California Marijuana Regulation Act of 2010

[Treblaine]

snip

Have you read my entire post or just decided to talk out of your ass some more? It's BETTER if specialized stores sell drugs. One of the advantages is BEING ABLE TO RECOGNIZE ADDICTS AND HELP THEM.

The rest of your post was just moronic and not worth a reply.

There is a very easy way to tell if someone is addicted to Crack, Meth, Heroin or similar: THE FACT THAT THEY ARE BUYING IT!!!

Drug addicts are not hard to find, you don't have to lure them in with cheap commercialised narcotics. Social workers, law enforcement and charities come into contact with virtually all of them, there are so many of them it's almost impossible not to find them. They are hard to treat because their very will stands in the way of bringing them off it.

And who says IF drugs are legalised and privatised that any company that would run these "Specialized Stores" would EVER want to cure their customers of their addiction? Why? Utter conflict of interest if they are selling the drugs for profit.

HOW can you help someone get off a crack addiction if every time they want it you are giving them these drugs, any advice or reasoning to get off drugs is utterly hollow and hypocritical.

If it was benevolently government run, that DOES make SOME sense in that it's better addicts get clean needles, clean drugs and I suppose it undermines the drug dealers by undercutting them. But that is unsustainable, far better that, they are put on a CURATIVE program of abstention or a substitute (e.g Methadone) to eventually wean themselves off in a relatively controlled environment (I know drugs can be smuggled anywhere) where they are at least tested daily and can't turn tricks or other bullshit.

See these drugs are not just addictive, they are DANGEROUS! In the quantities they are taken by addicts to get the high they feel they need each time they risk death, every hit damages their body and mind more and permanently.

 

[Estocavio]

Good, it makes no sense for it to be illegal. If California goes ahead and does this then maybe the rest of the world will follow suit. Bravo.

Indeed - In its illegality it they're causing most of the associated problems with it.

 

[atombeast707]

I've written a whole entire essay on this matter, so since I don't think any of you would like to read it nor do i want to retype the whole basic idea I'll just put the main points.

-Keeping marijuana illegal requires a huge budgetary investment

-Legalizing marijuana would bring in a large amount of tax revenue

(remember that recession? Yeah, less money spent+more money made+more jobs created would probably be good towards fixing that. Especially since California has the highest State deficit in the country as well as one of the highest populations. Also, we have overcrowded prisons in California. Sounds like just what we need.)

-Keeping marijuana illegal means that any money spent on it goes directly to drug dealers and cartels. Marijuana is by far the most commonly used drug in America, and is probably responsible for a very high percentage of the cartel's income.

-The two counterarguments are "drugs are bad" and "People who are high will do something that puts themselves/others in danger." The former is projected morality, which yields no positive results to the people who don't want to smoke weed and restricts the freedom to the people that do want to smoke weed. ("I won't eat McDonalds so it should be illegal to eat McDonalds.") In the situation of the latter, if hypothetically someone where to drive high, the problem is not that they where high, it's that they chose to drive. I'm positive if weed was legalized that doing such things would still be illegal.

-Marijuana is extremely easy to obtain anyways, and anybody who wants to do it can find a way to get it. "According to the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), an estimated 102 million Americans aged 12 or older have tried marijuana at least once in their lifetimes, representing 41% of the U.S. population in that age group." Plain and simple, keeping marijuana illegal does NOT prevent the usage of the drug.

So basically in the end legalizing marijuana would let us stop spending money and start making money off of something that people already do.

SO TRUE. especially the last point. hell, i didnt even ask or try to get some once, and i got like $20 for free...

 

[THEfog101]

Ummm i dont know about you guys but im pretty sure weed is about as addicting as it gets, ive seen so many of my friends ruin there lives by smoking weed, getting addicted, blowing all there money, weed loses its effects on them so they look for another fix using another drug and ruin their lives, also there is a slight chance that when Smoking Compounds that contain tetrahydrocannabino for prolonged periods that individual (males only) bare a chance of sterility.

Yes its effects are both "fun" and "Surreal" but if you need drugs to make your life fun you seriously need to take a long hard look at your life.

 

[Penguinness]

I wouldn't mind if they legalised marijuana there or anywhere for that matter. To be fair you either allow marijuana or ban everything like alcohol, tobacco and coffee (which I wouldn't mind that much either, I have alcohol and coffee a lot but I'm not addicted to them) which would just cause more illegal activities I bet?

Having said that I wouldn't mind marijuana being legalised, I really kind of want cigerettes to go.. so that's hypocrisy right there. Sure they could give off a little high, but isn't that because you're getting the nicotine that the smoker has become addicted to? Why not the water vapour cigerettes?

People generally seem to mix weed in with tobacco, so will more people get addicted to smoking with this act?

