlife... worry about it then. right now we have this life... and we all need to get together to make it better... not worse.

i choose to focus on secular things... there may be a god, there may not... but i'm not gonna say he she it is on my side, nor am i gonna say there is one.... nor am i gonna say there's not one. it's irrelevant to me. and i tend not to trust News/opinion publications that have a particular sway. You might choose otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boaz

^ don't answer that. please keep your rants off my thread. thank you.

---

ah and here is assumption. these are not rants. i just type fast, lol. and have more than a couple connected thoughts on particular issues. i like to be thorough.

^ 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 â?? Richard Lee, Californiaâ??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 Californiaâ??s medical marijuana industry.

â??The phone rang off the hook immediately,â?� he said. â??Within three or four days we had 100 people on a list.â?�

Oaksterdam University was born that fall, launched with the mission of delivering â??quality training to the cannabis industry.â?�

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 Novemberâ??s ballot an initiative that would legalize the adult possession of up to one ounce of marijuana anywhere in California.

Itâ??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 Californiaâ??s burgeoning medical marijuana industry. â??The reality is,â?� he said, â??people have already accepted it.â?�

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 â??took the vote in the hallway,â?� it is unlikely the measure will advance this year much beyond the committee that Ammiano chairs.

â??No oneâ??s holding their breath that marijuana prohibition is going to end at the hands of the Assembly, Senate and governor,â?� said Stephen Gutwillig, California director for the national Drug Policy Alliance.

In the peopleâ??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-loverâ??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, â??Weâ??ve tried to make this not just a â??wouldnâ??t it be cool, dude,â?? effort.â?�

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.

â??We think that 2010 is slightly premature and that this election cycle is not as auspicious as 2012 would be,â?� Gutwillig said. â??Itâ??s not clear that thereâ??s going to be big money lined up in support of a California initiative in 2010.â?�

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, itâ??s not clear what groups or individuals might provide funding for an opposition campaign, but substantial grass-roots opposition is anticipated.

â??We know from our polling that itâ??s not going to be unanimous,â?� 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.

â??The popeâ??s been against this for 500 years,â?� 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.

â??Nobody thought Proposition 215 had a chance,â?� Chabot said. â??We were all stunned when it passed.â?�

Chabot, a former naval intelligence officer and a reserve officer in the San Bernardino County Sheriffâ??s Department, said itâ??s essential that â??law enforcement not be fighting this by themselves.â?� He said opponents hope to assemble a coalition that will include church groups, PTAs, doctors and others.

â??Wrong message to kidsâ??

Chabot said opponents are eager to debate the health and public safety effects of marijuana, but the principal argument will be against the measureâ??s symbolic significance.

â??Our primary concern,â?� he said, â??is that it sends the wrong message to kids. The fact is that thereâ??s more harm than good that comes from smoking this stuff.â?�

If opponents wage a serious campaign, Chabot said, he is confident they will defeat the measure.

â??Letâ??s put it on the ballot and get the information out there,â?� he said. â??When the truth gets out, people will go out and make the right decision.â?�

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.

â??The libertarians are guarding our right flank,â?� Linney said. â??I look forward to a less partisan debate than weâ??ve seen on many other issues.â?� :cool:

A political pickle

Itâ??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.

â??This is an issue in which the people are leading the politicians, clearly,â?� Linney said. â??A liberal who wants to not look too liberal to middle-of-the-road voters will have a hard time coming out for this.â?�

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.

â??We have an army now,â?� he said. â??It used to be we werenâ??t taken seriously. We couldnâ??t get any media coverage, and when we did, weâ??d be the wackos quoted at the end of the story.â?�



© 2010 Scripps Newspaper Group â?? Online

Richard Lee, president of Oaksterdam University in Oakland, looks over plants in the schoolâ??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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boaz

:bonghit:

---

:p :smokin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boaz

Ventura County Star


Marijuana supporters ready for likely vote in November
By Timm Herdt

Sunday, January 10, 2010

OAKLAND â?? Richard Lee, Californiaâ??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 Californiaâ??s medical marijuana industry.

...

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.

â??The libertarians are guarding our right flank,â?� Linney said. â??I look forward to a less partisan debate than weâ??ve seen on many other issues.â?� :cool:

A political pickle

...

Richard Lee, president of Oaksterdam University in Oakland, looks over plants in the schoolâ??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.

---

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:

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 itâ??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 changesâ??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 drugâ??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 drugâ??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.