California State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco is introducing legislation that will allow California to tax and regulate recreational marijuana use. Ammiano estimates that taxing marijuana would generate $1 Billion in state revenue per year.
Tom Ammiano
As reported by the SF Weekly, California Assemblyman Tom Ammiano is introducing a bill in the California legislature to legalize and tax marijuana use. Ammiano argues that taxing marijuana will reduce police costs and raise revenue, helping to lift California out of its current financial crisis.
Ammiano told the press, “I know the jokes are going to be coming, but this is not a frivolous issue. California always takes the lead – on gay marriage, the sanctuary movement, medical marijuana.”
Ammiano is no stranger to controversy. He is an openly gay politician from San Francisco who appeared in the movie “Milk” as himself.
Though Ammiano’s bill is likely to be voted down in the legislature, his “marijuana tax” has already become an international story. Foreign papers, such as the Guardian, have reported the story.
Liberal sites like Swerve Left are applauding the idea. Many liberals have long supported the legalization of marijuana. They believe, quite wrongly, that legalizing drugs will reduce government costs and allow police to focus on more dangerous crimes. Even President Obama was open to legalization as late as 2007, as reported by MSNBC.
Legalization is totally misguided. The way to reduce crime is by strict quality of life enforcement against everyone who breaks the law, not by surrendering to petty criminals. Want to reduce crime? Arrest all the panhandlers, turnstile jumpers, vandals and kids smoking pot in the park. This sends the message that we live in a law-abiding society that has zero tolerance for crime. This is how they do it in Japan and Korea, two democratic societies that shame America when it comes to crime issues. The most dangerous city in Japan has less than half the crime of the safest city in America. Quality of life enforcement is what Giuliani did in New York, finally turning it into a livable city. It works.
See Video on Ammiano Below:
Ammiano Marijuana Tax
February 28th, 2009 at 7:39 am
“Still though, you seem to insist that we guarantee that nothing bad will ever happen involving marijuana again once legalization occurs.”
Not at all, I insist that the questions prolegal minds dont want ask themselves be asked honestly.
Look across the globe and you have to ask yourself why other civilized societies have not legalized Pot.
Why has even Jamaica with its large Rasta population claiming use a religious practice not lelgalized it ?
“The bad stuff happens now. People do stupid things because of pot. People steal, sell to kids, drive under the influence, hell even kill. They also do stupid things over alcohol, gambling, pride, jealousy, love. It is a fact of life that cannot be escaped, no matter what laws exist or do not exist.”
Once again, with legalization we’ll now have two substances subjected to the public as where it only used to be alcohol.
And I might mention that the existing alcohol laws are not a good example of how we should manage legalized pot.
“During any transitional phase, the end product is not a certainty”
Yea, but who pays for that discovery in process ?
And will the revenues accrued by legalization be able to cover the costs os implementing legalization and still give Ca. enough revenues to pay the protion of the deficit they say it will ?
Anyway, no offense but I’m tired of going round in circles already.
Good luck to those that want it legalized.
If you’re going to succeeed properly you should do everything you can to make sure its done right the first time so that it doesnt end up being a model of failure instead of success.
In a nutshell I’ll just say I’m playin the devils advocate here and giving you real substantial arguments and not those that you’ll get from the rejectionist fire and brimstone groups out there that really dont know anything about the topic at all except what they gather from a moralistic code, and not a realistic one.
February 28th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Legalization would not subject any more substances to the public; those substances are already subjected to the public, in a big (and unregulated) way. I know that when I was 15 (I’m 25 now) it was much easier to obtain marijuana than it was to obtain alcohol. I’ve never had a pot dealer ask for ID.
What about the current alcohol laws is “not a good example” for laws regulating marijuana use and sale?
Also, you didn’t address the harm reduction point, which I believe is the crux of the issue. Prohibition is at least as harmful (financially, socially, etc) as marijuana use. I can’t see what’s wrong with eliminating that source of harm.
February 28th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
“Legalization would not subject any more substances to the public; those substances are already subjected to the public, in a big (and unregulated) way.”
