California Marijuana Regulation Act of 2010

[hannan4mitch]

Damn, I wish I lived in California.
But, I live in Northern VA, and trying to legalize pot here would be like besieging a very well stockpiled castle, with BB guns.
EDIT: Oops, forgot something.
The Family Guy Ep. 420 "Bag of Weed Song"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HM-SumuKIk&feature=related

 

[BabySinclair]

I'm still wondering how they'll get around the fact that selling weed is still a federal offense, ATF could still technically bust people since they have federal jurisdiction but it's California and they never seem to care about those things. It will pass in California, maybe not this time but eventually.

As for the gateway argument, I know people who smoke weed, none want to try anything harder and when they smoke they never seem to go overboard. The people I know who drink (around my age) get trashed and I have to physically keep them in line at times when they're not puking.

Also, look at the number of alcohol related crimes, compare to marijuana related crimes; very stark difference between the two.

Tobacco doesn't get you "high" because it is a different type of drug. Alcohol and weed are downers, which slow the brain (alcohol has a greater effect actually); whilst Nicotine (the main drug in tobacco products) is a stimulate, speeding up brain activity. Caffeine is also a stimulate.

Harder drugs hit harder and faster than alcohol with much more of an addictive strength. I've never heard of someone OD'ing on weed; heroin, coke, crack, pcp, opium, and alcohol on the other hand... They should remain illegal (save alcohol) because they will get people killed unlike marijuana. There will likely be a few motor accidents but far fewer than what you see with alcohol in my opinion.

 

[Lucifron]

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 completely Orwellian!

I fixed that paragraph for you. Do you realize how much that system would cost on a large scale? How anyone can believe that it would be worth it is beyond me.

 

[ultrachicken]

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.

You mean the rest of the world excluding Amsterdam?

 

[AndyFromMonday]

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.

And wouldn't it be easier to help them if they didn't have access to the drug? Again, a simple blood test to check for addiction will suffice. When the addiction is discovered then the addict would have no way to feed it since the only place he or she can get the drug is government sanctioned stores.

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.

Which is why there are addicts which still survive to this day. There IS a safe dose, a dose from which you cannot overdose. If used with care heroin can be a safe recreational drug with side effects, just like alcohol.

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.

Yes, you CAN tell them the safe ammount in the sense of not overdosing and you CAN tell them how many times to shoot up per week as to not get addicted. Even if you couldn't, it's a person's choice as to what they want to do with their bodies.

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.

AND ISN'T SHOOTING UP WITH CLEAN NEEDLESS AND CLEAN DRUGS BETTER THAN SHOOTING UP WITH DIRTY NEEDLES AND UNCLEAN DRUGS? HOW can you say this changes nothing? It will deal a blow to the drug industry bigger than anything beforehand and once that industry is gone you CAN force people into rehab. As of now your logic goes like this: The drug is very dangerous and as such it's better to leave users to buy it from shady dealers, use unclean needless and unclean drugs. That makes absolutely no sense.

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.

YES THERE IS actually education for safe consumption of hard drugs. I listed the reasons in the above post.

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.

And what's stopping those so called addicts to simply avoid the law? What's the proof that the system is actually working?

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.

You just answered your own question. It "might not be addicted the first time" which means there IS a way to prevent addiction.

This is however besides the point of what I'm trying to make. No matter the risks, a person SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT to choose what THEY WANT to do WITH THEIR BODY. I've been arguing about how hard drugs can be consumed responsibly and whilst this is true it's besides the point. No one has the right to tell a person what to do with their own bodies.

 

[MrBirdy]

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.

And it makes no sense that you've never heard of the most free western country in the world; The Netherlands/Holland. Marijuana is somewhat legal here for tens of years.... If you're 18+ you can go to a specified shop and buy weed.

Since it's not suprise you don't know the actual name of the country i live in Amsterdam should ring a bell. It's our capital ^^.

Oh and I ment no offense in the first sentence. I'm just a bit grumpy at this moment =)!

