# Pot NOT legalized in California.



## GuitaristOfHell (Nov 3, 2010)

Any thoughts about this?

Looks like my trip to California is delayed lol


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 3, 2010)

I voted yes and am very pissed at the outcome (despite me not smoking it):


Why am I pissed? Let's take a look:

1.) Most of the voters that turned it down were over 40 (according to CNN) (great, grandpa olderthanfuck gets to tell me what to do with my life)
2.) The potential tax revenue would've been a HUGE benefactor in solving our state's budget crisis. (but since we just can't have that 'evil' little plant, we're going to continue cutting funding to schools, hospitals, and to fire/police station until we can fix the problem. I feel safer already.




)
3.) Again, from a money perspective; the money we spend on prosecution of the substance (including paper and court hearings for fines) would've been used towards California's budget insolvency issue. (nope, despite our economy being in the shitter, we still have to spend all kinds of money towards a failed war on drugs. Nice.)
4.) The jobs created by the creation of marijuana distributors would've helped lower the huge unemployment rate that we have here. (13 FUCKING PERCENT!!!! http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usu ... yment+rate) (Cool, I like being all unemployed and broke. I feel like I'm contributing to society by being a goddamn couch-potato......NOT!)
5.) The health benefits of having government-regulated marijuana vs. random shit you get on the street which could be laced with anything. (nope, we gotta teach those evil weed-smokers that if they get bud laced with pcp, crack, etc....then they get what they deserve. Even if it means overdose and death.)


All I can say is if you voted no.....I hate you. So goddamn much. I don't even smoke weed, but passing the measure would've helped the state out so much. Instead of clinging to outdated ideologies and propaganda (remember that the people that were pushing towards weed criminalization were also racists. Lets continue their message of hate.



Don't believe me? Read this: http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why ... a-illegal/) we should've just done the smart thing and let this pass. Weed was criminalized in a way that is arguably unconstitutional and should never have happened.

All you Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh worshippers can eat my continuetobebrokeandunemployed ass with a spoon......


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Nov 3, 2010)

Same reasons I wanted legalization ( despite being in NY)


----------



## ivancic1al (Nov 3, 2010)

Same here as well....

People don't stop and think about possible benefits of certain propositions before simply voting them down. Really grinds my gears


----------



## JC7 (Nov 3, 2010)

I feel you guys ... but isn't it better to just have it decriminalised even if the idea is a little bit utopic it would be better that way. 
No chemical gov shit in ya weed and better THC levels. Anyway.. just sayin' GROW YOUR OWN !


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 3, 2010)

ivancic1al said:


> Same here as well....
> 
> People don't stop and think about possible benefits of certain propositions before simply voting them down. Really grinds my gears




this +100000000000000000000000000000 

I've been reading the comments of some of those that voted no (like on the fox website) and I'm just sickened. They all run along the lines of this:

"NurseRiverBoat says: NO on Marijuana.
Stop smokin' dope, you dopes.
Roll a joint and stay home and deal with your grieving over prop 19 failing hugely at the polls.
All you dope smokers were too busy getting your bongs all lit up to vote.
You snooze, you loose
but if all you do is worship pot, then what every else are you gonna do with your useless pathetic lives?
Smoke more dope, sure. Go lie to your dope smokin' MD and get a script for more pot.
Like your brain needs that crap.
Drop out, smoke dope and let the rest of us get ahead of you in this dog eat dog world."






Yep, preach to me about what I worship, but at least I hold true to my beliefs instead of talking about them and then doing the exact opposite. 


Edit: Oh and before people start saying that it HUGELY failed, here were the results:
"With nearly all of the votes counted 19 went down 46 percent for and nearly 54 percent against."

Looks to me like it was actually pretty close. My hope is that if enough of the senior ultra-conservatives die off in the next 2 years, and this gets re-introduced, we'll see some legal weed here in 2012. Too bad that I'm gonna be stuck in a state with such a high unemployment rate for those 2 years.


----------



## SirMyghin (Nov 3, 2010)

Getting tax revenue by increasing drug use is just asking for future problems in your society. All I need to say is "accessibility theory".


----------



## Randy (Nov 3, 2010)

*Just a warning... this forum has a policy against discussion regarding consuming illegal substances. This thread stays open only as long as it's about the bill. Everyone who takes this as an open opportunity to brag about their marijuana consumption will be banned, possibly for good. This is the only warning.*


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 3, 2010)

SirMyghin said:


> Getting tax revenue by increasing drug use is just asking for future problems in your society. All I need to say is "accessibility theory".





I disagree. It's already one of the most easily accessible substances as is. I doubt it would change either way. All that would really change is who gets the profit from it. The government or those wonderful cartels that kill people if they can't keep up with their weed bill. Personally I'd go with the lesser of 2 evils and give that money to people that might actually *attempt* to improve my life. I know it's a bit of a pipe dream, but they're more likely to be accountable for their actions than those oh-so-friendly cartels.

And as further proof that history seems to repeat itself, remember the prohibition on alcohol? For those that slept in civics, the 18th amendment (or Volstead Act of 1919) was introduced by fundamentalists (not unlike those that oppose prop 19) to prohibit the sale, use and distribution of alcohol and what were the results?
Alcohol consumption continued same as ever, only since it became illegal, that removed the government regulation that it had so that mobsters took over and decided what would be considered 'good booze'. Nice to know that murdering, thieving, profiteers were in charge of what I would've gotten to ingest in my body, had I lived at that time. And since even government officials wouldn't stop drinking, this lead to rampant corruption. (and mass hypocrisy I'm sure)

And that's more or less been the story of weed. Main difference being that it actually has more benefits and is less harmful to the human body than alcohol. That and instead of 'mobsters' we have gangs and cartels running the trade. Sure that innocent 15 yr old buddy of yours may not doing anything that bad, but the money always seems to trickle down to the weed trade coming from mexico. 


How does weed have more benefits? Well let's go from my own personal experiences. My cousin works, goes to school (while maintaining top grades) and has a good social life (ie not a gang member, nor does she hang out with shady people). Her job is mixing auto body paint. This form of physical labor has caused her chronic back pain for years. The doctor gave her a legal prescription for painkillers. It started affecting her performance at both work and at school. On top of that, it didn't even really kill the pain completely. I found out she started smoking weed not too long ago, and when I asked her about it, she reported to me that she discovered that not only did it help her with her back pain (removing it completely) but she didn't have to take vicodin anymore and she was doing MUCH better at both work and school. It has also helped her psychologically since she used to have a bit of a temper problem and was a bit high-strung and nowadays, she's very even-tempered and chill. 

(note to mods, this isn't meant to brag about it per se, but to demonstrate positive health benefits of marijuana. )


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 4, 2010)

SirMyghin said:


> Getting tax revenue by increasing drug use is just asking for future problems in your society. All I need to say is "accessibility theory".



Along those lines, because alcohol and tobacco are legal there should be far more drunks and lung cancer cases. If you look, typically it's easier to get illegal substances such as Pot than it is to find a store willing to sell alcohol to minors. When people's livelihood depends on giving a certain product to the right people, than selling that product at all, people opt to not sell to those that are not "approved" to have it. 

Will there be a slight increase in the number of people who use Pot if it's legalized? At first, yes, but not in quantities that are "unhealthy" for a community. Like most things, over time (and I'm not talking decades) things will balance out as Pot is accepted into it's new place in culture. Just look at countries which have already legalized it. 

It's easy to lump all those who smoke pot as idiot stoners with no life, who are just leeching off society. The media has done a GREAT job of influencing people's perceptions. I remember high school, all the losers who did nothing but skip class and smoke pot all day, but like most aspects of high school, it's not an accurate picture of the real world. In fact, most of the _adults_ I know who smoke Pot are hard working, responsible, intelligent people, just like most of the adults I know who drink, and the adults I know who are on prescription drugs. 

Pot isn't the only high out there, though some people tend to think it's one of the most evil. I will ask though, how many stories have you heard of a man getting home from work, smoking a ton of pot, then beating the shit out of his wife and kids? 

Legalization doesn't mean that everyone is going to get a voucher for free pot, it's still going to be regulated, and that regulation is going to make it FAR more difficult to get a hold of. 

For the record, I haven't touched the stuff in years, and I'm far from an advocate.


----------



## troyguitar (Nov 4, 2010)

SirMyghin said:


> Getting tax revenue by increasing drug use is just asking for future problems in your society. All I need to say is "accessibility theory".