C’mon man, get real, do the math.
Legallity will ease inhibitions.
Ya know, theres actually people that obey the law and dont smoke for the simple fact that it illegal.
Throw in the accesability factor and you can bet both your cajones more people will be smoking pot after its legalized.
“I’ve never had a pot dealer ask for ID.”
Yea well, you’re not 15 anymore.
So what ? Once its legal anyone can still get it from people who will still grow there own, maybe deal on the side undercutting the retail market, pharmacies, liquor stores, whatever.
“Also, you didn’t address the harm reduction point, ”
HUH?
I believe I addressed the many different ways harm could come to anyone associated or high themselves. I even supplied stats on auto accidents due to people driving under the influence.
Tell me, whats goiing to be cheaper, easier to produce with less chance of getting caught.
Bootleg booze or pot ?
Legalization does not guarantee the black market will go away.
For the cost of few seeds, some soil and some time I can seel my stash cheaper than any retail outlet and make a few easy grand.
I’m done.
No one wants to be realsitic and keeps pulling assertion from opinons drawn of lack of knowledge on the field, how it operates, what the money makers will do to stay that way.
I’m not going to argue antmore with the mindset that thinks this substance will be legalized as is alcohol and nothing bad will happen.
If we really want pot to be a part of our society the proponents for it have to stop sounding like a bunch of fiending junkies who just want legalized because they expect everyone their naive experiences are the formulas to base the decision on.
I’m 51, I know the weed business like the back of my hand, I’ve lived in Hawaii for 45 years.
I work in the recovery field now.
I think our best bet would be to start easing up on the severity of punishment we distribute.
Make dealing a misdemeanor for a few years.
The ngradually ease into legalization once the public is a little more exposed to seeing that you’re not rabid maniacal idiots when you’re high and that you live you loives much like everyone else.
Secondly.
I do not want to see the California government lining their pockets with the revenues from taxation or paying off their finacial ignorance with it.
I want to see the revenues from pot taxation going to more treatment centers, awareness programs etc.
Getting stoned or drunk, it doesnt matter to me, it still involves a level of responsability.
I’ve heard it all “when I get stoned I’m in my own home, and I dont feel like going anywhere”
Well sh*t, thats great, what if you did have to go somewhere ?
And then theres the crap that everyone gets lazy when stoned. Absolutley not true.
Many people become very hyper and agitated, leave the house, go out and do stupid things.
I myself would never buy any meth, speed, or coke untill I was stoned, I just had no craving for those drugs until my head loosened up a little cuz of the bud.
And as anyone with half a clue knows that pot is a great “come down” drug for meth and coke users. Takin the edge off.
Rhayader.
Just take in what I say, trust me, I’m on your side. I’m just presenting the arguments you would hear from a devils advocate who happens to be seasoned hope to die addict that did it all for at least 25 years with 15 years of sobriety. That sobriety is credited to my learning as much about the subject as I can and the thinking behind people who use drugs.
It helped me understand myself.
If anything, this whole thread has given you the opportunity to think ahead of time about some the “VIABLE” arguments that will come up in your quest to legalize.
See ya on another topic
CIAO.
February 28th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
OK that post was all over the place. While I’ve enjoyed discussing with you and you’ve made plenty of good points, your writing style leaves a lot to be desired.
I am not a “fiending junkie” and never have been. My ideas have absolutely nothing to do with my personal needs; I smoke all the pot I want now.
I agree that more people will smoke if it is legalized, and I never claimed otherwise. In the end, I strongly feel that legalizing would have a net positive effect. The pros would outweigh the cons. While there are a huge number of details that would need to be worked out, that is the important point.