Excuse me?
I'm perfectly familiar with Amsterdam's weed laws. But, like I said in the above post (sorry for double post, computer is being a dick, only option) Amsterdam is not "the rest of the world". It is just one city, and that's what I meant.
If you meant no offense, maybe you could have worded it less offensively.

Ok fair enough with the offense part. But it are Dutch Laws... Amsterdam is the city that is our capitol... >.> The capitol of The Netherlands.

 

[Burningsok]

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...?

It's not exactly harmful it's just so many people I know who smoke weed try to make it look all cool and that smoking weed is awesome. When they get high they look like they just woke up from being knocked unconscious by a heavyweight boxer.

 

[MrHero17]

Yes, and this is harmful because...?

It's not exactly harmful it's just so many people I know who smoke weed try to make it look all cool and that smoking weed is awesome. When they get high they look like they just woke up from being knocked unconscious by a heavyweight boxer.[/quote]

So don't smoke it then.

 

[Twilight_guy]

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

Government regulations would probably make things safer yes, but once again I don't really care because I object on moral grounds. I don't care if getting high becomes safer then flying in an airplane my goal is not to make marijuana safe, it is to see it go away. I know its not going to happen but I also know its never going to be fully regulated (Nothing ever really is). Luckily for you, my opinion doesn't really matter because its one among millions and its a drop in the bucket. I appreciate how adamantly you support side so just let me support mine. Good day and good luck.

 

[Lucifron]

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...?

It's not exactly harmful it's just so many people I know who smoke weed try to make it look all cool and that smoking weed is awesome. When they get high they look like they just woke up from being knocked unconscious by a heavyweight boxer.

That's why its called being stoned. Couldn't tell you why anyone would try to make it look "cool" though. Either you enjoy it or you don't, and that's all there is to it.

 

[Treblaine]

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 completely Orwellian!

I fixed that paragraph for you. Do you realize how much that system would cost on a large scale? How anyone can believe that it would be worth it is beyond me.

This is and ALTERNATIVE to a prison sentence for those convicted of alcohol/drug related crime and the genius part is THEY have to pay for it. They pay for the drug testing equipment and the necessary technicians... it is considered part of their fine, and it's partitioned money, They only have to pay as much as the testing costs and the money doesn't go to any other part of local govt spending.

Remember, this is alternative to a decade inside an American Prison...

 

[Treblaine]

And wouldn't it be easier to help them if they didn't have access to the drug? Again, a simple blood test to check for addiction will suffice. When the addiction is discovered then the addict would have no way to feed it since the only place he or she can get the drug is government sanctioned stores.

HA! drug dealers will still thrive as they will provide the drugs in the QUANTITIES that the addicts need to feed their addiction that always needs a bigger dose to get the same result. But quantities not government or medic could ever ethically administer.

...

Which is why there are addicts which still survive to this day. There IS a safe dose, a dose from which you cannot overdose. If used with care heroin can be a safe recreational drug with side effects, just like alcohol.

That's like saying there is a safe way to play Russian Roulette. Sure you have a 5:1 chance of surviving, it's similar odds with hard drug users, the risk of their typical hit killing them.
It is VERY hard to overdose from alcohol, you normally vomit or pass out before you consume acutely lethal amounts, it takes many many years of conditioning to even stay conscious and keep drinking to a point overdosing, and even then it's often only deadly in combination with liver cirrhosis. It's a problem, but no where near as deadly as hard drugs. Don't get caught up in alcohol-drugs equivalences, those are FALLACIES of generalisation.


...

Yes, you CAN tell them the safe ammount in the sense of not overdosing and you CAN tell them how many times to shoot up per week as to not get addicted. Even if you couldn't, it's a person's choice as to what they want to do with their bodies.

No you CANNOT! There are formulas for this and when they addict says they "need" to take so much to get the hit they need, yet it falls in a range that could easilly stop their heart... what then? Give them the "safe" amount that the addict conditioned to want bigger and bigger doses will not get an adequate high off. They'll just take what they can, try to scam some more, then go to an illegal dealer that'll sell them the dangerous amount they want.
Bullshit on "it's their body". If someone clearly distressed by mental illness trys to kill them self, would you try to stop them? Would you call the police so they can restrain them? Would YOU EVEN FUCKING CARE!

...

AND ISN'T SHOOTING UP WITH CLEAN NEEDLESS AND CLEAN DRUGS BETTER THAN SHOOTING UP WITH DIRTY NEEDLES AND UNCLEAN DRUGS? HOW can you say this changes nothing? It will deal a blow to the drug industry bigger than anything beforehand and once that industry is gone you CAN force people into rehab. As of now your logic goes like this: The drug is very dangerous and as such it's better to leave users to buy it from shady dealers, use unclean needless and unclean drugs. That makes absolutely no sense.

I'm not obsessed with smashing the drugs trade, I'm obsessed with public health. Yes, provide clean needles but don't provide dangerous drugs. The Hippocratic Oath would be broken to give them powerful drugs for consumption as there is no guarantee the drugs are cut with anything more toxic than the drug ITSELF! It is immoral to give an addict drugs, you are killing them.

...

And what's stopping those so called addicts to simply avoid the law? What's the proof that the system is actually working?

They have their addresses. They will have to live on the lamb and when caught they will got to jail for a LONG time. High incentive to turn up clean. My source: New Scientist. Google it.

But the rest of my responses are in BOLD.

 

[unoleian]

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

Opium and marijuana are exactly the same thing.

Uhm, care to clarify this statement? Because it has me baffled. I hope there's some buried sarcasm here I'm failing to detect.

How is the aklaloid resin extracted from the opium poppy, the basis of some of the most potent, dangerous, and addictive pain-killing synthetics and derivatives in the world, at all similar to the ones in marijuana?

Either this is a brilliant maneuver on your part to dilute the argument, or you have no idea what you're talking about. I can't tell which...

 

[Citrus]

I share the opinion that it's a double standard for alcohol to be legal but marijuana not to be. Both can be harmful, but both can be used responsibly. Whether or not to to consume it is really a person's decision to make, not the government's.

Etc.

 

[Eldarion]

If drugs became legal it would be possible for the government to tax them, if the government controlled legal distribution it would make drugs safer because you know exactly what you are buying instead of getting god knows what from the dealers now.

I don't even do drugs and I still see nothing but positive changes if drugs were legalized. Let people do what they want with their bodies.

 

[Plazmatic]

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

Uhm... What?

Ldude, watch out he is a troll.

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.

OH SHIT I BETTER GET ON THE BANDWAGON!

 

[Kelethor]

While I do see benefits of such a thing I still see moral and personal issues with people smoking and drinking. I just do not see why people would do such a thing to begin with. Are their lives so sad that the only way they can have "fun" or get over something sad is by using any sort of smoke-able substance? I just do not see why...

It's a persons choice as to what they do with their body and not yours nor anybody else's. It's insane that drugs are illegal in the first place and even more insane that all drugs weren't legal from the first place.

Insane? Why is it insane? Somehow I feel you are either A.) A long time drug user or B.) A drug dealer. Not only that, but will some of these drugs will KILL you. I can see why some things like Marijuana and Tabacco are not illegal since they are not THAT bad (I still see personal issues with such a thing), however you are trying to say that ALL drugs should be legalized? That is fucking stupid and you know it.

What is so wrong with someone using drug's, if they are in no way negatively affecting you?
See, the thing is, untaxed drugs are "Bad" because they are un-taxed. Nicotine, booze, all of it is taxed and therefore "good drugs." if you were to tax Marijuanna, I promise you we would be seeing commercials for marijuanna just as often as say, beer commercials.

 

[Lucifron]

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 completely Orwellian!

I fixed that paragraph for you. Do you realize how much that system would cost on a large scale? How anyone can believe that it would be worth it is beyond me.