 

[Altorin]

It's as if my hometown of Hong Kong started to legalize Opium again. Bloody insane.

Opium and marijuana are exactly the same thing.

 

[Penguinness]

Yes its effects are both "fun" and "Surreal" but if you need drugs to make your life fun you seriously need to take a long hard look at your life.

Over 60% of people drink alcohol.

 

[Ldude893]

It's as if my hometown of Hong Kong started to legalize Opium again. Bloody insane.

Opium and marijuana are exactly the same thing.

If Opium and Marijuana are exactly the same thing, then Marijuana is sure to bring the same kind of misery to California as Opium.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Try searching Abigail Witchells. She didn't actually die, but she was stabbed in the neck and paralysed.

From what I've seen the man took an overdose AFTER the attack. Even so, there are countless abuse cases of alcoholics and drunks. If you state that hard drugs should be illegal then you HAVE to make alcohol illegal as well.

Good point. Let's do away with the legal system entirely, because that's what you are saying.

What does this have to do with letting other people live their life as they want to live it? Sure, punish them if their actions can lead to the harm of a human being but until that does not happen there's absolutely no reason for persecuting them.

Let's not forget that alcohol can be enjoyed responsibly

So can drugs. The same way you can responsibly enjoy alcohol and not become addicted the same way you can enjoy hard drugs without becoming addicted. However, when you start abusing them then the problems start appearing.

Again, if you want hard drugs illegal then you HAVE to make alcohol illegal as well.

Addicts aren't.

You're right. Alcohol addicts cannot be fully functional members of society just like drug addicts can't but it's easier to help them because alcohol addiction is "in the light" so to say. A drug addict, however, will most likely need an overdose before the person gets the help needed and I'm pretty sure I don't have to tell you how dangerous overdoses are, right?

There is a very easy way to tell if someone is addicted to Crack, Meth, Heroin or similar: THE FACT THAT THEY ARE BUYING IT!!!

Drugs can be enjoyed responsibly. To state that you're an addict if you buy it is moronic. To state that you're an addict if you're buying it constantly is another thing entirely.

Drug addicts are not hard to find, you don't have to lure them in with cheap commercialised narcotics. Social workers, law enforcement and charities come into contact with virtually all of them, there are so many of them it's almost impossible not to find them. They are hard to treat because their very will stands in the way of bringing them off it.

I'm pretty sure the majority of drugs addicts hide their addiction and giving the shady deals they have to work with in order to get the drug it's highly unlikely social workers and the police come in contact with "all of them".

And who says IF drugs are legalised and privatised that any company that would run these "Specialized Stores" would EVER want to cure their customers of their addiction? Why? Utter conflict of interest if they are selling the drugs for profit.

What about a blood test before being able to buy the drug? That way, we can easily recognize the addicts and help them.

HOW can you help someone get off a crack addiction if every time they want it you are giving them these drugs, any advice or reasoning to get off drugs is utterly hollow and hypocritical.

ditto

But that is unsustainable

Except for the undercutting and the reduced risk of HIV infection and actually knowing with what the drug was cut with AND educating the person as to what dosage he or she should take. You know, things like that COULD be sustainable.

far better that, they are put on a CURATIVE program of abstention or a substitute (e.g Methadone) to eventually wean themselves off in a relatively controlled environment

And you can't do this when you have "specialized" stores why? Again, a simple blood test could identify the addict and give him or her the help he or she needs.

In regards to your last point. Ex-addicts can always recede and start doing drugs again. No "special environment" can prevent that.

See these drugs are not just addictive, they are DANGEROUS!

Yes, in high doses and taken at short intervals these drugs can be dangerous just like how abusing alcohol can be dangerous. If taken responsibly then, whilst the risks are there, they are diluted... just like drinking alcohol in moderation.

In the quantities they are taken by addicts to get the high they feel they need each time they risk death, every hit damages their body and mind more and permanently.

This sounds increasingly more like alcohol addiction.

 

[TPiddy]

-snip-

Of course, another counter argument would be the gateway approach, that if the gov caves on this, what's next? heroin? opium? meth? Are we going to hear numerous other arguments about the benefits of other drugs?

 

[Da pyro man 999]

why not just legalise all drugs, there would be alot less crime

 

[Treblaine]

There is a very easy way to tell if someone is addicted to Crack, Meth, Heroin or similar: THE FACT THAT THEY ARE BUYING IT!!!

Drugs can be enjoyed responsibly. To state that you're an addict if you buy it is moronic. To state that you're an addict if you're buying it constantly is another thing entirely.

Drug addicts are not hard to find, you don't have to lure them in with cheap commercialised narcotics. Social workers, law enforcement and charities come into contact with virtually all of them, there are so many of them it's almost impossible not to find them. They are hard to treat because their very will stands in the way of bringing them off it.