February 28th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
All these anti-marijuana, pro-marijuana agrugments doesn’t discuss what needs to be discussed, and that is freedom. I belive that a peson has the right to do to their own bodies in the privacy of their homes as long as they don’t interfere with the lives of others. Simple as that, drug use is a victimless crime, the same goes for prostitution and even gambling. If someone wants to buy a product with their own money and then consume it let them, simple as that. If drug use was regualted it would be safer on society because it would undercut the criminal enterprises and shut down the viloence associated with a black market, it would generate money in taxes and save money not being wasted on the legal system, this is common sense maybe the money gained could help the small percent of users who become addicts and the rest of that money could go towards, say health care, national defense, whatever. Banning drugs does not stop its use, regulating wouldn’t stop use either, but it would stop the problems associated with prohibition, crime lords, gang violence ect.. A good example is prostitution, I personally disagree with it, but legalising it isn’t bad, for example in Nevada it is safer for those who choose to pay for sex, why, because it is regulated. The girls are tested for STDs and the clients, so the spread of disease is almost non-existent. But if that is made illegal girls would be on the streets spreading diseases. Its a sad business but its a business we can’t destroy with law, because its a choice people make for themselves. We should let rational adults make choices with what to do with their bodies and thier money with a mutual agreement with another human being. But sadly intellengence doens’t trump being emotional for some people. Saddly the “moral crusaders” are there casting blame as they see it. If you really had morals you could speak rationally and care about the people rather than call them evil sinners and blame them and then persecute them. Okay so marijuana is evil (to the one who quoted the Bible, do you belived God, who created everything created marijuana destroy the lives of men, that would be sad coming from a plant that is non-toxic, and poses no risk of physical dependence) and what about alchohol (Jesus was said to turn water into wine), alchohol kills thousands of people each year directly with its use, and there is no death toll associated with marijuana. (not to sound like I am bashing CHristians, I am not, as I am a Christian, I just belive that hatred and blame, isn’t what Jesus would do, I go for a more caring and understanding approach, if people fall show them the error of their ways with compassion not this hatred, so please don’t misuse the Bible to spread some misguided ideology) Marijuana is not evil, it is natural and created by God. But maybe we should just kill all of the sinners. . . oh wait that is everyone. Maybe we should ban cheeseburgers as obesity is one of the leading killers in this country today, or maybe video-games. Or maybe perscription pain medication as people tend to abuse that. People can abuse just about anything and make anything their god, so maybe we should see them as people and not cast them aside in society. To demonise a drug that tends to make people more calm and passive, as opposed to alchohol which has turned up all over in domestic violence, then what are you really fighting for, don’t take my word for it look at the numbers and the statistics and the Medical history before you come spewing nonsense. And to the one who thinks the founding fathers wanted to ban drugs. . . are you crazy or high? Drugs have only been banned in this country for less than one hundred years, marijuana started in 1937. But the real War on Drugs started in the 1970s under Nixon. Also just FYI the Declaration of Independence was written on paper made from cannabis (also known as marijuana) which was grown by the founding fathers. Stop propagating lies, get educated,and stop fighting to hold people down, you should have the freedom to live your life without being interfered with, let those have that same freedom. If you don’t want to smoke cannabis, don’t. But don’t try to make choices for anyone but yourself. The law should stop those that interfere with others, like those who steal and those who murder, not those who smoke a joint in their homes and mind their own business. When you interfere with someones God given freedom of choice you are going to have problems, if you disagree then that is fine and you can try and convince them the error of their ways but don’t forceably try to stop them because then you are just trying to interfere with their freedom and that makes you just as bad as a thief in my opinion. Sorry about the rant but it sickens me to hear that some people are still that misguided and selfish in this world that they think they have the right to control anybody but his or herself. Thank you to those who will fight to do the right thing even if it means persectution. (also I don’t think alchohol is evil it just helps to illustrate a point for those who just don’t get it)
February 28th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Ryan.
You’re post is quite extensive but ignorant.
Please read the comments above before you come with every generic run of the mill argument that has already been defeated and at the same time repeat just about everything I said.
No drug use is a victimless crime and its not victimless even when its legal and legalization is NOT guaranteed to eliminate the criminal element, that is a false argument.
We will still have other drugs being smuggled across our border and we will still have the same elements running around selling illegal drugs. Many coke or meth dealers always have a stash of weed to sell along with their product.
