California Marijuana Regulation Act of 2010

[riflow]

Will this really help? There is already enough problems with alcoholics and smokers.

 

[Cavouku]

California's at it again, people! This time, instead of taking rights away from people it's attempting to give some back.

I don't necessarily appose this, though I've never been one to support pot. I just want to say you're throwing around the word "right" way too frivolously. A right is not having to be forced to work hard labour for absolutely nothing in return. Pot is no more a right than a confectionery. It's something that is available and, for some at least, enjoyable, but it's still just a privilege.

I'm sorry but I get a little offended when the word is thrown around like it's so just. I won't be voting yes, but I won't be voting no. The only way I can see it possibly affecting me in Nova Scotia is with exports from there to here, and possible delays in productivity of those exports, but I'll assume this won't be the case.

It just sounded so... whiny, is all, calling it a right.

 

[Sethzard]

No, I think that marjuana does only harm, it destroys your short term memory, and can cause paranoia. I think that legalising it is an awful move.

 

[Ph33nix]

DEA and FBI are going to have a field day if this passes raiding stores and arresting people

 

[Cavouku]

Personally, I'm against altering one's perspective and mental state for the sake of escapism, mental relief, conforming or emotional trauma and the likes. I'd like to believe that we can make a society where these such issues can be talked about with others, and resolved, and where escapism is like when we were five, exploring the forest and talking to trees without being called crazy. Something along those lines, at the very least.

I don't see a difference between any drug or substance if it's intended purpose is to alter one's perspective and state. Health matters little to me, addiction matters little. It's the purpose, the intent, that always manages to make me feel like it's really a sad world. My method of escapism is drawing and writing up a fantasy setting, with my friends. I like to think it's healthier, not for my body, but for my development as a person.

I'd like to say I have no true quarrel, but I'd be lying. I don't appreciate the presence in my community, but I also don't want to condemn people for it. All I can do is whine about it, really.

 

[MrJohnson]

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...

You've obviously never been high. I love life, but marijuana just makes things better. Everything is comfier, your pain goes away, everything is more amazing, and having the giggles is fun.

So sorry, I guess. I mean, is your life so sad you have to substitute social interaction through forums, and real life through video games? No, you enjoy them because it's fun.

 

[MrJohnson]

Although I am strongly against marajuana use seeing as how it does have long term effects, especially to memory, as long as the same restrictions as alcohol apply I do not see a issue.
Tax the fuck out of it, if you are causing a disturbance in public while high then it is treated the same as public intoxication, driving while stoned is treated exactly as drunk driving and keep it the fuck out of the workplace. You show up for work stoned and you get your ass fired as if you show up drunk.
Oh and of course the only for 21+.

People want to fuck up their own bodies, thats their business.

But yeah, shitty job saying that Cali takes away peoples rights. Especially considering they are one of the more "advanced" areas of the US. Exactly what "right" have they taken away? Noting that marriage is a privilege. Not a goddamn right. And you speak like they just took it away, you had a chance to vote for what you wanted. Stop demonising Cali because you did not get your way.

People are more focused when their high. While without having something to do they're spacey, put something in front of them they'll do it almost perfectly.

Smoking has never been, and never will, be linked to long-term memory and mind damage whether in real life or in experiments where they do something insane like force a monkey to breathe nothing but smoke for minutes on end.

I've never known, or heard of any stirring up trouble while high. Ever. Also, although weed is a minor hallucinogen that can mess up depth perception some, most people while high still have the frame of mind to realize they shouldn't drive.

 

[-Samurai-]

I don't live in California, so I don't really care until it hits here.

I just can't stand the argument that people think having it government regulated will mean it can be taxed and the taxes will bring in tons of money.

Will they tax it? Sure.

What will happen when it gets taxed? People will run back to their dealers and buy it at a lower price, untaxed. Lets face it, people buy it illegally now. Will they really mind buying it illegally in the future? Hell no. They'll be saving money. There's no way people will pay more for the same thing they've been buying.

How many users here can honestly say they'd be willing to pay more to buy it legally when they can just continue to spend less buying it illegally.

 

[SilentHunter7]

I welcome any counter-argument.

Very well. You argue that it should be a person's right to destroy their bodies, and that may be true. But let me ask you something; if a person taking this shit gets hooked and loses their job and home because they were too busy being doped out on their couch and shooting shit into their arms to realize they had to be at work 3 hours ago, who do think is going to end up footing the bill when he files for Social Security Disability, and Medicaid?

