Prop 19

[dubbs]

Well Kaneman was right, shit wouldn't pass. :td:

I guess I was just being optimistic between the fact that it just makes sense to legalize it, and so many celebrities and a lot of politicians were actually for it.

O well, I guess we'll see what happens in 2012 when it goes up for vote again.. :rockwoot:

[Dave]

Well Kaneman was right, shit wouldn't pass. :td:

I guess I was just being optimistic between the fact that it just makes sense to legalize it, and so many celebrities and a lot of politicians were actually for it.

O well, I guess we'll see what happens in 2012 when it goes up for vote again.. :rockwoot:

Youth vote ftl. Can't even get the lazy fucks out for legal weed

[dubbs]

Youth vote ftl. Can't even get the lazy fucks out for legal weed

From what I read about it, a lot of the youth came out to vote so much so that they ran out of ballots in certain universities.

It's just that as a whole older people a lot of them who don't work are still brainwashed and have nothing else to do that day but vote..

I wanted to vote yesterday but got stuck at work, then after I had dinner it was way too late.

[Trip]

I wanted to vote yesterday but got stuck at work, then after I had dinner it was way too late.

You are the reason it lost.

[dubbs]

You are the reason it lost.

haha.. that sucks.. wish I could of voted for something in cali..

[tommymac]

haha.. that sucks.. wish I could of voted for something in cali..

LI is prety much a lost cause anyway.

[Kaneman]

It will never be legal while anyone on this forum is still alive.

[dubbs]

It will never be legal while anyone on this forum is still alive.

But comon, that's not a huge margin.. 56% - 44% 2012 might have a shot..

[dubbs]

Decent Article..


By Jeffrey A. Miron, Special to CNN

STORY HIGHLIGHTS


Jeffrey A. Miron: Prop 19 advocates didn't present right reasons for making pot legal
Voters were wary of claims of dramatic positive change if it were legalized, he says
Miron advises advocates to argue pot prohibition interferes with individual liberty
Another key to legalizing marijuana is to get conservatives involved, he writes



Editor's note:Jeffrey A. Miron (http://jeffreymiron.com/) is senior lecturer and director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University and senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Miron is the author of "Libertarianism, from A to Z."
(CNN) -- California voters have just rejected Proposition 19, the ballot initiative that would have legalized marijuana under state law. Where did Prop 19 go wrong?
Prop 19 failed in part because many proponents emphasized the wrong arguments for legalization. Many advocates promised major benefits to California's budget because of reduced expenditure on marijuana prohibition and increased revenue from marijuana taxation. Other supporters claimed that Mexican drug violence would fall substantially.
Both claims were overblown. The budgetary benefits, while not insignificant, would have been small compared with California's fiscal mess. Mexican drug violence is mainly associated with the cocaine and methamphetamine trades, as well as from marijuana traffic to other states. Many voters sensed that Prop 19 supporters were overreaching, and this made them suspicious of all the arguments in its favor. Common sense should have recognized that since marijuana was close to legal already, Prop 19 would not have had dramatic effects.

Prop 19 failed also because it overreached. One feature attempted to protect the "rights" of employees who get fired or disciplined for using marijuana, including a provision that employers could only discipline marijuana use that "actually impairs job performance." That is a much higher bar than required by current policy. This provision allowed Prop 19 opponents to claim that workplaces would become infested with impaired pot users. That assertion is not well-founded, but that is not the point. Prop 19 did not need to address employee marijuana-testing in the first place.

A more effective position for Prop 19 supporters would have been that employee marijuana-testing should be unencumbered by state or federal law. That would allow employers to protect themselves and their employees against perceived risks from marijuana, thereby promoting support for legalization.

A final problem with Prop 19 is that it would only have legalized marijuana under state law, since federal law also bans marijuana. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, moreover, announced just weeks before Tuesday's election that the administration would enforce the federal law fully even if Prop 19 passed.