By the way , what really needs to be discussed is not the freedom aspect.
What needs to be discussed that no one seemed to want to, the real crux and topic was how this will benefit Ca. in realtion the funds it hopes to recieve and is Ca. doing the right thing ?
Hardly anyone on this thread was saying that we dont have the right to privacy.
February 28th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
I still think putting people in jail over pot, giving them criminal records ruining their employment chances and life time earnings, and humiliating them so does far more damage to the individual and society. Why would you want to do that? why do you repubs have such a need for incarceration and enlarging the police state? Do you just want to lock everyone up as a control freak thing? IF you read the bill of rights you will see the original intention was not to so intrude on private citizens soverignty. Heck newt gave a big speech on the citizen as soverign. That means they have the basic right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness short of stealing and biblical crimes.
March 1st, 2009 at 2:18 am
END GLOBAL WARMING…GROW WEED EVERYWHERE!!!
March 1st, 2009 at 9:16 am
And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the Earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Genesis 1:29
March 1st, 2009 at 11:37 am
RPD.
Thats just stupid and can be applied to the abuse of many of Gods gifts.
What if we applied that logic to the Coca plant ? Or the Poppy ?
In many other countries opium use is very casual, but at the same time a part of the culture and treated more as dessert there, than a lifstlye of addiction as is it here in America.
Does America contain the discipline and cultural aspects it would take to where we could maintian the use of pot legally in a safe manner ?
My report above reflects how the Dutch dont seem to want or smoke as much weed as Americans do in general. This is why the legalization in Amsterdam didnt create epic problems.
And then that raises the question of opening coffee shops much like those in Amsterdam. At that point people are no longer in the privacy of their own own home and could very well sucject themselves and the public to the results of their stupidity while high.
Heres a quote from a guy whs reviewing some of these cafes.
“The potency of space cakes has been reduced in recent years in response to the recurring habit of people wandering aimlessly through town after eating these crazy concoctions, so its a safer practice than it used to be, but limit consumption to one per customer.”
If you’re gona quote the scriptures then I could come right back and say that your body and mind are a temple not be defiled by any substance.
Brian.
You’re contributing to the paradoxial circle of arguments that have been repeated and cast aside on this thread already.
No one is really saying that we dont or shouldnt have the right.
We have established time and time again that the system doesnt work.
The real question that none of you want to approach is what consequences will this have on our society and will legalization actully bring the revenues Ca, seeks ?
A systen must be put in place once pot is legalized.
What would that system look like, what would ut take to erect it, and how much would the overall cost be in collateral effects to society and administrative costs ?
Would Ca., break even, make a buck, or end up further in the hole ?
Please, read the previous posts before regurgitating the same arguments over and over.
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:36 am
( ” Legalization is totally misguided. The way to reduce crime is by strict quality of life enforcement against everyone who breaks the law, not by surrendering to petty criminals. Want to reduce crime? Arrest all the panhandlers, turnstile jumpers, vandals and kids smoking pot in the park. This sends the message that we live in a law-abiding society that has zero tolerance for crime. This is how they do it in Japan and Korea, two democratic societies that shame America when it comes to crime issues. The most dangerous city in Japan has less than half the crime of the safest city in America. Quality of life enforcement is what Giuliani did in New York, finally turning it into a livable city. It works. ” )
ROFL [rolling on floor laughing for you oldies who figured out how to crank up the interweb.coms ] ROFL ROFL ROFL thats richs and dummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmbbbbbbbbbb.
Just classic. Legalize it, move to Japan and stfu then.
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:25 am
Micky’s right, the scripture has no relevance here. We get enough of that crap unconstitutionally informing government policy, and that shouldn’t happen here. Also, all major relevant points about the evils of prohibition and our rights to privacy have been made in the 200+ comments above.
Micky’s point is that we shouldn’t just run into this willy-nilly without careful planning and consideration. It’s a valid and important point.
