CA to Vote Legalizing Pot in November Ballot... - Page 2

Dave · 03-27-2010, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nhgunnut

This needs to be done at a national level. I am tired of spending tax dollars to by breakfast for stoners to stupid not to get repeatedly arrested.

like you'd get the money back if they hadn't been arrested.

Kaneman · 03-28-2010, 11:08 AM

Newsweek

By Jessica Bennett | Newsweek Web Exclusive

Mar 26, 2010

In downtown Oakland, there is a nine-block area that locals call "Oaksterdam." Nestled among what was once a rash of vacant storefronts, it's a kind of pot utopia where everything moves just a little bit more slowly than the outside world. Here, where medical marijuana is legal, you'll find the Blue Sky Coffeeshop, a pot dispensary where getting an actual cup of Joe takes 20 minutes but picking up a sack of Purple Kush wrapped neatly in a brown sack takes about five. There's the Bulldog Cafe, a lounge with a not-so-secret back room where the haze-induced sounds of Dark Side of the Moon seep through thick smoke. There's a glass-blowing shop where bongs are the art of choice, and, of course, there's the fabled Oaksterdam University, a pot school operated by a man named Richard Lee.

At 47, Lee is a kind of unofficial Buddha to the pro-pot movement. He has transformed a neighborhood and brought thriving new businesses to Oakland's downtown. Now, as the sponsor of an initiative that was approved this week by the California secretary of state—to appear on November's ballot—Lee hopes the rest of California will join Oakland as a kind of trailblazer in the fight for marijuana legalization. If approved by voters, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act would make California the first state in the nation to make pot legal, allowing Californians 21 and older to grow and possess up to an ounce. And in much the same way Oakland has embraced the medical-marijuana industry, the law would pave the way for local jurisdictions to tax and regulate the marijuana trade—a concept that, with the California state government billions in the red, even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said should be up "for debate." "People are no longer outraged by the idea of legalization," former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown wrote in a recent op-ed. "And truth be told, there is just too much money to be made both by the people who grow marijuana and the cities and counties that would be able to tax it."
Click here to find out more!

Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron has estimated that the cost to the country of cannabis prohibition is $13 billion annually, with an additional $7 billion lost in potential tax revenue. With that in mind, Oakland voters became the first in the nation earlier this year to enact a special cannabis excise tax—$18 for every $1,000 grossed—that the city believes will generate up to $1 million this year. Lee hopes legalizing marijuana on a state level would do the same, only on a much larger scale. "The reality," he says, "is that we're creating jobs, improving the city, filling empty store spaces, and when people come [here] they can see that."

California has allowed for medical-marijuana use since 1996. But "medical" is something of an open joke in the state, where anyone over age 18 with a doctor's note—easy to get for ailments like anxiety or cramps, if you're willing to pay—can obtain an ID card allowing access to any of the state's hundreds of dispensaries, or pot shops. "You can basically get a doctor's recommendation for anything," one dispensary worker told NEWSWEEK. Federal law, of course, still forbids the cultivation and possession of marijuana. It was banned, over the objections of the American Medical Association, in 1937. But in February of last year, Attorney General Eric Holder stunned critics when he announced that the Department of Justice would cease raiding medical-marijuana dispensaries (in California and elsewhere) that had been authorized under state law. Obama's newly appointed drug czar, R. Gil Kerlikowske, has since condemned legalization, in a speech to police chiefs in San Jose earlier this month.

You'd think it might make California users nervous—except that the drug czar does not have the legal authority to enforce drug laws. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy did not return NEWSWEEK's calls for comment, but experts say the reality is that the federal government doesn't have the resources, or the desire, to go after each and every Californian who is operating within their local laws. Federal punishment for marijuana possession of up to an ounce is harsh: up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine. Under California law, the same crime is a misdemeanor—subject to a measly $100 fine. "We already have the Justice Department saying they're not going to interfere with practices that are in compliance with state law," says Paul Armentano, the deputy director of NORML, a pro-pot lobbying group. "That statement was made in reference to medical marijuana, but there's no reason to think the approach to recreational use would be any different."

The arguments against the passage of this kind of law are easy to list: that it glamorizes pot use, promotes a gateway drug, leads to abuse. And though studies show the health effects of marijuana are fairly mild in comparison to drugs like heroin, cocaine, or even alcohol, there are still risks to its consumption. Heavy pot users are more likely to be in car accidents; there have been some reports of it causing problems in respiration and fetal development. And, as the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Dr. Nora Volkow, put it recently, there are a number of medical professionals, and many parents, who worry that the drug's increased potency over the years has heightened the risk of addiction. "It's certainly true that this is not your grandfather's pot," says Mark Kleiman, a drug-policy expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. Opponents of the initiative, including California's Democratic Attorney General Jerry Brown, who is seeking the governorship, and San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, a Democrat who is running to replace Brown as attorney general, are gearing up for a fight. But Lee has pledged to use $1 million of his own funds from his various thriving businesses in Oaksterdam, and he has put together a highly organized group of allies, including former Clinton White House consultant Chris Lehane. It's also possible he'll tap multibillionaire investor George Soros and George Zimmer, the head of the Men's Wearhouse chain of clothing stores, who have donated to efforts to relax drug laws in the past.