I'm pretty sure the majority of drugs addicts hide their addiction and giving the shady deals they have to work with in order to get the drug it's highly unlikely social workers and the police come in contact with "all of them".

And who says IF drugs are legalised and privatised that any company that would run these "Specialized Stores" would EVER want to cure their customers of their addiction? Why? Utter conflict of interest if they are selling the drugs for profit.

What about a blood test before being able to buy the drug? That way, we can easily recognize the addicts and help them.

HOW can you help someone get off a crack addiction if every time they want it you are giving them these drugs, any advice or reasoning to get off drugs is utterly hollow and hypocritical.

ditto

But that is unsustainable

Except for the undercutting and the reduced risk of HIV infection and actually knowing with what the drug was cut with AND educating the person as to what dosage he or she should take. You know, things like that COULD be sustainable.

far better that, they are put on a CURATIVE program of abstention or a substitute (e.g Methadone) to eventually wean themselves off in a relatively controlled environment

And you can't do this when you have "specialized" stores why? Again, a simple blood test could identify the addict and give him or her the help he or she needs.

In regards to your last point. Ex-addicts can always recede and start doing drugs again. No "special environment" can prevent that.

See these drugs are not just addictive, they are DANGEROUS!

Yes, in high doses and taken at short intervals these drugs can be dangerous just like how abusing alcohol can be dangerous. If taken responsibly then, whilst the risks are there, they are diluted... just like drinking alcohol in moderation.

In the quantities they are taken by addicts to get the high they feel they need each time they risk death, every hit damages their body and mind more and permanently.

This sounds increasingly more like alcohol addiction.

The authorities DO come in contact with all drug user EVENTUALLY as the negative effects are impossible to hide. The slip into lawlessness to feed their addiction that destroys their employability, their health effects from debilitation to near death from overdoses.

By the way, the ONLY safe dose for casual consumption of drugs like Heroin is ZERO! Ask any anaesthesiologists, these powerful drugs when actually used by medical professionals are always a calculated risk while the anaesthesiologist must give 100% of their time to just keeping the patient alive. And these anaesthesiologists are INHERENTLY EXPENSIVE from their years of training and how so few people even have what it takes. You can't have them sitting beside every addict as they shoot up.

The idea that you can tell a heroin user what is even a slightly safe amount to shoot up... you clearly have a poor background in medicine. My uncle is a GP, my Granddad was an A&E (ER) doctor for 50 years and my mother is a nurse and I am studying for radiography.

HIV needles and poorly cut drugs are bad but removing that with a "clean" supply chain changes NOTHING. It is still INHERENTLY AND INCREDIBLY dangerous to self-prescribe these HIGHLY powerful drugs! You can tell them "if you take that much, you very likely could die and will certainly cause permanent damage to your body" they'll ignore you as they NEED their hit! And if you try to force them they'll go right back to the dealer who'll give them what they want in the quantities they want.

They need to be put in rehab to first get clean and then more pro-active measures to keep them clean. The "education" of safe consumption of Heroin/Meth/etc is NONE! You can't just have a little bit, by definition an addict will want more and more till the only satisfying dose is an overdose.

Pioneering work is being done in North Dakota that is spreading to other US states and around the world is those convicted of alcohol or drugs offences must check in every 24 hours for a drugs test. Fail the test and 24 hours in jail, skip a test and a warrant for your arrest. It has proven to be EXTREMELY effective as within their normal everyday environment they have to make the choice of getting high or going to jail. It is really working, it's almost pavlovian.

 

[fullbleed]

Yes in favour of legalising weed, absolute no to coke and heroin because they are seriously harmfull and adictive, and get this weed isn't. That's why I'm ok with it, doctors in extreme cases do pescribe marijuana to help with, when was the last time you heard a doctor write a pescription for cocaine or heroin, or alcohol or cigarettes for that matter. They are seriously harmful and legalising it will only incourage more people to try it and become hooked at don't fucking tell me otherwise. If hard drugs were legal then of course more people would take them and of course as a result more people would be adicted. Surely that can only be a bad thing. And don't tell me "It's their body, it's their right." if someone was going to shoot themselves in the head wouldn't you try and stop them?

 

[Valkyrie101]

Drugs can be enjoyed responsibly. To state that you're an addict if you buy it is moronic. To state that you're an addict if you're buying it constantly is another thing entirely.

Let's take heroin. It's extremely addictive. As in, you might not be addicted first time, but give it half a dozen goes and you will be, period. Same goes for crack cocaine. There is no way to enjoy these responsibly, absolutely none.

 

[ghostalker.cepo]

I understand that it would be good to tax it, but I don't think many horoine addicts woke up and said "hey, I'm gonna try horoine", the problem is it's a gateway drug, so I'm kinda indifferent to the propisition.