Don’t get me wrong, I am absolutely in favor of legalization, but there is nothing wrong with exercising caution and using our collective minds to come up with the best plan. Of course I think any government considering a measure like this would look at it the same way, so I am not too worried about it.
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:59 am
“Of course I think any government considering a measure like this would look at it the same way, so I am not too worried about it.”
Californias first motive is not to allow people its rights. Its a simple fishing for revenues expedition in what could be tainted waters.
Thats what concerns me the most.
The fact that they want the money before they’re willing to take the time to make a practical and safe application worries me.
From the sound of it they are so desperate for funds that they might just well go into this half cocked and end up incuring costs they never imagined.
If this is done right making sure that anything does not pop up to give poor example it could set a prescedent for the rest of the country.
If it fails due to short sightedness other states taking on the same movement could simply point to Californias example of failure.
My daddy always said:
“If you’re going to do something do it right the best you can the first time or dont bother at all, otherwise else you’ll just screw things up for everyone else and make more work for yourself by having to come back and do it again”
So please, try to focus a little deeper than using all these thinly veiled arguments that simply say other bad behavior justifies what some see as bad behavior.
Ya know, like the alcohol/tobacco argument or speeding cuz everyone else does it.
Especially the “pot is harmless” BS.
Sure, every drug has its levels of danger and pot is not exempt from having its safety concerns.
Use of pot is not anymore victimless when it gets out of control than any other vice that cuts into a families budget or well being.
Physically addictive or not I’ve seen plenty of people put priority on their weed before more important things.
Bill, you’re not awesome.
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:13 am
Actually I’m pretty sure I’ve avoided “thinly veiled arguments”. My last post shows nothing but agreement with what you’re saying; if you read the language I used, it’s clear that I was sticking up for you.
I will say, however, that the possibility of mistakes doesn’t automatically invalidate the basic premise. Like I said several posts ago, all of our laws are continuously evolving as new facts and priorities come in. The fact that we won’t get it perfect on our first try doesn’t mean it isn’t worth moving forward with it.
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:24 am
Oh and one more thing. There’s this thing called a “paragraph”, in which you group sentences for the purpose of cohesion and reader comprehension. Putting each sentence on a new line does not contribute positively to the flow of your post, nor to our ability to effectively understand your point.
Of course, neither does the “wall of text” approach I have seen from several other posters on this forum.
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:50 am
I want talking about you.
I think our understanding of each other is pretty clear by now.
I’m not to impress anyone with my literall or gramatical skills. I hate the block posts, they make me dizzy, they pi$$ me off in that its like its my duty to decipher when a point ends and begins. I break my sh*t up not as an insult to anyone but just for clarity.
I made it out of college at 18 with an assoc. science in manageent at 18 so I cant be that big a buffoon.
A buffoon no doubt who can get his message across.
I have 30 years of thinking like a criminal in the drug trade while being addicted to those drugs at the same time.
It would do everyone a great deal of good to listen to those out there like me.
I know how Wall street and our market in general works, I know addiction, I know recovery and I’m telling you that if wee legalize pot with laws similar to those of liquor were in for trouble.
The two have their own different dynamics.
Ca. probably wont get the votes it needs for this but no doubt that when that time does come it will be a learning process no matter what the laws applied will be.
I just pray that learning process is not too expensive.
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:07 am
Fair enough, the solid blocks of sentences are much worse. I can’t even get through the ones with which I agree, let alone make the effort to deconstruct the ones with which I don’t.
OK so let’s hear your plan. We can’t keep prohibition going as-is, and we can’t treat pot like alcohol (which I disagree with, but will concede for the purposes of your response). You seem to feel pretty confident in your ability to consider all of the different facets involved, so let’s hear it. What is the “right” way to do it?
(I am seriously asking your opinion, not being rhetorical at all).
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
in response to something from page one
The Founding Fathers certainly smoked pot. It wasn’t illegal, why wouldn’t they?
Us social conservatives are supposed to stand for limited government. That doesn’t mean keeping frivolous things that are less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, and almost completely non-addictive, illegal.
March 4th, 2009 at 7:06 am
@Anthony: Yeah well that’s why I always laugh at the term “social conservative”. To me, it means basically embracing a “live and let live” attitude. But to so many people, it implies some moral crusade to force everyone to live according to one specific set of values.
Conservatism doesn’t mean forced traditionalism, it means non-intervention and adherence to the written law. From this viewpoint, prohibition is intolerable.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:24 am
“What is the “rightâ€? way to do it?”
1)The general public should not be able to grow their own.
This invites spiking or lacing with enhancers that are seriously dangerous.
It allows for a huge potential to end up in the wrong hands.
It invites robberies, home invasions, illicit activities such as private sale.
One house growing a room full of pot legally would drive down home values in that neighboorhood.
2) Age of legal consumption should be no less than 21 years old.
Every study out there indicates the that use of any recreational drug in developing minds r*tards emotional developement.
And then theres the simple lack of judgement factor to consider also.
3)All pot should be grown by licensed and bonded farmers who have to answer to fed standards of purity and potency.
When you get into all the variables and types of weed out there the market would be filled pretty quick with some interesting choices.
Not everyone out there could handle some of the strains where one hit drops you on the sofa for half a day.
4) Distribution should be done through pharmacies.
Having liquor stores sell weed is a bad idea as it invites the potential for dual usage.
“oh yea, while I’m at gimme a bottle of Jack”
Nothing will stop those who want to do both but why give them the perfect opportunity.
Vendors cannot have previous sales convictions.
5) The borders must be sealed.
I have no problem with Mexico, S. America, Asia marketing a product to us, they do have some superior strains but we have to get the criminal element out of the picture compeletly or without a doubt we will see competiton between the legit market and the underground who will no doubt do its best to undercut retail prices and disrupt legal outlets.
6) Crimes commited under the influence would be punishable the same way we punish those under the influence of booze. These laws are actually on the books already. If you’re whithin 1/2 a mile of a school you’re goin down hard.
7)
Revenues from taxation should be used to support the newly legalized system and not be diverted to fill deficits in other areas such as this case with Ca.
People do become dependent on weed so we need to be apply to apply treatment and education on the issue. We cant just toss this substance out there on the public without educating people on the effects, downfalls and clearing up all the myths that you’ll have three eyed kids, turn into Jack the Ripper or whatever.
Theres a lot of ignorance out there.
A cop, a leader of a platoon, a pharmacist, teachers, public vehicles like truckers, bus drivers all need to be screened because with booze its alot easier to see the effects on that person.
With pot sometimes the only indication of intoxication would be red eyes and we all know a couple drops of visine could clear that up right away.
Something quick and simple that could be done on a daily basis at work that would determine THC levels.
The problem is that THC takes about 2 full weeks to a month to leave the system completely so we would have to determine what level is residual and what is fresh. Also, only blood or urine can render results of recent use, hair analysis is only good for extended histories.
I’m leaning to not allowing public use like cafes and little hubs or whatever only because we already have once substance that imposes itself on society publicly and thats booze.
We cant stop folks in bars from running outside to smoke a joint, or get high before they leave the house but I really dont think we should be inviting the opportunity for the two to get mixed out in public.
In your own house, on your own property and thats it.
I gotta go, I’m sure I missed something,let me know.
Anthony;
“That doesn’t mean keeping frivolous things ”
Theres nothing frivolous about unleashing marijuana on society.
All you guys who keep tryng to dimish the effects of pot are insulting the intelligence of anyone whos ever smoked it.
Knock it off.
March 4th, 2009 at 8:52 am
Hey Micky, thanks for the response. I am basically in full agreement with you. Ideas about restricting public use and border activities are completely valid. I suppose even your point about private production holds water. And yeah, your point about it not being an excuse for committing crimes is critical. In short, a very workable plan.
One thing I might disagree with is dispensing through pharmacies. That makes sense if we are only legalizing for medicinal use, but if it’s a fully legalized recreational drug I don’t think it’s really a pharmaceutical venture. If it’s a medicine it belongs in pharmacies, if it’s a recreational drug it doesn’t. If we don’t want to sell it directly alongside alcohol at liquor stores, we should set up separate establishments for the sale of marijuana.
Also, one thing about drug testing (as a pot smoking engineer I’ve done quite a bit of research on this one). A urine test does not actually measure THC levels. Instead, it detects the processed metabolites of THC, which are stored in fat cells. The metabolites are not intoxicating in any way, but are merely the by-products of metabolizing THC. A blood test is really the only one that measures actual THC levels in the bloodstream, analogous to the BAC with alcohol. I believe saliva tests work similarly to blood tests also, and are probably favorable because they are less invasive.
In short though Micky, the plan you laid out makes great sense. I would take it in a heartbeat over our current strategy.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
“Legalization is totally misguided. The way to reduce crime is by strict quality of life enforcement against everyone who breaks the law, not by surrendering to petty criminals.”
You’re a disgusting human being.
If you can call marijuana use ANYTHING negative, it’s DRUG ABUSE which is a MEDICAL ISSUE not a CRIME.
You right-wingers will never learn, will you?
It is NONE of your business what other people do in their spare time in their own home if it does not involve you. Mind your own effing business.
It’s sickening to me that people like yourself would rather see drug addicts jailed than put into rehab to get help with their addictions.
God, what is wrong with you?
March 5th, 2009 at 6:25 am
@none of your business: Just to be clear, the drug war is not only the province of what you call “right-wingers”. It is heavily perpetrated by nanny state democrats as well; in fact, the drug war escalated during Clinton’s administration more than it ever had previously.
In fact, true conservatives should be fully in favor of ending the drug war; the idea of a federally mandated law against substances goes directly against conservative ideals. It is only those moralist neo-cons and the big government dems that see the virtue in it.
March 5th, 2009 at 9:48 am
“If you can call marijuana use ANYTHING negative, it’s DRUG ABUSE which is a MEDICAL ISSUE not a CRIME.”
Wrong.
Addiction is primarily a medical issue.
Abuse is the act that leads to addiction and also constitutes prescription fraud, doctors over prescribing, to the point legal intervention has to take place.
What so many people fail to recognize is that the majority of violent crimes connected with pot have almost nothing to do with the effects on the user, but almost always with the results of the money involved.
When your pot buzz is wearing off at 2:30 am your probably not going to go steal something and go bang on the dealers door at 2:30 am and ask him to sell you another bag.
But people will come after you at anytime of day for their money.
In comparisson, I’ve seen smack and coke addicts start withdrawing, not letting anything stand in their way and wake dealers up at 3 am just for a front or nickles worth of sh*t. Seen many a junkie get slapped around or worse for doing this.
Rhayader.
The only reason I suggest pharmacists dispense is becuase it just seems like the place to do it especially if or when things get to point where HMOs and insurance companies will be covering the cost of medicinal weed.
I mean we all know that if the doc prescribes tylenol you can get thru the pharmacy cheaper than OTC of insurance will pay its percentage.
It seems like the perfect place since it already has the tools, personell and techniques needed to weigh, package and distribute.
March 5th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Yeah fair enough. The medicinal issue sort of clouds things in my opinion, because it raises questions like that. While I would never deny a sick person his choice of medicine, sometimes I think the medical marijuana movement is actually detrimental to folks like me who think prohibition is ineffective and unconstitutional, no matter why a person chooses to use it.
I guess it sort of bugs me that it is used as a back door around true legalization. Especially in California, it’s extremely easy for a dude who just wants to get high to grab a medical license for 150 bucks. While I obviously support the dude’s right to smoke his stuff happily, something about subjugating legitimate medicine to that end sits wrong with me.
Medical use is someone with AIDS or cancer smoking up so he can hold down some food. It’s not some guy who has trouble falling asleep sometimes buying a bag and smoking it down. I have nothing wrong with getting high, I would just like to see it called what it is.