Despite rejecting Prop. 19, Californians lean toward legalizing marijuana

The biggest reason it did not pass was all the Potheads had a early morning joint and forgot to vote.;)

Also, the law would have allowed only people 21 and older to smoke pot. All the 18 to 20 year old voters had no reason to support it.

Actually it lost badly 54%-46%, so additional young voters would not have been enough to get it passed.
 
All the pot heads were stoned stupid, hence no passage of the law.

J/K

2010cali.png


There is the 2010 Election map by each county in California. In reality the majority of the state if Conservative (Red). The problem is that the liberal centers of the state have the higher number of idiots. Thus they control the state through majority. In California's case, the tail wags the dog. But on the drug issue.... common sense took hold. Sadly on everything else it didn't.

Very soon California will go bankrupt and I and the rest of the country will have to pay for the Federal Bailout because California is "too big to fail".
 
Last edited:
Just take a good swig of one of their special cigarettes and all your troubles will seem like a good joke. It might ease the initial impact and shed some light on how to address the problem.
Better yet, legalize pot and California can pay for it's one bail-out, since they can tax the pot and save on the law enforcement :) And you won't have to pay a cent! It seems everybody will be happy...
 
Ted, that solution is FAR too simple.

Why is it way too simple? If you think about all the pro's you'd save an incredible amount of money? But the general tenure is that legalizing weed causes a massive increase in addicts. But I don't smoke and won't smoke when it is legalized and I think that many people will not start to smoke either.

We had this discussion many times over. And in all the threads there is a train of thought that once you smoke pot you end up as a heroine addict. And this is simply not true. Some might end up like that, but that is regardless legal or illegal pot. Sometimes solving the problem is so much easier than many people think.
 
Bummers ......

John Hoeffel, LA Times Nov 4, 2010

"California voters rejected Prop. 19, but a post-election poll found that they still lean toward legalizing marijuana for recreational use and, if young voters had turned out as heavily on Tuesday as they do for presidential elections, the result would have been a close call."........


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...lifornians-still-lean-toward-legalizing-.html

This is an issue that resonates in almost all of the states. Almost half of the voters lean towards legalizing pot for recreational use if they can just figure out how to ensure we don't end up with another case of 'alcohol drug dependency and abuse' ... ie: reckless usage of pot with it's resultant problems.

There is a misapprehension from many voters, who don't really have all of the relevant information about pot and it's effects on the body, for making an informed decision.

Unless/until a majority of the voters become well informed, proposals to legalize pot will continue to be defeated at the polls.
 
This is an issue that resonates in almost all of the states. Almost half of the voters lean towards legalizing pot for recreational use if they can just figure out how to ensure we don't end up with another case of 'alcohol drug dependency and abuse' ... ie: reckless usage of pot with it's resultant problems.

There is a misapprehension from many voters, who don't really have all of the relevant information about pot and it's effects on the body, for making an informed decision.

Unless/until a majority of the voters become well informed, proposals to legalize pot will continue to be defeated at the polls.

"don't end up with another case of 'alcohol drug dependency and abuse' ... ie: reckless usage of pot with it's resultant problems." quote Chief Bones

There is the problem, it will happen. People are smart enough to know that all drugs are abused including prescription drugs. Does not mean people believe that marijuana always leads to "harder drugs. Marijuana is a drug therefore it will be abused.

Since ingestion by smoking is the most common method of use, it is funny to see Californians advocating for legalization. At the same time we are banning cigarette smoking in public places, and working to ban smoking all together.
Is this a double standard?

I won't be using, so my concern is mainly about abuse.
 
"don't end up with another case of 'alcohol drug dependency and abuse' ... ie: reckless usage of pot with it's resultant problems." quote Chief Bones

There is the problem, it will happen. People are smart enough to know that all drugs are abused including prescription drugs. Does not mean people believe that marijuana always leads to "harder drugs. Marijuana is a drug therefore it will be abused.

Since ingestion by smoking is the most common method of use, it is funny to see Californians advocating for legalization. At the same time we are banning cigarette smoking in public places, and working to ban smoking all together.
Is this a double standard?

I won't be using, so my concern is mainly about abuse.
Real, pure marijuana doesn't have 23 known cancer-causing ingredients in it. Can't say the same thing about a pack of Marlboros.
 
What Other Adverse Effect Does Marijuana Have on Health?

