• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Calif. voters to decide whether to legalize pot

marduc said:
Although already answered by Danarhea, and the initiative does take necessary steps to deal with the supply chain issue, the effect on the cartels will still be minimal, since this is but one of 50 states that are funding the cartels, and marijuana is ~60% of their income (Mexican cartels that is), and other drugs are the rest.
Click to expand...

True. I once asked one of my former clients, a drug-dealer, what she would do if mj was legalized. She told me, "there will always be someone to sell to and something to sell."

For starters, street gangs in southern California didn't start to distribute dope. They started because of socio-economic, racial, and family issues. So, removing mj from their realm isn't going to dissipate them.

Beyond that, the cartels are highly organized and have access to massive amounts of capital. If mj is taken off their plate in California, they still have plenty of presence in other states. Further, they are already big into heroin, cocaine, and meth, so mj is just one of the substances they distribute.

Having said that, though, it's become abundantly clear to me over the years that we've already lost the drug war on mj. It's too proliferated in too many places through out American society. I've become aware that a high percentage of adults in my community get high on a regular basis. I exist outside of that, but I have come to believe that I'm somewhat outnumbered.

What it will do is allow resources to be better focused on real crime, and it will reduce the amount of money going to local gangs, which in turn will have a negative pressure on gang allure and influence on kids.
Click to expand...

In my experience, having worked with street gang programs in Los Angeles, money is only a relatively minor reason that kids join gangs there. There are much other, larger issues. Just the presence of gangs in their neighborhoods is a huge predictor of gang joining.
 
Last edited:
It is basically legal as it stands. Anyone...... I am saying anyone can receive a medical recommendation and obtain cannabis from a dispensary. The only restriction is smoking in public or in a running vehicle.

Legalizing (not decriminalizing) will have a powerful effect on lowering the price. Given that the demand for cannabis (and other drugs) is quite inelastic, it is not necessarily certain that a lower price will increase quantity demanded.

Another demand effect will emerge however: a diminished market barrier will most definitely increase quantity demanded. But this will (for the most part) be a result of California being a cannabis tourism capital.

In the Netherlands, the reason the cannabis price has been allowed to remain artificially high is due to the drug still being illegal (decriminalized). Without the ability to legally grow your own the prices will forever remain very high (pun intended). Hopefully California does not go this route.
 
So does this mean if it passes, all the Libertarians will move to CA?
 
I gotta make sure I'm watching Bill O'Reilly when he talks about this. Drinking game for whenever he uses the word "stoner," "pinhead," or "lazy."
 
Redress said:
So does this mean if it passes, all the Libertarians will move to CA?
Click to expand...

I bet you see many people aspire to live there. People move there just so they do not have to disclose that they were convicted of misdemeanor cannabis convictions.
 
danarhea said:
It is now official. Legalization of marijuana is now on the ballot in California....

1) And what better way to fight the War on Drugs than to deprive the cartels of a huge chunk of their revenues.

2) Freeing up law enforcement resources to fight real crime? Yup.

3) But most importantly, recognizing that the only time it becomes the government's business to meddle in someone's private life is if that someone violates the rights of someone else.

California is frequently an experiment for the rest of the nation. Witness the property tax rebellion which began there, and soon spread to the other states. It's the same here. If California passes this law, and legal weed is dealt with responsibly by both citizens and authorities, it may be the beginning of the end of the Marijuana Tax Act, and government interference in the business of the states on the issue of drugs.

Sure, a lot of Liberals are outspoken about smoking weed, but guess what? Legalization of it is a truly Conservative idea, from the standpoint of smaller government and more personal freedom, not to mention the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

I might also mention that more than a few Conservatives have a toke too, now and then. It is high time they came out of the closet on this issue, and started acting like Conservatives, for a change.

Article is here.
Click to expand...


If this passes I wonder how much of the percentage of prescriptions for so called medical marijuana will drop?
 
jamesrage said:
If this passes I wonder how much of the percentage of prescriptions for so called medical marijuana will drop?
Click to expand...

A bunch, LOL.

Maybe getting high will take their minds off their states' bankruptcy, their 40 percent drop in home value, and their 12.4 percent unemployment rate.
 
RightinNYC said:
Here's what I find most interesting:



Uh...how fat is this reporter rolling his joints if an ounce only equals "several"?

For reference:

ounce_Large_2_.jpeg


That's an ounce. It's about 60 joints (according to the internets).
Click to expand...

If you roll mini J's.

Rule of thumb is about 1G/1J with a little left over (.1 maybe). So lets be safe and say about 30 J's per Z.:2razz:
 
Councilman said:
As I recall the Feds have not looked kindly on other States that did this and Alaska for example changed their laws because the Feds threaten pulling all funding.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between the states of Alaska and California. Alaska has like no people so no revenue comes from its citizens and it is geographically seperated from the rest of the nation. California on the other hand if it were its own nation would be the third richest country in the world or least in the top 8. And there are over 30million people in California. The Federal government gives crap to California, I think California should say if you take what little we get from the Feds you will get little from Californians and the rest of the nation gets lots of revenue from Californians. The revenue the people of California give to the rest of the nation is like enough to support all Southern states of the US except for Florida:rofl
 
Midwest Lib said:
It would help, but honestly, people can make their own alcohol but usually go for much easier methods. I think if passed there will plenty of regulation, if nothing else just so taxes can be collected to the fullest extent.
Click to expand...