This legal limbo would have kept the marijuana market underground, limiting tax revenue and continuing the ills of black market. This ambiguity also dimmed support by making state-level legalization feel like an empty gesture.
So what is the path to legalizing marijuana in the United States?
First and foremost, advocates must emphasize that in a free society, the burden of proof should be on prohibitionists to justify the interference with liberty that results from outlawing marijuana, a burden the prohibitionists have never met. Any calm assessment of marijuana versus alcohol, for example, shows that alcohol is the substance with the greater potential for harm.
Ancillary benefits of legalization are naturally important: by eliminating the black market, legalization promises reduced crime and corruption, fewer infringements on civil liberties, better quality control for marijuana users, along with budgetary benefits. But these considerations are unlikely to convince the majority until more people agree that government should not interfere in the private decision to consume marijuana.
Marijuana advocates should also focus on federal law, in addition to or even instead of state law. Legalization proponents have long despaired of affecting change at the federal level and assumed that state-by-state change would someday bring down federal prohibition. That position is understandable, and it has achieved some success, such as the decriminalization of medicalization of marijuana in many states.
Yet it's hard to see the federal apparatus yielding ground without direct elimination of its authorization; the stakes for those who hold this power are too high. Legalizers can also argue compellingly that no reasonable interpretation of the Constitution justifies federal imposition of a marijuana ban.

A final key to legalizing marijuana is to get conservatives, not just liberals, more involved. A number of well-known conservatives have advocated legalization, such as Milton Friedman, George Schultz, and William Buckley, but the general perception is that legalizers are "stoners, " acting mainly out of self-interest.
Yet legalization can appeal to conservatives, especially if the arguments emphasize freedom, personal responsibility, and the Constitution, along with up-front clarity about the goal: legal production and use of marijuana for adults, whatever their motivations. Past liberal efforts, such as medical marijuana, invite charges of hypocrisy and weaken support.
Marijuana can and should be legal, Prop 19's failure notwithstanding. But the strategy for achieving that end must change.
The opinions in this commentary are solely those of Jeffrey A. Miron.

[Trip]

A final key to legalizing marijuana is to get conservatives, not just liberals, more involved. A number of well-known conservatives have advocated legalization, such as Milton Friedman, George Schultz, and William Buckley, but the general perception is that legalizers are "stoners, " acting mainly out of self-interest.

This is exactly what I said in the other thread. A pothead like Avatard isn't going to get pot decriminalized because he acts like an addict. It's the truth, no matter if it is addictive or not, you look like an addict. Get people up that appeal to the opposition. You need to convert the haters, not attack them.

[Dave]

This is exactly what I said in the other thread. A pothead like Avatard isn't going to get pot decriminalized because he acts like an addict. It's the truth, no matter if it is addictive or not, you look like an addict. Get people up that appeal to the opposition. You need to convert the haters, not attack them.

The pop culture image of the marijuana user won't help at all. Neither will the thirty plus year crusade against the tabacco industry. Still reach for my marlboros everytime I see a truth ad :lol:

[caveman]

From what I read about it, a lot of the youth came out to vote so much so that they ran out of ballots in certain universities.

It's just that as a whole older people a lot of them who don't work are still brainwashed and have nothing else to do that day but vote..

I wanted to vote yesterday but got stuck at work, then after I had dinner it was way too late.

Two words; absentee ballot

[Avatard]

Well Kaneman was right, shit wouldn't pass. :td:

I guess I was just being optimistic between the fact that it just makes sense to legalize it, and so many celebrities and a lot of politicians were actually for it.

O well, I guess we'll see what happens in 2012 when it goes up for vote again.. :rockwoot:

http://poopnugget.com/files/prop19fail.jpg

[Kaneman]

This is exactly what I said in the other thread. A pothead like Avatard isn't going to get pot decriminalized because he acts like an addict. It's the truth, no matter if it is addictive or not, you look like an addict. Get people up that appeal to the opposition. You need to convert the haters, not attack them.

So should we call cancer patients chemoaddicts?

[tallywacker]

So should we call cancer patients chemoaddicts?

Strawman fail. Potheads don't = cancer patients in any way.

[Kaneman]

Strawman fail. Potheads don't = cancer patients in any way.

I believe you missed the point, being that Avatar has a disease and uses Marijuana as a medicine/pain relief from that disease.

[shmike]

I believe you missed the point, being that Avatar has a disease and uses Marijuana as a medicine/pain relief from that disease.

Yeah.

That's what chemo does for cancer patients: relieves pain. :wtfru:

[tallywacker]

I believe you missed the point, being that Avatar has a disease and uses Marijuana as a medicine/pain relief from that disease.

Well I didn't know Avatard is dieing. I just though he was a pothead.:whosr:

[Kaneman]

Yeah.