Even if use did not increase at all, the amount of money gained from existing users would be huge. Tons of people already use the stuff. I'm one of the only people I know who has never even tried it, most of my friends are at least casual users


----------



## TXDeathMetal (Nov 4, 2010)

My thoughts are this:

People are going to smoke pot regardless and you're not going to be able to stop them because you CANNOT legislate morality and tell people what is right and wrong. If you need any further proof of this then look at how much money the government spends on prosecuting those who grow, sell and distribute it. This is the same principle behind Prohibition in the 20's and the same reason why it failed is because the government realized that it was a massive fail and the more they tried to prevent people from partaking in it then the more they did it. Granted I don't live in California but I can see the benefits of legalizing it and I fully support it as it would solve a lot of their budget and funding issues within their state but the problem is getting the hardcore Conservatives to agree.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Nov 4, 2010)

JC7 said:


> I feel you guys ... but isn't it better to just have it decriminalised even if the idea is a little bit utopic it would be better that way.
> 
> No chemical gov shit in ya weed and better THC levels. Anyway.. just sayin' GROW YOUR OWN !



Here's what my sample ballot says:



> 19 - LEGALIZES MARIJUANA UNDER CALIFORNIA BUT NOT FEDERAL LAW. PERMITS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE AND TAX COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION, AND SALE OF MARIJUANA. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Fiscal Impact: Depending on federal, state, and local government actions, potential increased tax and fee revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually and potential correctional savings of several tens of millions of dollars annually.



Growin' your own is in there.


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 4, 2010)

TXDeathMetal said:


> My thoughts are this:
> 
> People are going to smoke pot regardless and you're not going to be able to stop them because you CANNOT legislate morality and tell people what is right and wrong. If you need any further proof of this then look at how much money the government spends on prosecuting those who grow, sell and distribute it. This is the same principle behind Prohibition in the 20's and the same reason why it failed is because the government realized that it was a massive fail and the more they tried to prevent people from partaking in it then the more they did it. Granted I don't live in California but I can see the benefits of legalizing it and I fully support it as it would solve a lot of their budget and funding issues within their state but the problem is getting the hardcore Conservatives to agree.




The crazy thing is that even police stations and supreme court justices were pro-19. The people were all for it. Minus the baby-boomers that feel inclined to congregate around the polls with their mis-informed opinions and votes that will affect others when they're long dead more than said baby-boomers.
I suppose it's hard to care about people that can't find a job anywhere when you got that nice monthly "fixed" income. And since they don't drive anymore, they don't have to worry about the impossibly long lines at the DMV due to it being closed more days out of the week as a means to save $$$ for the government. In the meantime, my ID recently expired and it's impossible to accept a job with an out-dated ID. Which means I'll be hanging out at the DMV for the next week in HOPES that I can get far enough in line to get a new one.

Also, some sites are showing that by income, more people with $200,000 a year or more voted no on prop 19 than yes. (and republican at that) Yep, nice to know that my life is also dictated by the rich and powerful as well.


----------



## silentrage (Nov 4, 2010)

Some old people don't even have the common decency to STFU and die.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 4, 2010)

You know, part of living in a "democracy" (in quotes for a reason ) is accepting that sometimes you're in a minority. It sucks, and typically, it's less of a true minority and more of a "minority of voters". 

As much as I'd like to vilify the opposition, they did exactly what everyone else did, they went and "voiced" their opinion by pressing a few buttons. Were they ill informed? Yeah, probably. Is voting about making informed decisions? No actually. It's about voicing your opinion. 

In the end, the majority which votes rules. It often sucks, but that's why everyone needs to get to the damn polls.


----------



## TXDeathMetal (Nov 4, 2010)

> The crazy thing is that even police stations and supreme court justices were pro-19. The people were all for it. Minus the baby-boomers that feel inclined to congregate around the polls with their mis-informed opinions and votes that will affect others when they're long dead more than said baby-boomers.
> I suppose it's hard to care about people that can't find a job anywhere when you got that nice monthly "fixed" income. And since they don't drive anymore, they don't have to worry about the impossibly long lines at the DMV due to it being closed more days out of the week as a means to save $$$ for the government. In the meantime, my ID recently expired and it's impossible to accept a job with an out-dated ID. Which means I'll be hanging out at the DMV for the next week in HOPES that I can get far enough in line to get a new one.



Of course law enforcement, firefighters, local and state government employees were for it because they know/knew that the tax revenue generated off of legalizing it would more than pay their salaries and they wouldn't have to worry about the increasing threat of them being unemployed.


----------



## silentrage (Nov 4, 2010)

You know what should be a fucking pre-requisite for voting or being a public servant?

AN IQ TEST!!!!!! Like, omgbbqhbatmanhusseinobama.


----------



## ivancic1al (Nov 4, 2010)

^well said Max.


----------



## WickedSymphony (Nov 4, 2010)

silentrage said:


> You know what should be a fucking pre-requisite for voting or being a public servant?
> 
> AN IQ TEST!!!!!! Like, omgbbqhbatmanhusseinobama.



Yes, and we can use the revenue generated from legalized marijuana to fund said IQ tests.


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 4, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> You know, part of living in a "democracy" (in quotes for a reason ) is accepting that sometimes you're in a minority. It sucks, and typically, it's less of a true minority and more of a "minority of voters".
> 
> As much as I'd like to vilify the opposition, they did exactly what everyone else did, they went and "voiced" their opinion by pressing a few buttons. Were they ill informed? Yeah, probably. Is voting about making informed decisions? No actually. It's about voicing your opinion.
> 
> In the end, the majority which votes rules. It often sucks, but that's why everyone needs to get to the damn polls.




I agree with you there man. It takes guts to vote for your beliefs imo and I respect people that voted no more than those that just plain didn't vote. Apathy is a bigger crime than ignorance in my book. It just kills me that the closest thing this state had to a way out of it's current shit-storm that it's in, is killed by people that it won't even negatively impact. And with the Social Security pushing further and further towards bankrupcy, it could even have the potential to help reduce even that. (which would help the morons voting no on it)

The only other group that voted no on it were the 'drug are bad m'kay?' people that can't be bothered to put down facebook for 5 secs and google the damn drug. They all have the same argument:
"You're a lazy, dope-smoking loser that has no education or ambitions and wants to be a leech off of everybody else" 
I just want to do my best from now on to educate people about how untrue that statement is. Most of the "potheads" I know are employed and/or enrolled in a college of some sort. (and doing excellent in them at that)

We'll get it legal. The sad part is that we have to wait for old people with outdated beliefs to die off before that can happen.


----------



## leonardo7 (Nov 4, 2010)

What was already decided prior to this election was that starting in Jan it will no longer be a misdemeanor to posses small amounts, it will be an infraction. There are lots of growers who are afraid of losing an edge on a market they helped create so they figured its better to spread the word that if it does pass then its only a matter of time before its fully sold and regulated by the government as well as big alcohol and tobacco companies which would once again result in the growers out here losing their edge on the market as cheaper less quality weed could eventually be sold openly, driving prices, quality and control down. Its all politics, typical politics. My understanding, based on what Ive caught through word of mouth from random people is that nearly ALL the growers voted no. Its sad.


----------



## IDLE (Nov 4, 2010)

Randy said:


> *Just a warning... this forum has a policy against discussion regarding consuming illegal substances. This thread stays open only as long as it's about the bill. Everyone who takes this as an open opportunity to brag about their marijuana consumption will be banned, possibly for good. This is the only warning.*



That's bizarre for a musician's forum in my opinion.

My views on the subject: 



I am also very disappointed it didn't pass, young people need to get out and vote. I haven't heard any rational intelligent reasons for voting "No" besides a bunch of weed in people's yards is ugly.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 4, 2010)

IDLE said:


> That's bizarre to me for a musician's forum.



*It's just easier/better for everyone if we keep discussion legal. *


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Nov 4, 2010)

silentrage said:


> You know what should be a fucking pre-requisite for voting or being a public servant?
> 
> AN IQ TEST!!!!!! Like, omgbbqhbatmanhusseinobama.



As much as I agree with this, I also believe it to be a violation of our democratic right. However, I also hate stupid people. 



IDLE said:


> That's bizarre for a musician's forum in my opinion.
> 
> My views on the subject:




I'd hate to be the one to break it to ya, but there's been a lot of shitty art made by people identifying with drug culture, too. Likewise, there's been both excellent and shitty art created in complete absence of drugs. And brilliant people who get behind drugs aren't suddenly enlightened beings for that purpose; Nikola Tesla had the firm belief that drinking a glass of scotch a day would cause him to live to be 150. He died at 86 from heart failure.



> I am also very disappointed it didn't pass, young people need to get out and vote. I haven't heard any rational intelligent reasons for voting "No" besides a bunch of weed in people's yards is ugly.



Word.


----------



## troyguitar (Nov 4, 2010)

SchecterWhore said:


> As much as I agree with this, I also believe it to be a violation of our democratic right. However, I also hate stupid people.



What's so great about democracy anyway? Majority rules is a stupid way to make most decisions.


----------



## Breakdown (Nov 4, 2010)

I was disappointed when I read this. It has been proven marijuana is no worse and even less harmful than alcohol which has destoyed many lives and livers alike so I do not understand the negatvity still surrounding this plant . It also has many other uses aside from getting high. the seeds are very healthy food high in proteins and other healthy oils, you can make a biodegradable plastic out of hemp and replace many tree based products with those made of hemp. and it doesn't take 20 years to fully grow one of these plants like it does trees. Aside from the tax revenue it would also somewhat weaken the drug cartels as marijuana is a huge source of revenue for them thus saving some money on the endless war on drugs. But some people will never understand I guess it will be up to this generation to legalize this wonderful herb when these old fart no longer hold the majority. and hopefully I can die old and happy blazing up in my house without the risk of my stuff being laced or the cops arresting me.


----------



## SD83 (Nov 4, 2010)

ghstofperdition said:


> The sad part is that we have to wait for old people with outdated beliefs to die off before that can happen.



And while you wait for that, the younger people change. I'm working with some older people (60-80), and while some of them really have those "outdated beliefs", others tell you that back in the days when they were young, they were getting totally wasted & had another girl every weekend and that "you were lucky to get back alive from a Beatles/Elvis concert". It just seems that they are forgetting parts of their youth on purpose. 
On topic: It has already been mentioned, but I guess a lot of no-voters might have been influenced by the mass-media-image of the "typical dope-smoker". If they knew how many of their family members, co-workers, friends etc are smoking, they would be surprised...


----------



## SAWitall (Nov 4, 2010)

i have no idea why its so hated all across the u.s


didnt george washington grow it? isnt the declaration of independance printed on hemp paper? 

fundamentalist crack me up. ignorance really is what makes us american


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Nov 4, 2010)

troyguitar said:


> What's so great about democracy anyway? Majority rules is a stupid way to make most decisions.



The idea is that the voter will make decisions based on reason, but politicians have distorted the public's perception so completely, that's pretty much out the window. It would be far easier and far more efficient to have somebody decide for us, but then you get into tricky territory that, historically, does not bode well for certain groups of people. As musicians, we have to be especially wary of totalitarianism, as fascist states usually try to tightly regulate art.


----------



## WickedSymphony (Nov 4, 2010)

SD83 said:


> On topic: It has already been mentioned, but I guess a lot of no-voters might have been influenced by the mass-media-image of the "typical dope-smoker". If they knew how many of their family members, co-workers, friends etc are smoking, they would be surprised...



Sadly, the extreme majority of people that I personally know who smoke are the "typical dope-smoker." That said, I'm still for the legalization of it because I know not everyone who uses it is like that, and people who use it are going to continue doing so regardless of it being legal or not. Not to mention all the benefits it would have in reducing crime rates, helping unemployment, and easing a ton of the economic problems we're having in the state right now.

EDIT:



SAWitall said:


> i have no idea why its so hated all across the u.s



There are a lot of things that are hated all across the U.S. because of the garbage the media feeds the public, and people take all of that as fact without doing their own research into anything or thinking for themselves.


----------



## Randy (Nov 4, 2010)

IDLE said:


> That's bizarre for a musician's forum in my opinion



Considering that we're referring specifically to illegal activities, anything you discuss on here about your own actions can be used as evidence against you if the DEA decides to pay you a visit. We just don't need to go there.


----------



## jymellis (Nov 4, 2010)

i dont think it matters who votes, or how many people vote. i believe its all shennanigans  the whole fookin this is rigged maing!


----------



## jaredowty (Nov 4, 2010)

People around the world will still be enjoying cannabis just as much as they were yesterday, and will continue to do so regardless of idiotic laws.


----------



## bostjan (Nov 4, 2010)

SAWitall said:


> i have no idea why its so hated all across the u.s
> 
> 
> didnt george washington grow it? isnt the declaration of independance printed on hemp paper?
> ...



Before the 20th century, hemp was an important cash crop used for making rope, paper, and clothing. Virtually every farmer and plantation owner in the USA in the 1700s considered growing it. It doesn't seem like many of them were smoking it, though.

Despite hemp's useful properties for it's fibers and seeds, it has been stongly stigmatized by the US government to the point where even THC-free strains of it cannot be grown nor cultivated.

It's all very silly if you ask me, kind of like outlawing road salt because some people choose to eat too much table salt. 

Also, don't do drugs, m'kay. Drugs are bad.


----------



## Rev2010 (Nov 4, 2010)

ghstofperdition said:


> All I can say is if you voted no.....I hate you. So goddamn much.



I live in NY not Cali so the whole thing had little bearing on me personally anyway but I felt the need to respond to your post. Did you ever stop to think that even if the bill had passed stores wouldn't be popping up starting to legally sell marijuana anyway?? How the hell could they when the feds specifically said they will not tolerate a state making this decision on their own and violating federal law. Sure the cops can turn a blind eye to the guy smoking a joint in his car but established business simply would NOT be able to operate with it still being against federal law. So calm the heck down and stop stomping your feet and blaming those that voted against it could it wouldn't have mattered.

In regard to those talking about how the taxes would've been a godsend for the state I disagree. Keep in mind something, even illegal drugs bring money to the state. How?... other taxes. Let's break it down like this:

A person buys weed from a dealer. That dealer will eventually spend that money, say buying a PS3. When they do so they pay sales tax on it. The business that receives the money then pays taxes to the government for it's income. The business pays it's employees with the money the business makes which is also taxed as income tax. And that money is taxed once again when they spend it.

Of course legalized weed sales would certainly bring in more money because there would likely be an increase in sales and the extra taxes associated with it. I am not disputing that at all. I just don't think weed would "save the state from the financial crisis".


Rev.


----------



## Randy (Nov 4, 2010)

Rev2010 said:


> A person buys weed from a dealer. That dealer will eventually spend that money, say buying a PS3.



Not 100% sure why but that made me laugh. Hysterically.


----------



## orb451 (Nov 4, 2010)

Rev2010 said:


> I live in NY not Cali so the whole thing had little bearing on me personally anyway but I felt the need to respond to your post. Did you ever stop to think that even if the bill had passed stores wouldn't be popping up starting to legally sell marijuana anyway?? How the hell could they when the feds specifically said they will not tolerate a state making this decision on their own and violating federal law. Sure the cops can turn a blind eye to the guy smoking a joint in his car but established business simply would NOT be able to operate with it still being against federal law. So calm the heck down and stop stomping your feet and blaming those that voted against it could it wouldn't have mattered.
> 
> In regard to those talking about how the taxes would've been a godsend for the state I disagree. Keep in mind something, even illegal drugs bring money to the state. How?... other taxes. Let's break it down like this:
> 
> ...



I don't think there's many out there that truly, 100% believe that *just* legalizing weed will "save the state" (of California). I think that's hyperbole. Would it *help* the state? I believe that if it were legalized that it would. Not overnight. Maybe not even in a year's time. But slowly, after a transitional period, I think it would. Legalizing Pot isn't the be all, end all. It's just a baby step.

People need to think LONG term and stop worrying about the immediate rewards they're likely to receive from this, that or the other thing. Politicians need to do the same.

I voted Yes on 19 and I don't smoke weed, nor have I ever, nor will I ever. As for the feds, I love how they get all up in arms about the *possibility* of smoking weed, throwing out their threats of enforcement etc, and I honestly believe they *would* back up their words with actions, just to make a few examples of people. But, at the same time, when it comes to Federal Immigration enforcement, they talk the same game: "how fucking DARE you (state), *try* to even *think* about enforcing your own immigration laws, that's *our* job... and damnit, when we're good and ready to do our job, we will!"

Point being, they selectively *choose* which laws they're going to enforce and for what? Some kind of feigned morality? Some kind of clinging to 1920's slogans and "Reefer Madness" etc? Fuck that. Yes on 19 was (to me at least) more about sending a message, than it was about hoping The Pottery Barn opening up a slew of franchises all over the state. At least for me.


----------



## Randy (Nov 4, 2010)

And once again, at least the people of California were allowed to take it to a vote and they lost. Blame whatever you want for the standing law but they had their chance to change it but they didn't.


----------



## Rev2010 (Nov 4, 2010)

Randy said:


> Not 100% sure why but that made me laugh. Hysterically.



 Yeah it was the first product that popped in my head LOL. I think an expensive car would've made a better example haha.

@Orb - good points all around.


Rev.


----------



## orb451 (Nov 4, 2010)

One last point from me, and this is more or less directed at you Randy, I think the problem with them failing on this prop, and in other elections statewide here in Cali is piss poor marketing.

Example 1, Carly Fiorina, douchebag extraordinaire (formerly of HP) was running against Barbara Boxer. Boxer puts on an ad saying Carly cut 30,000 jobs from HP and left with a golden parachute (or golden shower, can't remember which ). Point being, instead of lobbing back an ad directly, instead of addressing the issue and saying something like "yeah, I laid off 30,000 people, I *HAD* to, thanks to Dem's like Boxer and others, and their spending, they've made it all but impossible to continually employ people in this state!" or something along those lines, she just let it slide by and thought no one would notice. End result, Boxer wins.

Example 2, Meg Whitman, another big business, frankenstein-looking, homely ass motherfucker tries to *buy* her way into office. Jerry Brown puts out an ad attacking her housekeeper/illegal alien scandal. Instead of ADDRESSING the issue head on, explaining herself better, etc, she lets it slide by too. End result, Brown wins. 

Example 3, Prop 19, the *moral* right, bible thumpers from the inland empire and conservatives everywhere get fixated on the ol' "reefer madness" bullshit and do a fine job of conveying that to the unwashed masses. And the proponents of 19, of which there were many, did little to combat that misinformation. I mean, the opponents were running ads like "If you vote Yes on 19, you're saying it's OK for registered nurses to show up to work at the hospital STONED out of their minds, and FREE from fear of dismissal as they will be protected under this new law". And the proponents ads? Few and far between with little or no substance and nothing worthwhile for the public to latch onto. End result, prop 19 strikes out again, status quo remains.

And no, the above examples aren't the *only* things that sunk those campaigns, or prop 19, but they certainly didn't *help* things one single bit either. 

So it's all about spin and marketing. It's not so much about dollars, they certainly help, but how *well* you spend those dollars in a campaign or prop-drive that will win out at the end of the day. The public likes catchy, simple, quick and easy to remember tidbits, phrases and slogans. If you're attacked in an ad, ADDRESS the attack with your own ad, tear it to shreds. Don't sit idly by and think that deflecting the issue or not addressing it will make it go away.


----------



## Randy (Nov 4, 2010)

Unfortunately that's the system as it exists pretty much everywhere in this country. I think we'll both agree that the current election system doesn't necessarily favor "democracy" the way it was originally intended to, but it is what is. Election reform is in my top one or two considerations when I vote for somebody but unfortunately there's a lack of people running on that platform because 1.) guaranteed they won't get elected because they're running IN that very system, while protesting it 2.) people who are at that level are, more often than not, greedy and they see dollar signs in status quo.

All that said, the sides for or against had the opportunity to lobby people with enough $$$ to put up a descent enough fight, equally, but one side couldn't pull it off. Sad that the state of our system is based mostly on who's got more money to throw at a campaign but that's where we're at.


----------



## orb451 (Nov 4, 2010)

Randy said:


> Unfortunately that's the system as it exists pretty much everywhere in this country. I think we'll both agree that the current election system doesn't necessarily favor "democracy" the way it was originally intended to, but it is what is. Election reform is in my top one or two considerations when I vote for somebody but unfortunately there's a lack of people running on that platform because 1.) guaranteed they won't get elected 2.) people are at that level are, more often than not, greedy and they see dollar signs in status quo.
> 
> All that said, the sides for or against had the opportunity to lobby people with enough $$$ to put up a descent enough fight but couldn't pull it off. Sad that the state of our system is based mostly on who's got more money to throw at a campaign but that's where we're at.



Agreed on all points  I'd only add one thing I think we also agree on, and that is, more candidates emphasizing or *changing* the way bills and laws are put through the legislature. That new laws/bills should stand on their own merits (or fall) and not have a truckload of shit snuck into them or the fine print, hampering their ability to pass, or fail. Granted it's not related to the props or current elections, but hopefully in 2012 someone, somewhere, will address that issue and the ones you brought up as well.

However, yeah it's pretty damned unlikely...


----------



## Randy (Nov 4, 2010)

Yeah, I'd agree with that.


----------



## Razzy (Nov 4, 2010)

orb451 said:


> Agreed on all points





Randy said:


> Yeah, I'd agree with that.



I think Hell just froze over.


----------



## orb451 (Nov 4, 2010)

Razzy said:


> I think Hell just froze over.



Though rare, Randy and I have on occasion agreed in the past


----------



## Randy (Nov 4, 2010)

We're at least reasonably logical people. 

The stuff we're outlining here should be common sense but unfortunately, at that level, that doesn't seem to be the case.


----------



## orb451 (Nov 4, 2010)

Randy said:


> We're at least reasonably logical people.



Spocks we are. "I detect no emotion captain, only logic"


----------



## Randy (Nov 4, 2010)




----------



## Revan132 (Nov 4, 2010)

ghstofperdition said:


> I disagree. It's already one of the most easily accessible substances as is. I doubt it would change either way. All that would really change is who gets the profit from it. The government or those wonderful cartels that kill people if they can't keep up with their weed bill. Personally I'd go with the lesser of 2 evils and give that money to people that might actually *attempt* to improve my life. I know it's a bit of a pipe dream, but they're more likely to be accountable for their actions than those oh-so-friendly cartels.
> 
> And as further proof that history seems to repeat itself, remember the prohibition on alcohol? For those that slept in civics, the 18th amendment (or Volstead Act of 1919) was introduced by fundamentalists (not unlike those that oppose prop 19) to prohibit the sale, use and distribution of alcohol and what were the results?
> Alcohol consumption continued same as ever, only since it became illegal, that removed the government regulation that it had so that mobsters took over and decided what would be considered 'good booze'. Nice to know that murdering, thieving, profiteers were in charge of what I would've gotten to ingest in my body, had I lived at that time. And since even government officials wouldn't stop drinking, this lead to rampant corruption. (and mass hypocrisy I'm sure)
> ...



Actually, prohibition was purposed by groups of women who were tired of getting beat by their drunken husbands. True story. I'm a history major!  I wouldn't really call them fundamentalists!


----------



## bostjan (Nov 4, 2010)

Revan132 said:


> Actually, prohibition was purposed by groups of women who were tired of getting beat by their drunken husbands. True story. I'm a history major!  I wouldn't really call them fundamentalists!



Maybe somewhat, but the Methodists really got the steam into the movement. Religious fundamentalists played a major part in the passage of the 18th ammendment. Many women's rights groups supported prohibition, but others supported temperance instead.


----------



## synrgy (Nov 4, 2010)

I kinda feel 'meh' on this one. As stated before me, the Feds already said they'd crack down no matter what CA voters decided, so it was all moot, anyway.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 4, 2010)

synrgy said:


> I kinda feel 'meh' on this one. As stated before me, the Feds already said they'd crack down no matter what CA voters decided, so it was all moot, anyway.



I wouldn't say it would be moot. 

If I had to guess, I'd say the majority of those arrested for using, carrying, etc. of Pot in the state of California are arrested by local, state law enforcement, and not federal agents. 

While I'm sure the DEA would still fight the "war on drugs" within the state of California, having the risk of being arrested significantly reduced is BIG.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Nov 4, 2010)

Keep in mind that change is not something happens all at once: if people make their opinion known, then it's going to get more exposure and is more likely to be accepted into the mainstream. Yeah, the fed said they'd crack down, but if people saw that a state agreed in the majority to allow this, then do you think that it would just stop there?


----------



## Customisbetter (Nov 4, 2010)

I agree with Orb.

I also wished Cali had passed 19. Not for Cali's economic benefit persay, but for the slow spinning gears of social progression. Note that Cali typically sets the rules for the rest of country for many different industries. If Cali can smoke dope 100% legally, eventually other counties/states will adopt the same legislation. 

Also 90% of people are idiots. Just thought I'd throw that out there.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 4, 2010)

Why weren't there sufficient people at the polls voting for legalization? 

It's not just a matter of voting on this one issue, since the election covered other matters as well. That means that pro-legalization voters either didn't have the numbers, or just weren't motivated enough to go vote. 

Can someone explain this without making it about the stupid people who voted to keep it illegal, and instead making it about the stupid people who didn't even vote about it? 

----

Just as an observation, whenever I'm somewhere that there's a NORML rally, the people who are attempting to discuss the pros of legalization with passersby just cannot form a coherent argument, because they appear to be baked out of their minds. I imagine that a lot of swing voters might be exposed to that kind of person, and might conclude that there are ulterior motives behind the pro-legalization movement which have nothing to do with medical marijuana. 

Could those people have something to do with the stereotype? 

And, as long as one can immediately recognize the image of the "baked stoner," I'll suggest that as long as those effects are recognized as being from marijuana, there will be an uphill battle to raise the level of discussion from the idea that stoners are just trying to get pot more easily. 

Just some thoughts!


----------



## JC7 (Nov 4, 2010)

SchecterWhore said:


> Here's what my sample ballot says:
> 
> 
> 
> Growin' your own is in there.


 
Ok sorry about that.. I'm not from cali tho.. I didn't know about that point. Anyway sad that you lost.


----------



## Randy (Nov 4, 2010)

Explorer said:


> Can someone explain this without making it about the stupid people who voted to keep it illegal, and instead making it about the stupid people who didn't even vote about it?



/thread


----------



## scottro202 (Nov 4, 2010)

I just wanna point out something I found a little ironic.

California was the first state to illegalize it, and is now the first state to try and legalize it. Which tells me, from all I can tell, once one state does it and realized if people legally smoke weed the world's not going to end, the others will follow suit soon enough.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 4, 2010)

Could be worse.


----------



## Randy (Nov 4, 2010)

I owe you rep. when this thing lets me do it again.


----------



## groph (Nov 4, 2010)

REAGAN SMASH!


----------



## WickedSymphony (Nov 5, 2010)

Explorer said:


> Could those people have something to do with the stereotype?



Possibly, but I think it has more to do with this.


----------



## Malkav (Nov 5, 2010)

The trickle down effect would have been enormous in other countries as well though, take for instance Africa which is a 3rd world country but has what is an almost perfect climate for growth of Marijuana and Hemp. They would have a working cash crop and the industry would be huge, the amount of revenue generated could help bring it up to a level where the economy is more stable and the massive housing and unemployment issues would probably be greatly reduced.

In South Africa almost everyone smokes, there have been jokes about it being our nations pass time. Often even though it hasn't been decriminalised cops wouldn't even bother taking you in for less than 5 grams - most of the time they'd just "confuscate" it for themselves...

I knew a guy who got taken in for dealing cause he had about 20 grams on him (he was dealing) and when he got into the court room and they presented the evidence he saw that they amount they had conviscated had been greatly reduced and they had to throw the case out because of tampering with evidence. In S.A the police force earns so little that they A) Don't really do a very good job cause they don't care B) Accept bribes quite readily, for about R200 (which is like $20) most cops wouldn't take you in, heck some of my friends have even had to drive to an ATM with the cop to draw the cash. C) Actually sell the stuff back to dealers to subsidise their own income.

If they just made it legal cops wouldn't have to do this because the revenue gained would probably allow for decent salaries - But in South Africa the government doesn't listen and is quite corrupt themselves and they only tend to make the right decisions once a "role model" country like America has already taken the first steps...


----------



## synrgy (Nov 5, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I wouldn't say it would be moot.
> 
> If I had to guess, I'd say the majority of those arrested for using, carrying, etc. of Pot in the state of California are arrested by local, state law enforcement, and not federal agents.
> 
> While I'm sure the DEA would still fight the "war on drugs" within the state of California, having the risk of being arrested significantly reduced is BIG.



I was just thinking about all the dispensaries that were/are shut down by Feds on the regular since their inception. That's just currently, let alone if the program were to expand.

Federal Medical Marijuana Cases in California

I do get your point though, and I wanted to post to concede that you're right in so much as it not being 'moot' like I said in my post. My language was too strong there. I guess I just meant that it seemed like a lot of misguided folks thought that if prop 19 passed they were just going to be able to run out to 711 and buy a pack of joints and then smoke said joints in the parking lot without fear of reprimand, and clearly that would not have been the case even if it had passed.


----------



## Customisbetter (Nov 5, 2010)

Malkav said:


> take for instance Africa which is a 3rd world country



Sorry but I stopped reading here...


----------



## Randy (Nov 5, 2010)

Also, read where he's from.


----------



## Rev2010 (Nov 5, 2010)

Randy said:


> Also, read where he's from.



He's from South Africa which _is_ a country. He was probably referring to SA but left off the "south" thus making him seem stupid but it was probably a mistake. I don't think anyone can live anywhere in Africa and confuse the entire continent as a country 


Rev.


----------



## WickedSymphony (Nov 5, 2010)

Rev2010 said:


> I don't think anyone can live anywhere in Africa and confuse the entire continent as a country



You underestimate human stupidity. And that goes for people from any continent.


----------



## Randy (Nov 5, 2010)

Plus, of all the continent, I wasn't under the impression that South Africa was a third world country.


----------



## silentrage (Nov 5, 2010)

He's not sarah palin... he's way too coherent.


----------



## josh pelican (Nov 5, 2010)

Will someone think of the chip companies? Sales were about to go up 200%.


----------



## Randy (Nov 5, 2010)

josh pelican said:


> Will someone think of the chip companies? Sales were about to go up 200%.



Well, that's under the assumption that marijuana consumption will go up significantly. Considering the way some states (the one I live in being a good example) tax the living hell out of things, the cost alone could be a deterrent to widespread use. I also don't see the legality changing the stigma in some people's minds very much.


----------



## Rev2010 (Nov 5, 2010)

Randy said:


> Plus, of all the continent, I wasn't under the impression that South Africa was a third world country.



It's not, it's 2nd world. He was just wrong there.


Rev.


----------



## getaway_fromme (Nov 5, 2010)

I think it's great that we got the publicity we need to get more votes in the future. I do, however, feel the need to point out those individuals who voted no on the bill. While it does suck that the bill didn't pass, we were ALMOST there, which means that many are interested in considering its use. Now, I do find anyone that voted no WITHOUT EVEN TRYING IT FOR THEMSELVES to be pretty f*in stupid. You simply cannot make an informed judgment on something without experiencing it first hand. Also, there are many health benefits to using it over MANY pharmaceuticals, I find it to be more of an FU to those companies, which I'm all about...

Consumption will still happen, and like someone else said before me, I will be happy when all of the misinformed or stereotypical bastards who voted no keel over. They are ruining our country with more than just drug laws.


----------



## josh pelican (Nov 5, 2010)

Randy said:


> Well, that's under the assumption that marijuana consumption will go up significantly. Considering the way some states (the one I live in being a good example) tax the living hell out of things, the cost alone could be a deterrent to widespread use. I also don't see the legality changing the stigma in some people's minds very much.


 
Well, I was joking, but if it's anything like Halifax the consumption would go up tenfold.


----------



## bostjan (Nov 5, 2010)

Just think- that if what we taught kids in school about history was up for democratic vote, they'd be taught all sorts of messed up things, ...oh, wait.


----------



## WickedSymphony (Nov 5, 2010)

getaway_fromme said:


> Now, I do find anyone that voted no WITHOUT EVEN TRYING IT FOR THEMSELVES to be pretty f*in stupid. You simply cannot make an informed judgment on something without experiencing it first hand.



I don't think it's fair to say this at all. 

I didn't vote no and I've never tried it for myself. I'd like to think I made an informed decision based on logic, reason, and a bit of research into how the bill would actually effect us. Would you say that myself and others like me are also stupid because we don't have first hand experience with marijuana use?


----------



## getaway_fromme (Nov 5, 2010)

WickedSymphony said:


> I don't think it's fair to say this at all.
> 
> I didn't vote no and I've never tried it for myself. I'd like to think I made an informed decision based on logic, reason, and a bit of research into how the bill would actually effect us. Would you say that myself and others like me are also stupid because we don't have first hand experience with marijuana use?



Well for starters, you didn't vote no, so that statement isn't really in regards to you. You're not against it and you seem like you're considering the BENEFITS, so my hat's off to you.

But yes, you SHOULD not make an informed statement on a drug or something without trying it for yourself and knowing FIRSTHAND how good or how bad it is. You can see the issues on others, but without experiencing it, you don't know exactly what it is you're voting for or against. It's not an attack, it's just my way of logic. Try it before you buy it. It hurts when people make judgments about you when they think you're "fucked up" when indeed you are completely knowledgeable to make decisions on the spot....People have this idea that if you're stoned you're "fucked up". They say it because they don't know what the experience is like and they don't condone it without having felt it themselves. So yes, I think everyone should at least try it before them make a judgment....But I guess that's just me. You don't have to like it, just don't fuck it up for everyone else...

In any case, thank you for not being negative about it even though you've never tried it.


----------



## silentrage (Nov 5, 2010)

^ So for prop 8, if you wanted to vote against gay marriage you'd need to have gay sex first?


----------



## orb451 (Nov 5, 2010)

silentrage said:


> ^ So for prop 8, if you wanted to vote against gay marriage you'd need to have gay sex first?



PWNED 

Yeah sorry man, but I don't buy the whole "try it before ya buy it" bit when it comes to drugs. I think it's ENTIRELY possible for someone to be FOR or AGAINST them without ever having touched them... I NEVER smoke weed, never have, never will, and I'm for legalizing it. Should I reverse my position because to me, it makes sense to legalize it? I don't think so either.


----------



## WickedSymphony (Nov 5, 2010)

getaway_fromme said:


> Well for starters, you didn't vote no, so that statement isn't really in regards to you. You're not against it and you seem like you're considering the BENEFITS, so my hat's off to you.
> 
> But yes, you SHOULD not make an informed statement on a drug or something without trying it for yourself and knowing FIRSTHAND how good or how bad it is. You can see the issues on others, but without experiencing it, you don't know exactly what it is you're voting for or against. It's not an attack, it's just my way of logic.



Sorry for how it came off, I didn't think of it as an attack or anything. I just disagreed with your logic there. I don't think you necessarily have to try something to determine if it's good or bad. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point, though. 

And as for the people seeing you as "fucked up" when you're high part, people develop stereotypes based on experiences, media, etc. and it's very difficult to get past that. I know it sucks, but yeah  As I said in an earlier post in this thread, most of the people I do know who use it are the "typical stoner" who can't think straight worth a shit. On the other hand, a few guys are among the brightest people I know. It's just up to people to look past their own immediate interactions, actually think about things, and see everything on a greater scale. 




silentrage said:


> ^ So for prop 8, if you wanted to vote against gay marriage you'd need to have gay sex first?






Edit: And for the record, I think the phrase is "Don't knock it 'til you try it," not "try it before ya buy it."


----------



## Rev2010 (Nov 5, 2010)

getaway_fromme said:


> Also, there are many health benefits to using it over MANY pharmaceuticals



Note - EDITED AT THE BOTTOM
I'm so sick of hearing this. All the hippies of the world are trying to have tobacco banned but weed is also carcinogenic, 50-70% more so than tobacco. You're lighting a plant on fire and inhaling the smoke. No matter how you want to support weed you can't deny it can be bad for you. Read this, it's rather enlightening:

Marijuana - InfoFacts - NIDA

I know about the health uses for pain and such, that I agree with. But don't tell me there are health benefits for a healthy individual sitting around smoking joints frequently.

I'm not against Marijuana, I really am not and have used it many times when I was younger. I'm a cigar smoker now, only one a day and always outside in the open air. So I'm not trying to give some lecture on how drugs are bad mmm'kay? I'm just tired of the "health benefit" nonsense being thrown around.

*EDIT - I just noticed in the quoted message you did clearly note health benefits over pharmaceuticals. I do agree with that and you have my apology for quoting you. It's just that I've seen many tout how weed is totally healthy and safe for consumption as a selling point for making it legal. Fact is there are negative effects so it just kills me to see people tout the health effects when *not* referring to using weed in a medical manor.

Rev.


----------



## silentrage (Nov 5, 2010)

Although I can't dispute any of the facts in the above link because I'm not qualified, it does sound very one-sided.


----------



## Rev2010 (Nov 5, 2010)

silentrage said:


> Although I can't dispute any of the facts in the above link because I'm not qualified, it does sound very one-sided.



It probably is, it's from a drug addiction website. To be fair though most of the "Pot is safe and healthy" web articles are also one-sided in favor of weed. Often very hard to be impartial, but as I said... lighting something on fire and inhaling the smoke can never be 100% safe. I think it's fair to say that's common sense.


Rev.


----------



## synrgy (Nov 5, 2010)

Rev2010 said:


> It probably is, it's from a drug addiction website. To be fair though most of the "Pot is safe and healthy" web articles are also one-sided in favor of weed. Often very hard to be impartial, but as I said... lighting something on fire and inhaling the smoke can never be 100% safe. I think it's fair to say that's common sense.
> 
> 
> Rev.



Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about vaporizers? Mind you, I'm not presenting that as an argument, approving or condemning them. I just understand that the process is different, and one isn't actually inhaling smoke when using one.


----------



## Mexi (Nov 5, 2010)

Rev2010 said:


> It probably is, it's from a drug addiction website. To be fair though most of the "Pot is safe and healthy" web articles are also one-sided in favor of weed. Often very hard to be impartial, but as I said... lighting something on fire and inhaling the smoke can never be 100% safe. I think it's fair to say that's common sense.
> 
> Rev.



Anyone who is well-aware of the source of their cannabis can be assured that it is SAFE to smoke, denoting that there isn't some unknown variable that could seriously compromise your experience. Though I agree that you'd be a fool to argue that it's "healthy" for you. safety should be paramount when using any recreational substance, though the research suggesting "health benefits" of ANY illicit drug use is shoddy at best.

edit: good point above poster on the vaporizer. In fact, there are MANY ways to consume marijuana w/o actually smoking it, thereby eliminating any health risks associated with the _act of smoking_ (not the physiological/psychological effects on the user over time)


----------



## Rev2010 (Nov 5, 2010)

synrgy said:


> Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about vaporizers?



Didn't even know about them till I just looked it up now. From the sound of it seems better/safer for sure. But to be honest I have too little knowledge on it to comment.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not saying weed is terrible for you or anything like that. I really don't think it is unless a person smokes it all the time. I had a coworker at my last firm who smoked weed *very* often. He even smoked before coming into work (till our boss threatened to fire him) and in the concourse storage room mid day. Then he'd go home and smoke, etc. Anyhow, for someone like that I do feel there is an increased chance of negative health effects. You do too much of anything it's going to have an effect.


Rev.


----------



## getaway_fromme (Nov 5, 2010)

On the vaporizer note, I don't smoke anymore, and I completely am for using vaporizers. Ya, smoking anything is bad....no matter what.


----------



## troyguitar (Nov 5, 2010)

Smoking weed might be worse than cigarettes if you're comparing one joint to one cigarette, but do people smoke 20+ joints a day? It seems like chain smoking it like that would render one completely immobile


----------



## highlordmugfug (Nov 5, 2010)

Also, you can ingest marijuana in addition to the mentioned vaporization. Duh, setting things on fire and breathing it in isn't going to be great for your lungs, but you don't have to smoke marijuana. Try eating the same amount of pure tobacco, see how that works out for you. When you're done puking, we'll be here to talk. 


EDIT: And just to address any concerns: THC is fat soluble so in order to have any effect from the THC it must be cooked/prepared first, and yes, you can eat tobacco but in small amounts or with something so that it won't make you incredibly nauseous.


----------



## AngelSKinGarden (Nov 11, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> You know, part of living in a "democracy" (in quotes for a reason ) is accepting that sometimes you're in a minority. It sucks, and typically, it's less of a true minority and more of a "minority of voters".
> 
> As much as I'd like to vilify the opposition, they did exactly what everyone else did, they went and "voiced" their opinion by pressing a few buttons. Were they ill informed? Yeah, probably. Is voting about making informed decisions? No actually. It's about voicing your opinion.
> 
> In the end, the majority which votes rules. It often sucks, but that's why everyone needs to get to the damn polls.








The best part of America is that it is a Republic (big R) and not a democracy (small d).The rights of the minority are protected from the majority. No voting majority can tell you what you may and may not possess or consume...period. Neither can any public servant or law maker. We have simply forgotten that you can protect yourself, property and rights with deadly force against anyone who crosses that line!


----------



## Explorer (Nov 13, 2010)

AngelSKinGarden said:


> The best part of America is that it is a Republic (big R) and not a democracy (small d).The rights of the minority are protected from the majority. No voting majority can tell you what you may and may not possess or consume...period. Neither can any public servant or law maker. We have simply forgotten that you can protect yourself, property and rights with deadly force against anyone who crosses that line!



Err...

I'm sorry to disillusion you, but you are completely wrong in your understanding of American law. I'm having a hard time deciding where to begin to explain where you started to go wrong, but you are very far off the rails, so it's hard to know.

Here's a start, though: There is no right to own whatever you want in the US. For example, you cannot own an atomic bomb. When there is that threat to others, your strange viewpoint immediately loses under US law.

Similarly, there are laws restricting alcohol consumption while in public.

There was this television show I used to watch called "Cops," and they regularly had lots of footage of folks declaring that no one could impose laws on them. Florida was always good for a few people like... Oh, wait... 

Is it possible that Florida just doesn't have a good educational system, and that's why so many people fail their civics classes?


----------



## ddtonfire (Nov 15, 2010)




----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 15, 2010)

Once again, the media's crusade to turn ever decent person who smokes pot into a lazy, stupid, loser.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Nov 15, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Once again, the media's crusade to turn ever decent person who smokes pot into a lazy, stupid, loser.


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 15, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Once again, the media's crusade to turn ever decent person who smokes pot into a lazy, stupid, loser.




True, but sadly that was why it didn't pass (at least in my mind). All the demographic charts suggest that older conservatives outvoted us 'youngsters' and that lead to it's demise. So the graph is actually pretty accurate to what happened.

Again, apathy is bigger crime than ignorance in my book. Ignorance is easier to cure.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Nov 15, 2010)

ghstofperdition said:


> True, but sadly that was why it didn't pass (at least in my mind). All the demographic charts suggest that older conservatives outvoted us 'youngsters' and that lead to it's demise. So the graph is actually pretty accurate to what happened.
> 
> Again, apathy is bigger crime than ignorance in my book. Ignorance is easier to cure.



It didn't not pass because those who smoke are lazy idiots though. It didn't pass because:

A) Voter turnout for both sides is awful.
B) The media has made all of those against it think negatively about those who smoke and of Pot in general. 
C) A lot of folks who smoke/sell already, feel that regulation will cut into their pockets. 

You can't tell me that the media's image of the "average pot smoker" is even close to accurate. Are their losers? Of course, but I've know far more drunks in my time who have drunken their lives away than pot smokers in the cliche' parent's basement. The majority of folks I know right now who smoke pot on a regular basis are professionals, folks going to college for legitimate (as in not Art) degrees, and overall successful members of society who work hard, pay their bills, and enrich those around them.


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 16, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> It didn't not pass because those who smoke are lazy idiots though. It didn't pass because:
> 
> A) Voter turnout for both sides is awful.
> B) The media has made all of those against it think negatively about those who smoke and of Pot in general.
> ...



Oh I'm not disagreeing with you there. I think the cliche'd dope hippy thing is a distorted perception of how your average marijuana user really is. 
It all stems back to a special interest group vilifying something they deemed to be 'evil' and 'immoral' (not taking into account their own alcoholic lives)
and also to become part of a bandwagon. They even made long standing racist thing out of it by making sure it was known as marijuana as opposed to cannabis, and claiming that it was illegal Mexicans that were supplying and poisoning our youth with it. It's all propaganda and our society still hasn't purged this bullshit from our psyche. We don't use racist themes to vilifying it nowadays, but we keep clinging to the old propaganda that it's "The Devil's Weed" and that users "need to get a real life and contribute more to society". Why? Because our ignorance nowadays is formed from tradition and familiarity. The concept that weed is less dangerous and has more benefits than alcohol doesn't sit well with us. 

Meanwhile we kill off our livers with alcohol and create cancer in all different areas of our bodies with tobacco. Why? Because again, it's familiarity and honestly, our country was more or less founded on both alcohol and tobacco. Now I'm not saying that marijuana is completely harmless (a joint can damage your lungs about as much as a tobacco cigarette, but vaporizers minimize this greatly) but I feel that it has more benefits and contributions to society than either tobacco or alcohol.

And as has been stated, think of the last time you've encountered a drunk vs. a pot head. Most times that I've encountered them, the drunk acts like an idiot, beats the crap out of their wife/kids and their actions negatively affect everyone around them. 

The pot head? Well your food bill might go up, your dvd collection may contain more movies like Pink Floyd's the wall, A Clockwork Orange, and Avatar, and your place might smell like the inside of a medicine man's hut, but I consider these to be more minor than with alcohol. The worst cases I've seen are similar to those of a drunk, but they are far and fewer than those that drink regularly.

And don't even get me started on tobacco. I've seen people starve themselves throughout the day, just so that their last $5 can buy a pack of smokes. And when people don't have one, they become so damn unruly. They become mean, irritable, and when the craving becomes really bad, irrational.

But again, my point is that we embrace these vices more tightly because in America's formative years, the cotton and tobacco trades more or less sustained the entire country and beer/whiskey drinking was the norm due to lack of knowledge behind water sanitation. (people hadn't caught on to the the fact that in the manufacturing of alcohol, the boiling of water sanitized it, thus making it safer to drink) Alcohol is also considered the oldest drug known to man. (i've seen some shows on the history channel that have shown Egyptian and Sumerian hieroglyphics depicting wine casks and were dated to be in the 3-4,000 year old range)
Weed was commonly used by native americans and in their ceremonies for many many years (I think jymellis can attest to that  ) however it has only recently (like the last 100-150 years) been used by Americans in a recreational form. Thus we are sticking with the evil we know and eschewing all other options because their unfamiliarity scares us.

And since we've spent the last 80 years demonizing the hell out of cannabis, we'd 'lose face' if all of the sudden we thought to ourselves...'hey, this stuff isn't as bad as we originally though'. We as a people have this mentality that admitting error is admitting weakness, therefore we will continue to do wrong so that we don't look bad/weak to other people.


----------



## ddtonfire (Nov 16, 2010)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Once again, the media's crusade to turn ever decent person who smokes pot into a lazy, stupid, loser.



Oh come now, we could all use a little humor. I know a few people who happen to be very hardworking, driven individuals but also smoke nightly.


----------



## jaredowty (Nov 28, 2010)

troyguitar said:


> Smoking weed might be worse than cigarettes if you're comparing one joint to one cigarette



Um, no.

Tobbaco = 440,000 deaths per year in the USA
Alcohol = 75,000 deaths per year 
Prescription drugs = 26,000 deaths per year

Marijuana = 0 deaths, ever, anywhere.  Overdose is impossible.

If you're pro-prohibition for weed, then you'd better have the same attitude towards alcohol and tobacco (hell, most prescription drugs too). Anything else is just painfully illogical.

For some people the benefits outweigh the _possible_ risks (which are incredibly vague at this point). It DOES help chronic pain, helps people sleep, eat, and the research being done on the cannabinoids (many of which have no psychoactive effects and don't get you high) helping reduce cancer and tumor risk is really fascinating. One of my patients is 65 years old, never smoked in his life (he was a victim of propaganda and thought it was terrible) until he got his card and did, then got his first full night's sleep in 20 years. Does it work for everyone? No. But then again nothing does. The quality of the bud is always a huge factor as well.

Smoking anything will have at least a small negative effect, that's the consensus from just about anyone I think. That's why medical cannabis should be vaporized, or, for the most effective pain relief and the widest variety of cannabinoids: ingesting.


----------



## Randy (Nov 28, 2010)

jaredowty said:


> Marijuana = 0 deaths, ever, anywhere. Overdose is impossible.



I'm not an expert on the subject, so you'll have to forgive me, but I believe he wasn't referring to the dangers of "overdosing" on marijuana. I remember hearing that the amount of lung cancer causing toxins were higher when you smoke a joint than in a filtered cigarette. I'm not 100% on how accurate that is, but I'm sure there are people who smoke only pot and have developed a life threatening or ending lung disorder; so "0 deaths" isn't accurate if you're going to include "lung cancer" as a factor in "tobacco related deaths". Likewise, I'm not sure if you're referring to DWI's or just alcohol poisoning in your "alcohol related deaths" but pot *does* impair your motor skills, and it can be assumed that people have smoked pot and operated a motor vehicle and died.

Overall, I get your point, though. Marijuana (as you said, vaporized or ingested) has some significant medical assets, and in consuming for recreation, there are much more dangerous, totally legal things out there.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Nov 28, 2010)

One problem I see with marijuana from an enforcement perspective is that, regardless of legality, it is very likely that DUI would remain a crime, and THC stays in your system for a long time relative to say, alcohol.

This makes it very difficult to consume marijuana and drive a few hours or days later, when any mental symptoms of THC are gone.


----------



## Customisbetter (Nov 28, 2010)

But from my limited knowledge, you can't "Blow" positive for THC like you can for alcohol. They'd have to do a urine test and that isn't really feasible on the side of the road. 

A cop can take you to jail if he feels its necessary after 15 minutes of evaluation. It doesn't matter if you are high/drunk/psycho or not.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 29, 2010)

I have to ask the obvious here.

Are those who are bumping this thread five or 10 days after the previous post demonstrating the classic slow reflexes of marijuana use? 

*laugh*


----------



## Xaios (Nov 29, 2010)

Duuuuude, you're totally killing my buzz. Why you gotta be like that, man?











Dude, got an extra Twinkie?


----------



## Xodus (Nov 29, 2010)

Randy said:


> I'm not an expert on the subject, so you'll have to forgive me, but I believe he wasn't referring to the dangers of "overdosing" on marijuana. I remember hearing that the amount of lung cancer causing toxins were higher when you smoke a joint than in a filtered cigarette. I'm not 100% on how accurate that is, but I'm sure there are people who smoke only pot and have developed a life threatening or ending lung disorder; so "0 deaths" isn't accurate if you're going to include "lung cancer" as a factor in "tobacco related deaths". Likewise, I'm not sure if you're referring to DWI's or just alcohol poisoning in your "alcohol related deaths" but pot *does* impair your motor skills, and it can be assumed that people have smoked pot and operated a motor vehicle and died.


The thing about lung cancer is as far as I know untrue. Marijuana itself does not contain carcinogens. When smoked, the only carcinogenic effect is from the inhalation of burning plant matter. Studies by respected scientific bodies have determined that in fact marijuana can halt the development of certain cancers, lung being one of the primary types, by I think stimulating the death of old cells. Studies have also shown no links between marijuana use and overall mortality. I can link these to you if you want. Is this type of discussion acceptable?


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Nov 29, 2010)

Xodus said:


> The thing about lung cancer is as far as I know untrue. Marijuana itself does not contain carcinogens. When smoked, the only carcinogenic effect is from the inhalation of burning plant matter. Studies by respected scientific bodies have determined that in fact marijuana can halt the development of certain cancers, lung being one of the primary types, by I think stimulating the death of old cells. Studies have also shown no links between marijuana use and overall mortality. I can link these to you if you want. Is this type of discussion acceptable?


 Pretty much the only reason I wanted legalization. $ and the possible health benefits from it. Since it's not we just have to wait to really see any truth to any theories mentioned in this thread, or not mentioned in here. 
The sooner we find out the actual effects, the better especially since you said "in fact marijuana can halt the development of certain cancers, lung being one of the primary types" because cancer runs deep into my family and slowing it down some how will be great. If our calculations are correct about my family my mom is next on it's list . Also, you said you could link them? Please PM me them.


----------



## sepsis311 (Nov 29, 2010)

Maybe if the voters weren't too freaking high to leave their couch and potato chips, and relying on other (pot smoking) citizens to vote, prop 19 may have passed. The whole thing was a joke from the get-go. if you think "my vote doesnt count" is bad enough in presidential elections among the general population, imagine what it's like when the mentality stems in minds of potheads.


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Nov 29, 2010)

IDLE said:


> That's bizarre for a musician's forum in my opinion.
> 
> My views on the subject:
> 
> ...




How is that bizarre? This is a PG13 forum. You wan't to be advocating drug use to extreme-minors? We might not have a lot but rules are rules.

Also, posting bill hicks (Thor rest his soul) doesn't make it okay 

Back on topic: I used to threaten to go home if any of my friends tried to smoke pot, which was incredibly selfish. I have absolutely nothing against the drug itself but a lot of the people over here who smoke pot annoy the shit out of me. My best friend is the most annoying person ever when he's stoned. He tries to explain 'The Matrix' to me, as if I'm such a feeble minded person due to my lack of being stoned. 

Still, I was expecting this bill to fail. America is filled with conservative, narrow minded dildos who haven't in the slightest the gumption to look at something in more than one view.


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Nov 29, 2010)

Randy said:


> I'm not an expert on the subject, so you'll have to forgive me, but I believe he wasn't referring to the dangers of "overdosing" on marijuana. I remember hearing that the amount of lung cancer causing toxins were higher when you smoke a joint than in a filtered cigarette. I'm not 100% on how accurate that is, but I'm sure there are people who smoke only pot and have developed a life threatening or ending lung disorder; so "0 deaths" isn't accurate if you're going to include "lung cancer" as a factor in "tobacco related deaths". Likewise, I'm not sure if you're referring to DWI's or just alcohol poisoning in your "alcohol related deaths" but pot *does* impair your motor skills, and it can be assumed that people have smoked pot and operated a motor vehicle and died.
> 
> Overall, I get your point, though. Marijuana (as you said, vaporized or ingested) has some significant medical assets, and in consuming for recreation, there are much more dangerous, totally legal things out there.



Also, the amount of paranoid and stoned people accidentally killing themselves for rediculous reasons is probably high up there numerically.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Nov 29, 2010)

CrushingAnvil said:


> How is that bizarre? This is a PG13 forum. You want to be advocating drug use to extreme-minors? We might not have a lot but rules are rules.
> 
> Also, posting bill hicks (Thor rest his soul) doesn't make it okay


What? I never said that.


----------



## CrushingAnvil (Nov 29, 2010)

GuitaristOfHell said:


> What? I never said that.



Nope, not directly.

Don't worry, I was pulling your leg.


----------



## Randy (Nov 29, 2010)

Xodus said:


> Studies have also shown no links between marijuana use and overall mortality. I can link these to you if you want. Is this type of discussion acceptable?



Not sure if any of this was addressed directly at me but I don't think anybody in this thread suggested marijuana usage promotes immorality, although, it could be argued that willing participating in an activity that is currently illegal is clearly immoral.


----------



## Explorer (Nov 29, 2010)

At some point, when we were talking about various drugs, I told my son about certain effects of marijuana, including its demotivating properties. I used a few of his friends as examples. Since they had all been really motivated to learn music, and then some of them just completely lost the drive, it was obvious that they were hitting the weed. 

My son freaked out, because I was able to peg every one of his friends who were now smoking pot based purely on their no longer caring so much about music, and instead devoting more time to getting high. He *never* touched weed, even though I had never come out strongly against drugs. 

It's funny to hear him railing about people when he's on tour, talking about how their getting stoned is fucking up the tour. 

You know how some drunks will insist that they're not under the influence much, even though everyone else can tell? Now, imagine that to people who know the signs, someone's marijuana use is just as obvious....


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 29, 2010)

Randy said:


> Not sure if any of this was addressed directly at me but I don't think anybody in this thread suggested marijuana usage promotes immorality, although, it could be argued that willing participating in an activity that is currently illegal is clearly immoral.




I think he was referring to MORTALITY and not morality. Mortality = causing death of course.


----------



## Isan (Nov 29, 2010)

Randy said:


> Not sure if any of this was addressed directly at me but I don't think anybody in this thread suggested marijuana usage promotes immorality, although, it could be argued that willing participating in an activity that is currently illegal is clearly immoral.



Cough Mortality


----------



## Randy (Nov 29, 2010)

Whoops. Good eye.

Forget I said anything.


----------



## Xaios (Nov 29, 2010)

Perhaps marijuana use promotes immortality? Eh?


----------



## Randy (Nov 29, 2010)

Now *that* would be fucking awesome.


----------



## The Somberlain (Nov 29, 2010)

Ghost, you said your point quite well, but beer originated in Egypt and Sumeria as kind of a liquid bread (like in Firefly), but the Greeks found wine.

As for me, study showed that Alcohol is by far the most dangerous drug to society (more than heroin even), and Cannabis was by far the least. Problem here? Yes.


----------



## tacotiklah (Nov 29, 2010)

The Somberlain said:


> Ghost, you said your point quite well, but beer originated in Egypt and Sumeria as kind of a liquid bread (like in Firefly), but the Greeks found wine.
> 
> As for me, study showed that Alcohol is by far the most dangerous drug to society (more than heroin even), and Cannabis was by far the least. Problem here? Yes.



Thanks Brendon, and yeah I agree. Alcohol is among the most destructive substances available, and yet it is readily available anywhere. Given the failure of prohibition, I doubt it will ever become criminalized again. 
Don't get me wrong, I love my beer as much as the next guy, but it seems strangely illogical to demonize marijuana far more than alcohol, when it is FAR less dangerous. 

And don't get me started on how dangerous tobacco is compared to weed.


----------



## The Somberlain (Nov 30, 2010)

Didn't Jack Kerouac say that if we legalized pot war would be impossible? Of course he had an agenda, but there is a modicum of truth in there


----------



## Customisbetter (Nov 30, 2010)

The Somberlain said:


> Didn't Jack Kerouac say that if we legalized pot war would be impossible? Of course he had an agenda, but there is a modicum of truth in there



Its legal everywhere else that is very much in war. SO I think he was pretty stoned and wasn't making any sense.


----------



## The Somberlain (Nov 30, 2010)

What else is new? The "deep shit" of the beats was a mere byproduct of highs. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, now that is real good shit.


----------



## SirMyghin (Nov 30, 2010)

The Somberlain said:


> What else is new? The "deep shit" of the beats was a mere byproduct of highs. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, now that is real good shit.



Alas poor fool, with all my Lore. I'm still no wiser than before.


----------



## PhillCantu93 (Nov 30, 2010)

ghstofperdition said:


> Thanks Brendon, and yeah I agree. Alcohol is among the most destructive substances available, and yet it is readily available anywhere. Given the failure of prohibition, I doubt it will ever become criminalized again.
> Don't get me wrong, I love my beer as much as the next guy, but it seems strangely illogical to demonize marijuana far more than alcohol, when it is FAR less dangerous.
> 
> And don't get me started on how dangerous tobacco is compared to weed.



You took the words right out of my mouth.


----------



## Randy (Nov 30, 2010)

ghstofperdition said:


> And don't get me started on how dangerous tobacco is compared to weed.



No, go on.


----------



## tacotiklah (Dec 1, 2010)

Randy said:


> No, go on.



No it's ok. I think I've ranted, roared and raged enough in this thread. I will stick it to the man in the way I see fit, and we'll just leave it at that.


----------