This is and ALTERNATIVE to a prison sentence for those convicted of alcohol/drug related crime and the genius part is THEY have to pay for it. They pay for the drug testing equipment and the necessary technicians... it is considered part of their fine, and it's partitioned money, They only have to pay as much as the testing costs and the money doesn't go to any other part of local govt spending.

Remember, this is alternative to a decade inside an American Prison...

And when these addicts run out of money? What then?

 

[AndyFromMonday]

HA! drug dealers will still thrive as they will provide the drugs in the QUANTITIES that the addicts need to feed their addiction that always needs a bigger dose to get the same result. But quantities not government or medic could ever ethically administer.

And how many drug dealers do you believe will still operate once all drugs would be legal? It's common knowledge the profits from selling drugs comes from selling weed since it's the most widely used drug in the USA.

That's like saying there is a safe way to play Russian Roulette. Sure you have a 5:1 chance of surviving, it's similar odds with hard drug users, the risk of their typical hit killing them.

Well actually no. You CAN determine what dose will kill them and what dose won't the same way you can determine what quantity of alcohol will get you drunk.

It is VERY hard to overdose from alcohol, you normally vomit or pass out before you consume acutely lethal amounts, it takes many many years of conditioning to even stay conscious and keep drinking to a point overdosing, and even then it's often only deadly in combination with liver cirrhosis.

I never stated you could overdose on alcohol. What I did state is that alcohol can also have the same disabilitating side effects as heroin.


Some of the side effects of moderate to largeconsumption of ethanol include:
Liver cirrhosis
Hepatitis
Pancreatitis
Ataxia
Irritability
Anxiety
Delusions
Hallucinations
Sleep Disorder
Cancer of the Mouth and the Esophagus
Anemia
Cardio-Myopathy

A small to moderate consumption, however, still has its risks with the most noticeable ones being brain atrophy.

Hell, even if you ignore all of this you STILL cannot ignore the many alcohol related incidents that have happened over the year which have not only affected the person in question but also other people around them.

It's a problem, but no where near as deadly as hard drugs. Don't get caught up in alcohol-drugs equivalences, those are FALLACIES of generalisation.

No, they're not. I've presented why above.

No you CANNOT! There are formulas for this and when they addict says they "need" to take so much to get the hit they need, yet it falls in a range that could easilly stop their heart... what then?

I'm guessing you missed my post in which I stated that we should help addicts and not fuel their addiction. Again, I stated that a simple blood test could see if the addict is an addict or not and if it turns out to be true then actions can be taken to remedy that.

Give them the "safe" amount that the addict conditioned to want bigger and bigger doses will not get an adequate high off.

Who said only an addict would try out heroin? This isn't JUST about them, this is about giving anyone who wants the liberty to do what they want with their own body. Again, I stated that addicts can be helped and then I attempted to state that heroin can be consumed with moderation. This is, however, besides the point as my main argument is to let everyone have the RIGHT to do WHAT THEY WANT with THEIR OWN BODIES. YOU nor ANYBODY ELSE have the right to tell a person what to do with their own body.

Bullshit on "it's their body". If someone clearly distressed by mental illness trys to kill them self, would you try to stop them? Would you call the police so they can restrain them? Would YOU EVEN FUCKING CARE!

How do you know all drug users are mentally ill?

I'm not obsessed with smashing the drugs trade, I'm obsessed with public health. Yes, provide clean needles but don't provide dangerous drugs. The Hippocratic Oath would be broken to give them powerful drugs for consumption as there is no guarantee the drugs are cut with anything more toxic than the drug ITSELF! It is immoral to give an addict drugs, you are killing them.

I already responded to this in an above paragraph.

 

[headshotcatcher]

Are you forgetting about Amsterdam? Where it's been legal for years?

It's not actually legal in Amsterdam, it's just tolerated.

--edit--
I am actually just backing up the argument here by the way. If weed is only tolerated then I can't imagine the theory straying far if it became legal there.

You are allowed to grow it yourself and you are allowed to buy, own and use it. If not just in small quantities. I don't see why you would need more than 5 gram per person anyway..
It comes across as being very legal in my eyes, as a dutch person.