That's what chemo does for cancer patients: relieves pain. :wtfru:

So a cancer patient is relieving pain, but Avatar is a drug addict?

Well I didn't know Avatard is dieing. I just though he was a pothead.:whosr:

You thought incorrectly.

[shmike]

So a cancer patient is relieving pain, but Avatar is a drug addict?


Are you now going back to the pot argument?

I didn't call 'tard an addict.

I was pointing out that chemo is the exact opposite of a pain reliever.

I have known too many chemo patients in my life and NOT ONCE have I known anyone to enjoy it.

[the chi]

KM, chemo is horrific. It's trying to "cure" cancer, not relieve pain, and causes much worse pain, discomfort and illness usually than the cancer itself.

I think Trips got the right idea, give the public a different view of a pot smoker than the traditional and it would go a long way. Even after talking or reading what a bunch of you guys have to say about the matter, and knowing you dont fit the typical "image" I still cant think of a pot smoker without thinking of Dazed and Confused, or Ashton Kutcher being himself.

[Dave]

Well I didn't know Avatard is dieing. I just though he was a pothead.:whosr:

Everybody is dying. Iirc he said it was for arthritis

[Kaneman]

Are you now going back to the pot argument?

I didn't call 'tard an addict.

I was pointing out that chemo is the exact opposite of a pain reliever.

I have known too many chemo patients in my life and NOT ONCE have I known anyone to enjoy it.

Then its not directed at you, this is regarding a different thread mentioning Avatar's addictness.

[shmike]

Then its not directed at you, this is regarding a different thread mentioning Avatar's addictness.

You brought up the chemo, I responded to it, to which you responded.

Tally was right, there was some major fail-age in your attempted parallel.

[Kaneman]

You brought up the chemo, I responded to it, to which you responded.

Tally was right, there was some major fail-age in your attempted parallel.

Disagree. Avatar uses Marijuana for legitimate medical reasons, yet it is said that he comes across as an addict. I counter then that anyone who uses any type of narcotic substance to combat the negative effects of an illness would also have to be referred to as a drug addict.

[shmike]

Disagree. Avatar uses Marijuana for legitimate medical reasons, yet it is said that he comes across as an addict. I counter then that anyone who uses any type of narcotic substance to combat the negative effects of an illness would also have to be referred to as a drug addict.

Do you understand what you are typing?

Since when is chemo a narcotic?

You guys get so upset about the misinformation campaign against your beloved MJ but start spewing crazy nonsense when it comes to the defense of it.

[Kaneman]

Do you understand what you are typing?

Since when is chemo a narcotic?

You guys get so upset about the misinformation campaign against your beloved MJ but start spewing crazy nonsense when it comes to the defense of it.

Crazy nonsense? Huh? Chemotherapy is a drug regimen. Drugs = Narcotics. Narcotics does not solely refer to that which is illegal such as heroin.

Aside from that, I was only using chemo in the treatment of cancer as an example. You could use the same reference for someone that uses sleeping pills too.

[Tmall]

You could use the same reference for someone that uses sleeping pills too.

Or drinks coffee, or alcohol, or smokes cigs...

[Kaneman]

Or drinks coffee, or alcohol, or smokes cigs...

Not in this comparison. I'm debating that if someone who uses Marijuana for legitimate medical purposes is an addict then so is everyone else that uses drugs for the same reason.

[Tmall]

Not in this comparison. I'm debating that if someone who uses Marijuana for legitimate medical purposes is an addict then so is everyone else that uses drugs for the same reason.
My bad, should have read the whole thread.. :lol

[101lifts2]

It will never be legal while anyone on this forum is still alive.

This may be the case until some large corporate funding comes into play. This is the main reason why it doesn't pass. That and alot of the lazy potheads were too stoned to vote. redflip

[Kaneman]

This may be the case until some large corporate funding comes into play. This is the main reason why it doesn't pass. That and alot of the lazy potheads were too stoned to vote. redflip

Large corporate funding like the CEO of Progressive Insurance, Peter Lewis? Nah, it's just not going to happen for a myriad of reasons, but the main one is that people on both sides of the law stand to keep making too much money from the prohibition of it. Which would be all fine and well if we weren't actually putting people in prison for non-violent Marijuana crimes and destroying their lives until they die.