No it's not. Tobacco is a gateway drug, weed is not. They just say that it is to incite fear. There are no studies that prove that it's a gateway, and if you do use drugs regularly, there's a good chance you're going to have smoked weed at some point.

All the regular drug users I know are smokers, and started smoking before everything else. Those I know who only toke weed, only do so occasionally and don't want to try anything harder. The whole gateway thing is bullshit.

 

[unoleian]

-snip-

Of course, another counter argument would be the gateway approach, that if the gov caves on this, what's next? heroin? opium? meth? Are we going to hear numerous other arguments about the benefits of other drugs?

Slippery slope. Pure hypothetical. And, likely, no.

 

[ghostalker.cepo]

I'm against it. I'm also against Alcohol. I know that as soon as it becomes at least partially legal it will become more common and the more common it becomes the more people become okay with it and hold to it. Making it legal will eventually make it something that can't be made illegal again (kind of like when they tried prohibition). Therefore, I'm against this bill.

Prohibition was unsuccessful because Americans came from the British, and alcohol has been an established part of our society for CENTURIES. Since way before Columbus sailed to your country. It may have been settled by puritans, but the majority of the immigrants to the USA in the 19th and early 20th weren't, and liked a drink. And without those immigrants, you wouldn't *have* a country.

And if we legalize Marijuana then wait a few years it will become part of the cultural background and people will be more resilient to the idea of having it made illegal again (an idea which I support). As with prohibition, taking away something established from a group warrants opposition. There is obviously a factor of how long something has been legal which affects this opposition but none-the-less any length of time will increase the opposition to re-illegalizing (is there a word for that) marijuana. Now I know its not going to suddenly change the whole landscape but it does lead to an end that is contrary to my goal so I oppose it.

Ok, so you have your moral objections to drugs and alcohol, but tell me, was it better for society during prohibition, where people were drinking illegal moonshine that made you blind and ill, or now where it's legal and drinking alcohol is relatively safe?

In society there are always going to be people who want to drink, want to smoke, want to get high, if you keep it illegal, you keep it in the hands of criminals and make it more dangerous than it needs to be. All because of a moral objection. Fine, you don't like it, but you're not the only person in the world who's opinion matters.


EDIT: I thought I'd add this link, regarding the decrimialisation of drugs in portugal and statistics citing a drop in crime rate and illegal drug related deaths, BECAUSE THEY MADE DRUGS SAFER FOR THE PEOPLE. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

 

[TPiddy]

-snip-

Of course, another counter argument would be the gateway approach, that if the gov caves on this, what's next? heroin? opium? meth? Are we going to hear numerous other arguments about the benefits of other drugs?

Slippery slope. Pure hypothetical. And, likely, no.

Yeah, but I wouldn't put it past users of harder drugs to try and lobby, not that the government would listen to them. Marijuana has several advantages that drugs like Heroin don't, namely in the medicinal and non-drug based use of the plant.

 

[ghostalker.cepo]

I wouldn't mind if they legalised marijuana there or anywhere for that matter. To be fair you either allow marijuana or ban everything like alcohol, tobacco and coffee (which I wouldn't mind that much either, I have alcohol and coffee a lot but I'm not addicted to them) which would just cause more illegal activities I bet?

Having said that I wouldn't mind marijuana being legalised, I really kind of want cigerettes to go.. so that's hypocrisy right there. Sure they could give off a little high, but isn't that because you're getting the nicotine that the smoker has become addicted to? Why not the water vapour cigerettes?

People generally seem to mix weed in with tobacco, so will more people get addicted to smoking with this act?

Tobacco smokers don't get a high really, the relief you feel isn't anything like one, it's just the relief of continuing your addiction. There really is no point to smoking, and I don't really know why I do it, but I do enjoy it, I think if I didn't I'd try to quit.

It is possible to get addicted to marijuana, I have been, but it took me 3 years on and off of smoking almost every day to reach addiction point, actual physical addiction, and I've always rolled my joints with tobacco, so yes, it is possible, but I don't think tobacco was a factor in the addiction, if it was I'd have been physically hooked long before 3 years. I know it took that long for a physical addiction to develop because I could go with out it for periods of time with no ill effects. I definately was psychologically addicted for a long time before it became physical but I could cope without smoking it.

Still, I'm glad that if I had to have developed an illegal drug addiction, that it was weed and not something stronger like speed or coke or heroin or crack.... Not that I'm advocating addictions, they're not fun, I'm saying it takes a long time of constant smoking for weed to become addictive.

 

[Lucifron]

OP

Fucking. Finally! I predict worldwide celebrations when this prop passes in November. There is the issue with the Controlled Substances Act, but it will surely be overcome in due time.

I keep hearing that marijuana is a lot less harmful then alcohol and many other drugs, but when ever I see someone who smokes it they seem to get more stupid by the minute.

Yes, and this is harmful because...?