That's right, the United States taxpayer. And don't feed me that bullshit about saving lives. You said it yourself, they're the architects of their own destruction. I grew up around drugs. I saw what they did to people. I was smart enough to stay the hell away. You can't fix stupid. If someone is too stupid to realize what they're putting into their body is killing them, then there's really nothing we can do.

Legalizing hard drugs won't do anyone any favors, or do any good for the country. All it will do is end up costing more money and creating more problems.

Here's a better idea. You want to stop drug abuse? How about having mandatory urine tests every week for anyone collecting some kind of Welfare or Disability. That'll put a big dent in drug profitability when all of a sudden people can't score heroin right after leaving the welfare office. In fact, if you do that (along with making it a capital offense to rob someone to pay for drugs), you can legalize all the drugs you want. I don't care if they kill themselves on their own dime, but don't expect me to pay good money so that they can fuel their morphine addiction.

 

[AndyFromMonday]

California's at it again, people! This time, instead of taking rights away from people it's attempting to give some back.

I don't necessarily appose this, though I've never been one to support pot. I just want to say you're throwing around the word "right" way too frivolously. A right is not having to be forced to work hard labour for absolutely nothing in return. Pot is no more a right than a confectionery. It's something that is available and, for some at least, enjoyable, but it's still just a privilege.

I'm sorry but I get a little offended when the word is thrown around like it's so just. I won't be voting yes, but I won't be voting no. The only way I can see it possibly affecting me in Nova Scotia is with exports from there to here, and possible delays in productivity of those exports, but I'll assume this won't be the case.

It just sounded so... whiny, is all, calling it a right.

"Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement ? i.e. rights are normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory."

By the definition above, the state of California is giving people the right to carry and consume marijuana.

Very well. You argue that it should be a person's right to destroy their bodies, and that may be true. But let me ask you something; if a person taking this shit gets hooked and loses their job and home because they were too busy being doped out on their couch and shooting shit into their arms to realize they had to be at work 3 hours ago, who do think is going to end up footing the bill when he files for Social Security Disability, and Medicaid?

The same reason was used for alcohol when it was made illegal. If I remember correctly, once it was legalized again society didn't collapse due to people being drunk instead of attending work.

That's right, the United States taxpayer. And don't feed me that bullshit about saving lives. You said it yourself, they're the architects of their own destruction. I grew up around drugs. I saw what they did to people. I was smart enough to stay the hell away. You can't fix stupid. If someone is too stupid to realize what they're putting into their body is killing them, then there's really nothing we can do.

Again, it's their right and not yours. You nor anybody else have the authority to tell others how to live their lives.

Legalizing hard drugs won't do anyone any favors, or do any good for the country. All it will do is end up costing more money and creating more problems.

How so?

Here's a better idea. You want to stop drug abuse? How about having mandatory urine tests every week for anyone collecting some kind of Welfare or Disability. That'll put a big dent in drug profitability when all of a sudden people can't score heroin right after leaving the welfare office. In fact, if you do that (along with making it a capital offense to rob someone to pay for drugs), you can legalize all the drugs you want. I don't care if they kill themselves on their own dime, but don't expect me to pay good money so that they can fuel their morphine addiction.

Sure, I totally agree with that but making robbing someone a capital offense? You're entering the world of Eugenics and I suggest you stop right now.

 

[Cavouku]

California's at it again, people! This time, instead of taking rights away from people it's attempting to give some back.

I don't necessarily appose this, though I've never been one to support pot. I just want to say you're throwing around the word "right" way too frivolously. A right is not having to be forced to work hard labour for absolutely nothing in return. Pot is no more a right than a confectionery. It's something that is available and, for some at least, enjoyable, but it's still just a privilege.

I'm sorry but I get a little offended when the word is thrown around like it's so just. I won't be voting yes, but I won't be voting no. The only way I can see it possibly affecting me in Nova Scotia is with exports from there to here, and possible delays in productivity of those exports, but I'll assume this won't be the case.

It just sounded so... whiny, is all, calling it a right.

"Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement ? i.e. rights are normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory."

By the definition above, the state of California is giving people the right to carry and consume marijuana.

They're giving a right, I agree, but I don't really see them not allowing you to as taking away a right. I didn't keep up with California's recent past, did they allow it a while ago? If that's the case you're right, and they did take away a right that they implemented.

Personally, I think that a person's body and mind belong more to the community they belong to than themselves. I've never liked the "it's my body" excuse, as if they aren't in any way affecting anyone else. I don't know if you've been using it, haven't been paying too much mind, but I certainly hope you haven't.

I explained a ways up why I don't appreciate the concept myself. I was upset because you sounded, to me, like California had to adhere to what you wanted, like you and any other marijuana users living there had to be accommodated accordingly. Don't take it too personally, I just get that notion a lot from pro-marijuana people.

It'd be like me asking my town to animate a dragon to satisfy my desire to explore fantasy. What's your objective for getting this passed, if I may ask? It's not just to justify the usage of it, I hope.

(I know I sound accusative, but such is my personality when handling this subject)

 

[Dungus]

Although I would fully support the regulation act, as I am a marihuana user myself, I think there is some work to be done on both sides of the argument. On the side of the no-voters, I'm hearing a lot of hypocritical arguments and statements that just aren't true, or at least not completely. While on the side of the yes-voters, I'm sensing a lot of nonchalance, like the dude in the video who explains he drove under the influence and "nothing happened so it's okay". Or like I've seen some people say; "every drug should be legal cause its my choice what I want to do with my body". That's at least as stupid of an argument like saying weed causes 50-70% more cancer-causing, which it is obviously not.

The efforts being made to make people vote no are really mind-blowing to me. I cannot understand how people watching the ad the dude in the video talks about could be bought, but I'm 99.99% sure Prop 19 won't pass.

I keep forgetting most people are narrow-minded, especially when it comes to drugs (think of the children!). On the other hand, the fact that people are now able to vote on the subject is definitely a step forward already.

 

[BlackStar42]

My response:
Yes to cannabis/marijuana being legal.
It's not that addictive(tobacco), doesn't make you violent(alcohol), you'd get tax revenues off it, and the prison overpopulation problem would go away.

NO to hard drugs like coke/heroin
I don't think it's possible for the vast majority to use them without being addicted, so I'm against it. It'll just cause more problems than it's worth.

 

[Kiefer13]

Eh, I'd support it. I've never taken any drugs in my life (not counting alcohol/caffeine/prescription medicine, before the smartarses say anything) nor do I intend to, but I don't see why it shouldn't be legal for people to smoke it if that is their personal choice. Especially when it's apparently less harmful than alcohol. Besides, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't legalising and taxing it hurt the illegal drug dealers too? Because while they may sell harder drugs, I'm sure they'd get a lot of their profits from selling cannabis/marijuana too.

 

[Resurrectionist]

Never buy it.

 

[Dungus]

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.

Well first of all, you're wrong. Your friends may have been douchebags who couldn't handle their drug, but most people can. They should have asked for help, like people with gambling addictions, video-game addictions or coca-cola addictions do.

As for sterility; just like in 'Community', when Troy found a giant ass cookie and tried to eat it whole, he found out that too much of a good thing is always a bad thing. Maybe if he had eaten 10 more of those giant cookies, he would have been steril too. It's really sad you need a rather silly metaphor to have this explained to you.

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.

So basically, what you are saying is that if you need something recreational, like a video-game (gasp) you're not living life to it's fullest. Based on that logic, you should be locked up in a 3 square feet dark box with one tube for water, and one tube for tasteless food. This would keep you alive and on your terms you should be living life to "tha max".

 

[Frungy]

There's really no factual reason to not legalize it.

One word. Schizophrenia. Users of substances containing THC are at a much higher risk of developing schizophrenia, an incurable and incredibly difficult to treat disorder. There are numerous academic papers on the increased risk of schizophrenia posed by using marijuana, including the Lancet journal of medicine, but if you're more a "real world" kind of guy then just look at Canada (legalised marijuana, 0.7 to 1% of the population (depending on who's numbers you use) has a form of schizophrenia (the rate should be closer to 1 in 10 000 or 1 in 100 000 depending on genetic variables in the population), or the Netherlands where there's a sharp difference in the prevalence between urban people (i.e. those with access to marijuana cafes) and rural (those without regular access to marijuana cafes), and an overall higher rate of schizophrenia in the population.

I'm not saying that smoking marijuana instantly means you're going to get schizophrenia, no more so than 1 cigarette means you'll get cancer, but the amount you smoke, genetic predisposition and other factors mean that in an average population of say 100 000 people if everyone doesn't smoke 1 to 10 people will develop schizophrenia. If they all smoke marijuana then the rate of schizophrenia increases by about 100 times.

The cost to the public health system would more than offset any taxation gains in legalising and taxing marijuana production and sales, unless you made the tax so high that most people couldn't afford it.

So there's your one reason why marijuana is bad news. I do support it for those suffering from terminal conditions and for the elderly (which is how it was traditionally used in Africa) because it increases the quality of life with very little additional risk when compared to many other painkillers, not to mention the euphoric effects. However, outside of terminal and aged patients it's a very, very bad idea.