[shmike]

Crazy nonsense? Huh? Chemotherapy is a drug regimen. Drugs = Narcotics. Narcotics does not solely refer to that which is illegal such as heroin.

Aside from that, I was only using chemo in the treatment of cancer as an example. You could use the same reference for someone that uses sleeping pills too.

Drugs does not equal narcotics.

Legally speaking, narcotics is used to refer to drugs that are illegal.

Generally speaking it is used to describe drugs that change/enhance your mood, are psychoactive, are based on opiates or any combination thereof.

Quick google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1T4DMUS_enUS222US222&defl=en&q=define:Narcotics&sa=X&ei=hgvTTO_lGIH98AaZxJDeDg&ved=0CBMQkAE

Edit: just noticed the sleeping pills part. You know that many of those are highly addictive, right? :lol:

[Kaneman]

Drugs does not equal narcotics.

Legally speaking, narcotics is used to refer to drugs that are illegal.

Generally speaking it is used to describe drugs that change/enhance your mood, are psychoactive, are based on opiates or any combination thereof.

Yes but, from a pharmacological standpoint, it is a vague and ineffectual term. Whatever man, if you seriously can't comprehend what we're discussing here without nit-picking to death the terms or precise words being used then perhaps it is you who is stoned my friend, perhaps it is you.

I contend that all chemo-addicts be hunted like dogs from here on out.

[Kaneman]

Edit: just noticed the sleeping pills part. You know that many of those are highly addictive, right? :lol:

I see that I must use very vague terms when you enter the debate.

Drugs, just drugs in general dude. Anyone who uses any type of drug to make them feel better or heal themselves is a raging drug addict. Just sayin'.

[shmike]

I see that I must use very vague terms when you enter the debate.

Drugs, just drugs in general dude. Anyone who uses any type of drug to make them feel better or heal themselves is a raging drug addict. Just sayin'.

I don't even know what we are discussing anymore.

Besides, MJ isn't a drug.

It's a herb.

[shmike]

I see that I must use very vague terms when you enter the debate.

Drugs, just drugs in general dude. Anyone who uses any type of drug to make them feel better or heal themselves is a raging drug addict. Just sayin'.

For serious: It isn't the vagueness.

In your attempt to paint everyone as the bad guy to prove your point you start sounding looney.

It happened when you accused the government of promoting man rape. It happened when you accused chemo sufferers as addicts.

Just sayin'.

[Kaneman]

I'm not attempting to paint everyone as the bad guy, I'm saying there's no difference between Avatar using Marijuana for a real illness and someone else using something to fight their illness. There is nothing looney about that.

RE: Rape of Man's Anus in Prison - If the government is responsible for prisoners then it is also responsible for the virgin status of their anus. If your kid gets anal raped in public school is it not the school's fault?

[shmike]

RE: Rape of Man's Anus in Prison - If the government is responsible for prisoners then it is also responsible for the virgin status of their anus. If your kid gets anal raped in public school is it not the school's fault?

Yes it is.

Just like it is Chevrolet's fault if you get into a car accident. It is Glock's fault if you get shot in gang crossfire, it is Louisville Slugger's fault if you are beaten to death by a baseball bat.

See what I did there? ;)

[Smittie61984]

Not in this comparison. I'm debating that if someone who uses Marijuana for legitimate medical purposes is an addict then so is everyone else that uses drugs for the same reason.

Just becuase someone has a prescription or uses something for medical purposes doesn't mean they can't become an addict or aren't an addict.

[Avatard]

No, but the substance has to actually be fucking addictive. Cannabis isn't.

[OneSickPsycho]

No, but the substance has to actually be fucking addictive. Cannabis isn't.

Depends on how you classify what's addictive. I'd say it isn't physically addictive, but it certainly can be psychologically addictive... like alcohol.

[Avatard]

So can fapping. Cut it out.

[Kaneman]

Depends on how you classify what's addictive. I'd say it isn't physically addictive, but it certainly can be psychologically addictive... like alcohol.

Then you have to be of the mindset that absolutely anything can be an addictive substance. You could make the argument that we're all H20 addicts for example. Certainly under that mindset the majority of Americans qualify as caffeine addicts, which is a more accurate description except that caffeine can kill you and Marijuana can not.

Which, of course, then renders it useless to refer to anyone as an addict, since they all are.

No, an addict is someone who does continuing substantial damage to their body, their life, their family, etc. etc. to continue to use a substance because they have a chemical addiction to it. I think in reality we all understand the difference. Chemically addictive substances cause very real and dangerous withdrawl symptoms when the user stops. There are no withdrawls when a frequent marijuana user stops smoking pot.

Even caffeine addicts get a headache when they don't get that Pepsi....yet the same is not true for a marijuana user.

[Kaneman]

Depends on how you classify what's addictive. I'd say it isn't physically addictive, but it certainly can be psychologically addictive... like alcohol.

Not true, alcohol is physically addictive and the withdrawals can absolutely kill you.

[Avatard]

Delerium Tremens.

[OneSickPsycho]

Then you have to be of the mindset that absolutely anything can be an addictive substance. You could make the argument that we're all H20 addicts for example. Certainly under that mindset the majority of Americans qualify as caffeine addicts, which is a more accurate description except that caffeine can kill you and Marijuana can not.

Which, of course, then renders it useless to refer to anyone as an addict, since they all are.

No, an addict is someone who does continuing substantial damage to their body, their life, their family, etc. etc. to continue to use a substance because they have a chemical addiction to it. I think in reality we all understand the difference. Chemically addictive substances cause very real and dangerous withdrawl symptoms when the user stops. There are no withdrawls when a frequent marijuana user stops smoking pot.

Even caffeine addicts get a headache when they don't get that Pepsi....yet the same is not true for a marijuana user.

Sooo... you're saying I'm not addicted to masturbating?

Not true, alcohol is physically addictive and the withdrawals can absolutely kill you.

Delerium Tremens.

Color me corrected... Freshman health class was WAY too long ago.

[Kaneman]

Sooo... you're saying I'm not addicted to masturbating?

Color me corrected... Freshman health class was WAY too long ago.

:lol: I'm saying the term "addict" gets thrown around too loosely in an effort to "demonize" marijuana users of all types, when it isn't really accurate. There is a difference, to me, between using a substance regularly because you enjoy it vs. using something because the only thing you can think about every waking second of the day is how you can get some of that and put it into your body right fucking now, such as Meth or Heroin.

Someone who's been to to rehab voluntarily numerous times to get off meth but keeps going back is physically addicted. Someone who smokes a joint when they watch Grandma's Boy just likes it.

[OneSickPsycho]

:lol: I'm saying the term "addict" gets thrown around too loosely in an effort to "demonize" marijuana users of all types, when it isn't really accurate. There is a difference, to me, between using a substance regularly because you enjoy it vs. using something because the only thing you can think about every waking second of the day is how you can get some of that and put it into your body right fucking now, such as Meth or Heroin.

Someone who's been to to rehab voluntarily numerous times to get off meth but keeps going back is physically addicted. Someone who smokes a joint when they watch Grandma's Boy just likes it.

See, this is where the psychological addiction comes in... I HAD to get high... not because my body needed it, but because if I wasn't high I was desperately wanting to get high... needing it.

I smoked cigarettes for nearly 15 years... It took me a couple packs of Swisher Sweets cigars over a couple week period to kick it. I tried and tried and tried to stop smoking weed... did my body need it? No. Did it make my desire for it any less... Never. I was miserable if I wasn't high... It took moving completely across the country and having zero ability to even find it for me to quit. Now, I may partake every once in a while, but I tell you this... if it becomes legal, I'm smokin' that shit every day.

[Kaneman]

See, this is where the psychological addiction comes in... I HAD to get high... not because my body needed it, but because if I wasn't high I was desperately wanting to get high... needing it.

I smoked cigarettes for nearly 15 years... It took me a couple packs of Swisher Sweets cigars over a couple week period to kick it. I tried and tried and tried to stop smoking weed... did my body need it? No. Did it make my desire for it any less... Never. I was miserable if I wasn't high... It took moving completely across the country and having zero ability to even find it for me to quit. Now, I may partake every once in a while, but I tell you this... if it becomes legal, I'm smokin' that shit every day.

Maybe you just really, really, really, really loved you some fuckin' marijuana. It doesn't have that effect on me at all, for whatever reason, and everyone is different of course.

[t-homo]

I think we all know where people stand on the MJ debate. I was hoping this was a discussion of how to get it to pass a vote.

[Kaneman]

I think we all know where people stand on the MJ debate. I was hoping this was a discussion of how to get it to pass a vote.

Never gonna happen.