Take it from someone that knows.......... Pot grows like a weed. :mrgreen:
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
The revenue the people of California give to the rest of the nation is like enough to support all Southern states of the US except for Florida:rofl
Click to expand...

What money do they give to other states?
 
Erod said:
What money do they give to other states?
Click to expand...

The money Californians pay in income taxes and corporate taxes. That is a lot of money they give to other states.
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
The money Californians pay in income taxes and corporate taxes. That is a lot of money they give to other states.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, they're not getting it. China and Japan are.
 
disneydude said:
Not every Republican is a right-winger. Believe it or not...I do believe that there are some good moderates and even some good conservatives in the Republican party. I was talking specifically about the right-wingers...
Click to expand...

That's quite convenient. You can make all the sweeping and unsupported statements about "right-wingers" that you want, and then whenever you're called out on it you just redefine the group to mean "not all of them, just the bad ones."
 
Goshin said:
Which will hopefully provoke a Constitutional crisis that will bring the 10th Amendment to the forefront of American political consciousness for the first time in a long while! :mrgreen:


Powers reserved to the states or to the people!


One of these days the Fedgov is going to threaten to pull their funding, and some state with some cajones is going to say FINE, go ahead, DO IT... we'll just stop allowing you to collect income tax in our state.
Click to expand...

While I most whole heartily agree with you. They will evoke interstate commerce or some other BS thing to make sure they keep the power. The federal government isn't so keen on reducing its power; even the crap it just took.
 
Pass it first, then deal with the feds. Obama may do the smart thing again and claim it is a state law and off limits to the feds.
 
I hope it does pass, not because I might then be legally permitted to smoke this stuff. (I quit smoking a while ago).
My reasoning is the same as what happened after the repeal of Prohibition, it drove the criminals to other pursuits.
However I personally would take it one step further and decriminalize all individual holdings of all drugs, while at same time giving an automatic death sentence to all illegal drug dealers or traffickers.
Naturally there would need to be a certain set amount that an individual was permitted to have on their person.
 
Last edited:
I am a libertarian in heart, but registered a Republican. I am also graduating with a Criminal Justice degree. I have seen and learned first hand how messed up our Criminal Justice system is with things like the "three strikes law" that CA has etc. So many prisons are full to the breaking point of marijuana uses who have used it multiple times it's absurd! We need to legalize marijuana to free up space in jails and prisons and to free up law enforcement all across the board. It is high time to let people get high if they want to. And this is coming from someone who has never toked any in his life, use reason people!
 
Legalize it all. It'll thin the herd.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
In my experience, having worked with street gang programs in Los Angeles, money is only a relatively minor reason that kids join gangs there. There are much other, larger issues. Just the presence of gangs in their neighborhoods is a huge predictor of gang joining.
Click to expand...


I agree, to a substantial degree. But still, money is power, prestige and influence. Take away most of their source of revenue: that will drastically reduce their power, prestige and influence. It should cut down at least some on gang-related and drug-related violence.

That would be if we legalized the production/supply chain, and regulated it and taxed it, but still kept it far cheaper than the black-market stuff.

And yeah, to have a really big impact it would have to be more than just mj... and that's where I'm not so sure how far we should go.
On the one hand I don't think weed is even AS bad as booze, but crack is a different matter and meth is a whole different ballgame. I have a hard time with the idea of legalizing something as toxic as meth.

On the one hand, if someone wants to destroy their body (quickly at that) with meth, that's their decision. OTOH, would making it legal and readily available increase the number of users? Is putting the stamp of legalistic approval on something so toxic the right thing to do?

Dunno.

G.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
On the one hand I don't think weed is even AS bad as booze, but crack is a different matter and meth is a whole different ballgame. I have a hard time with the idea of legalizing something as toxic as meth.

On the one hand, if someone wants to destroy their body (quickly at that) with meth, that's their decision. OTOH, would making it legal and readily available increase the number of users? Is putting the stamp of legalistic approval on something so toxic the right thing to do?

Dunno.

G.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that soft drugs (low addiction rates) should be legalized as well as production and distribution. I am still struggling with hard drugs (coke, crack, meth, heroin). I usually say to decriminalize them, treat users as having a health problem and get them into rehab. But that does nothing to eliminate the criminal distribution networks. So let's think about legalizing (and regulating) them.

There are studies showing that the use of marijuana won't go up with legalization. Perhaps the same is true of hard drugs.

Addiction is a disease and one way of treating it is to give a hit. Perhaps this is a way to view legalization.

When you go to the DC (Drug Control) and buy your hits, you are automatically sent to rehab. You can do the hits, but they will be your last.

What is more important and valuable, reducing the harm caused by criminal networks or reducing the harm caused by personal use? For pot, it is clearly the first. For other drugs?
 
reefedjib said:
I agree with you that soft drugs (low addiction rates) should be legalized as well as production and distribution. I am still struggling with hard drugs (coke, crack, meth, heroin). I usually say to decriminalize them, treat users as having a health problem and get them into rehab. But that does nothing to eliminate the criminal distribution networks. So let's think about legalizing (and regulating) them.
Click to expand...

Ah, legalize them, too. We have Obamacare to pay for rehab now!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom