CA to vote on recreational Marijuana in Nov

[5-90]

^This. I think that most drugs should be legal and taxed. If people are stupid enough to want to do drugs then so be it. The same laws should apply to drunk driving with drugs. I don't know how PO's would be able to give road side tests tough.

Which is the crux of "decriminalistion."

To "legalise" it would be to treat it the same as food & water - no trouble for posession, no trouble for operating anything while intoxicated - nothing.

To "decriminalise" it means that mere posession and/or private use is no longer a criminal offense. However, that doesn't mean that intox regs don't apply, that it can't be controlled or taxed, that limits can't be put in place, ...

This is why I've long been a proponent of decriminalisation. The "War on Drugs" can be summed up thusly: "Insanity may be defined as doing the same thing in the same manner and expecting a different result." (Einstein.)

What we're doing is not working - it's time to try something else! The only people coming out ahead are the Sheriff's departments (they run the jails,) the State Departments of Correction (if it's prisons,) and the various police departments (easier to round up potheads than to go after hard-core criminals, no?)

But, it's not doing anything about social ills.

If drugs are decriminalised, the prices will come down significantly (even with them applied as a new tax base.) Street crimes to feed drug habits will decrease or die off (crimes against property will not be anywhere near as necessary, gangs won't be fighting over street corners for their pushers, people won't have to work so hard to hide their habits,) and I'm almost willing to bet that a lot of simple use will also decline (how many of you slowed down your drinking considerably at twenty-one? Why? I'll bet it was because it was legal now, and it didn't seem as much fun anymore. Remove the mystique.)

Decriminalisation doesn't do anything to increase or decrease demand - that will have to be addressed by other means. However, the demand for a product will cause an increase in price - if that substance is illegal, then the suppliers have to charge enough to make it "worth it" to supply. So, much of what people pay for dope is "hazzard pay" - which will no longer be necessary if dope is decriminalised.

They key will be to not tax it too heavily - which (for damned sure!) means we don't want to give it to F Troop to handle! They're screwing up mightily with Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms as it is...

 

[drifto77]

.........................5-90

Well said.

 

[tharlanjr]

If they do make it legal or decriminalized then people who have it in their system at work should still be fired.

I don't want my life at risk because some stoner couldn't pay attention. I work in a "high risk" industry so injuries and deaths are fairly common. Havent had any deaths in the yard in a few years and I would like for it to stay that way.

There isn't a way to tell if someone smoked the night before, that morning or last week. So if ANY is present they should be fired. IMHO.

Unless they work at McDonalds...


And yes I have smoked plenty of Pot, and I do know many functional stoners, but very few that I would trust my life with in a work environment.


I am still in between because I think its stupid to give people jail/prison time for pot. I just don't wanna work with them.

 

[5-90]

If they do make it legal or decriminalized then people who have it in their system at work should still be fired.

I don't want my life at risk because some stoner couldn't pay attention. I work in a "high risk" industry so injuries and deaths are fairly common. Havent had any deaths in the yard in a few years and I would like for it to stay that way.

There isn't a way to tell if someone smoked the night before, that morning or last week. So if ANY is present they should be fired. IMHO.

Unless they work at McDonalds...


And yes I have smoked plenty of Pot, and I do know many functional stoners, but very few that I would trust my life with in a work environment.


I am still in between because I think its stupid to give people jail/prison time for pot. I just don't wanna work with them.

My point - and precisely the difference between "legalisation" and "decriminalisation."

If it's "legalised," then it's no more controllable than food.

If it's "decriminalised," then it's just as subject to controls in the workplace, in public, and in law as booze or smokes.

The difference between the two terms (and statuses!) is far from being simply semantic.

 

[tbburg]

I don't know what would be worse; leaving the status quo and having the DEA doing their thing, or decriminalize and turn it over to the morons at ATF for licensing/enforcement. Talk about the lesser of 2 evils,...
I suppose decrim. would at least stop the dope growers/suppliers from killing each other, and would clear out some prison space. It would also open the door for wider studies into the beneficial medicinal effects.

There's also the down side the NORML would quit promoting all the wondrous uses of hemp fibers. They'd probably have to get real jobs. :confused1 Maybe they could find new work promoting the use of poppies as decorative foliage or something,...

If done right I could see it saving California,...

New sources of tax revenue aren't going to save CA, just like higher rates on existing taxes haven't. Only thing going to save that state is spending less money at the state government level.(not that it's going to happen.)

 

[IslanderOffRoad]

And Meth too, lets not discriminate, and LSD (come on, you really wouldn't mind if the pilot of your plane dropped a tab last night), heroin, all of it.

Go for it! Free drugs and alcohol for ALL! No age limits! Let's use the public school system to train the children on proper use of recreational pharmaceuticals. Might as well most of the teachers are high anyway.

Let Darwinism decide who is left alive AND functional enough to rule!

Sounds like a good plan to me.

 

[Darky]

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/pot-quorum/

Long read, but interesting.