Effects on the Heart
Marijuana increases heart rate by 20-100 percent shortly after smoking; this effect can last up to 3 hours. In one study, it was estimated that marijuana users have a 4.8-fold increase in the risk of heart attack in the first hour after smoking the drug.5 This may be due to increased heart rate as well as the effects of marijuana on heart rhythms, causing palpitations and arrhythmias. This risk may be greater in aging populations or in those with cardiac vulnerabilities.

Effects on the Lungs
Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increase the lungs' exposure to carcinogenic smoke.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html
 
Agreed. That's why I stay as far away from smoking/smokers as possible. How people can willingly do that to themselves is beyond me.
 
There is the problem, it will happen. People are smart enough to know that all drugs are abused including prescription drugs. Does not mean people believe that marijuana always leads to "harder drugs. Marijuana is a drug therefore it will be abused.
I won't be using, so my concern is mainly about abuse.

But it is already being abused regardless of being legal or not. And now is costs the police apparatus an enormous amount of time and money too. And the assumption that more people will become addicted is hard to believe. I don't think that our friend Rob will buy a joint when it becomes legal.... And their are millions of Americans who will think the same.
 
But it is already being abused regardless of being legal or not. And now is costs the police apparatus an enormous amount of time and money too. And the assumption that more people will become addicted is hard to believe. I don't think that our friend Rob will buy a joint when it becomes legal.... And their are millions of Americans who will think the same.
During the campaign for legalizing Pot, there were a lot of "reasons" given for legalizing including your points. But how valid are they? Were the reasons made up by Pot Heads high on Marijuana?

1. "But it is already being abused regardless of being legal or not."
So this means we should legalize it, because it is all ready being abused? Will that stop the abuse?

2. "And now is costs the police apparatus an enormous amount of time and money too."
No the police apparatus costs tax payers a lot of money. So the implication is that if we get rid of laws we will pay less for police? By that reasoning, if we eliminate all laws the crime rate will go to zero and likewise the expense for police.:)

3. "And the assumption that more people will become addicted is hard to believe."
Why is it hard to believe? If it is legalized more people will use it and simple math says that if the percentage of abusers stays the same, there will be more addicts.

100,000 X 5%(0.05) = 5,000
More user same percent:
1,000.000 X 5%(0.05) = 50,000

4. Another reason given for legalization was tax revenue, would help pay down the California deficit. California is looking at a $25 Billion deficit. Even the most optimistic tax amount was $500 million in revenue. But most of that was supposed to go to local government, not state.:roll:

Not sure how they were going to collect taxes as the law was making it legal for people over 21 to have a 25 X 25 foot area to grow their own pot. When was the last time the garden police came and taxed your garden?:)

"I don't think that our friend Rob will buy a joint when it becomes legal...."
I don't know what Rob would do, since his comments have been more anti tobacco smoking than anything to do with Marijuana. But more people will try it if it is legalized.

Maybe it would be better to follow Ted's country (Netherlands) example. Instead of making Pot legal, just have the police ignore it.

Here is a link to a New York Times article that gives a fair assessment of the pro and cons of Legalizing Marijuana.

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/if-marijuana-is-legal-will-addiction-rise/

One thing I do see that is a problem with the pro side is that they contend that by legalizing Marijuana it could be regulated, both in strength and use by taxing(meaning they tax it high, so price is high and people won't use as much). Both points fall flat, at least in California because........you guessed it! Marijuana grows like a weed here.:lol: Why pay for something you can grow for free?

How strong Pot has gotten since the 70s is wild, main reasoning I quit using.
 
1. "But it is already being abused regardless of being legal or not."
So this means we should legalize it, because it is all ready being abused? Will that stop the abuse? Fair enough. But than the assumption that we should keep it illegal is also void, because it does not stop the abuse...

2. "And now is costs the police apparatus an enormous amount of time and money too."
No the police apparatus costs tax payers a lot of money. So the implication is that if we get rid of laws we will pay less for police? By that reasoning, if we eliminate all laws the crime rate will go to zero and likewise the expense for police.:smile: This feels like splitting hairs... Somebody is paying for the cops and by legalizing it, you cut down on expenditures. And you left out the factor "time" needed to prosecute and process the paper work. This is time that can be spend on other things.

3. "And the assumption that more people will become addicted is hard to believe."
Why is it hard to believe? If it is legalized more people will use it and simple math says that if the percentage of abusers stays the same, there will be more addicts.

100,000 X 5%(0.05) = 5,000
More user same percent:
1,000.000 X 5%(0.05) = 50,000

Good point, I didn't look at it that way! :smile:

4. Another reason given for legalization was tax revenue, would help pay down the California deficit. California is looking at a $25 Billion deficit. Even the most optimistic tax amount was $500 million in revenue. But most of that was supposed to go to local government, not state.:roll: In my opinion again spitting hairs. There is money to be made from legalizing weed.

Not sure how they were going to collect taxes as the law was making it legal for people over 21 to have a 25 X 25 foot area to grow their own pot. When was the last time the garden police came and taxed your garden?:smile:
Well... In Holland not everybody has a garden, but we do have central points which are easily controllable; i.e. coffee-shops. And most like it will become easier to find the places where they grow weed, which are hidden now. And so, these you could tax too. I doubt that everybody will start to grow weed themselves. And if they want quality seeds, they will go to a shop and can be taxed too.

"I don't think that our friend Rob will buy a joint when it becomes legal...."
I don't know what Rob would do, since his comments have been more anti tobacco smoking than anything to do with Marijuana. But more people will try it if it is legalized.
Probably... well most likely true. But that doesn't make them abusers.

Maybe it would be better to follow Ted's country (Netherlands) example. Instead of making Pot legal, just have the police ignore it. By ignoring it you can't tax it. But the quality standard has risen by this method, since selling it doesn't happen out of a trunk.

Here is a link to a New York Times article that gives a fair assessment of the pro and cons of Legalizing Marijuana.

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/if-marijuana-is-legal-will-addiction-rise/

It does sound like a fair assessment and also pretty inconclusive. But I do like this quote of one of the professors:
What would happen if the drug were legalized? The Dutch de facto legalization of sale through coffee shops is the closest available experience. The most striking observation is that marijuana use in that country is lower than in many other European countries and a lot lower than in the United States; 6 percent of 15- to 64-year-olds in Holland had used marijuana in the past year, compared to 11 percent in the U.S.
One thing I do see that is a problem with the pro side is that they contend that by legalizing Marijuana it could be regulated, both in strength and use by taxing(meaning they tax it high, so price is high and people won't use as much). Both points fall flat, at least in California because........you guessed it! Marijuana grows like a weed here.:lol: Why pay for something you can grow for free? Because the quality and the trip are of a lesser standard. I prefer my weed to be good and wholesome, and mother nature grows a lesser quality than a botanist.

How strong Pot has gotten since the 70s is wild, main reasoning I quit using.

But this is just my tuppence worth :)
 
Actually the quality part of the California debate was that by legalizing and regulating Marijuana the strength could be reduced with regulation.
Marijuana here in California has become extremely potent.

Another thing about the cost of law enforcement dedicated to Marijuana, it is fictitious, as cops aren't aggressively pursuing Pot heads. If you get busted for Marijuana in California it is because something drew the police's attention.

The Federal Government actively prosecutes Marijuana farms, not California law enforcement. If the police really felt "short of cash" from minor Marijuana busts they could just request the fines be increased.

Since the law enforcement expense is mostly Federal, California legalizing Marijuana would have little effect. The Feds have stated the would still prosecute Marijuana use.
 
"And the assumption that more people will become addicted is hard to believe."
Why is it hard to believe? If it is legalized more people will use it and simple math says that if the percentage of abusers stays the same, there will be more addicts.

100,000 X 5%(0.05) = 5,000
More user same percent:
1,000.000 X 5%(0.05) = 50,000


In theory this makes sense. But, you are talking about the US where what something like 80% of people admit to trying marijuana so how many of the remaining 20% will even want to try it? Also, considering they have not tried it before when it is honestly pretty easy to get means they may have no intrest in ever trying it.
 
Last edited:
"And the assumption that more people will become addicted is hard to believe."
Why is it hard to believe? If it is legalized more people will use it and simple math says that if the percentage of abusers stays the same, there will be more addicts.

100,000 X 5%(0.05) = 5,000
More user same percent:
1,000.000 X 5%(0.05) = 50,000


In theory this makes sense. But, you are talking about the US where what something like 80% of people admit to trying marijuana so how many of the remaining 20% will even want to try it? Also, considering they have not tried it before when it is honestly pretty easy to get means they may have no intrest in ever trying it.

Not about "trying marijuana", it is about being able to use it legally. A good percentage of people usually avoid breaking laws, so don't use regularly or at all. Once it becomes legal more people will use it.
A lot of people under 21 do not drink, it seems they do start when they become legal at 21. :wink:
 
Back
Top