The vote will be the second time in nearly 40 years that Californians have had the chance to decide the issue of legalization; the first one was Proposition 19 in 1972 (it failed). But much has changed since then, in both legal regulation and cultural attitudes. Thirteen states now allow medical marijuana, and a number of cities, such as Oakland and Seattle, have passed measures making prosecution of adult pot use the lowest law-enforcement priority. In April, an ABC/Washington Post survey showed that 46 percent of Americans support legalization measures, up from 22 percent in 1997. And in California, a recent Field Poll showed that 56 percent are already on board to legalize and tax the drug. This month, NORML launched a national ad campaign that will appear in the center of Times Square, declaring "Money Can Grow on Trees!" And everyone from the president to the most successful Olympic athlete in recent history (Michael Phelps) has talked about smoking it at one point or another. "This is a new world," says Robert MacCoun, a professor of law and public policy at University of California, Berkeley, and the coauthor of Drug War Heresies. "If you'd have asked me four years ago whether we'd be having this debate today, I can't say I would have predicted it." We'll see if California voters will agree.

Find this article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/235480

© 2010

Homeslice · 03-28-2010, 12:22 PM

Coulda sworn that whatever California does sucks, at least according to this site.

Apoc · 03-28-2010, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goof2

I agree. For people who like to smoke I have a feeling legalization will fall short of the utopia they imagine. I doubt most employers would give a shit but I suspect workers comp. insurance providers will ultimately be the ones who control the policies of employers.

Once something is legal, you cant fire someone for doing it. Companies cant make a policy saying a worker cant drink at home, nor would they be able to with Marijauna.

Company policies still have to be in line with the law, up on this side of the border at least.

If its a complete legalization, and not just decriminalization, then the governement will have to come up with a surefire way of finding out if someone is currently impaired. This creates a major problem, because im not sure theres an actual way to do that with pot. How do you tell how stoned someone is when they are out driving? You cant just leave it go, and say 'No, its fine, drive high all you want'. So im not sure how to deal with that.

Captain Morgan · 03-28-2010, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apoc

Once something is legal, you cant fire someone for doing it. Companies cant make a policy saying a worker cant drink at home, nor would they be able to with Marijauna.

Company policies still have to be in line with the law, up on this side of the border at least.

If its a complete legalization, and not just decriminalization, then the governement will have to come up with a surefire way of finding out if someone is currently impaired. This creates a major problem, because im not sure theres an actual way to do that with pot. How do you tell how stoned someone is when they are out driving? You cant just leave it go, and say 'No, its fine, drive high all you want'. So im not sure how to deal with that.

Which was sort of my point, but I didn't quite put it into words very well. When alcohol is in your system, it shows up on a test and you're considered impaired at certain levels. THC stays in your system for weeks, even if you only smoke it on one day. There is no real way (that I know of) to test for THC that was used a couple hours ago. Sure, you can test people's reactions, but some people are just slow no matter what. I would think some employers would simply have a "no THC" policy, regardless of legality, since there is no way to know how recently it was used. Some employers have a "no alcohol within x number hours prior to work" policy, but that's something that can be tested.

Apoc · 03-28-2010, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Morgan

Which was sort of my point, but I didn't quite put it into words very well. When alcohol is in your system, it shows up on a test and you're considered impaired at certain levels. THC stays in your system for weeks, even if you only smoke it on one day. There is no real way (that I know of) to test for THC that was used a couple hours ago. Sure, you can test people's reactions, but some people are just slow no matter what. I would think some employers would simply have a "no THC" policy, regardless of legality, since there is no way to know how recently it was used. Some employers have a "no alcohol within x number hours prior to work" policy, but that's something that can be tested.

But again, theres legal problems in prohibiting someone from doing something thats illegal on their own time. Thats what I meant when I said 'policy has to be in line with the law'...

You cant have a policy that dissalows people from doing legal things on their own time. If you give companies that power, whats next? No smoking cigs on your time? No riding motorcycles on your time?

Punishing someone for doing something legal. That opens up a whole new slew of lawsuits.

sherri_chickie · 03-28-2010, 08:17 PM

Companies can make rules that a person can not come to work if they have used alcohol ( or pot in this case) within a certain time frame of their shift. Pilots can't drink within 12 hours of a flight.

Captain Morgan · 03-28-2010, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apoc

You cant have a policy that dissalows people from doing legal things on their own time. If you give companies that power, whats next? No smoking cigs on your time? No riding motorcycles on your time?

Punishing someone for doing something legal. That opens up a whole new slew of lawsuits.

A lot of pro athletes are not allowed to ride motorcycles...

Apoc · 03-28-2010, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain Morgan

A lot of pro athletes are not allowed to ride motorcycles...

Thats different though, its an agreed upon contract, for a set time, for millions of dollars. Those athletes are willingly giving up that right. Very few people out there working are on signed individual contracts, thats a bit different.

Apoc · 03-28-2010, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sherri_chickie

Companies can make rules that a person can not come to work if they have used alcohol ( or pot in this case) within a certain time frame of their shift. Pilots can't drink within 12 hours of a flight.

We realize that. But twelve hours is resonable, and its for safety reasons. No pot 12 hours before work would be the same. But punshing someone who smoked a joint at home 3 weeks ago, when its legal? Its a different situation.

03-28-2010, 11:08 AM	#12
Kaneman AMA Supersport Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Odessa, TX Moto: 2000 Honda CBR1100XX Blackbird Posts: 4,931	Newsweek By Jessica Bennett \| Newsweek Web Exclusive Mar 26, 2010 In downtown Oakland, there is a nine-block area that locals call "Oaksterdam." Nestled among what was once a rash of vacant storefronts, it's a kind of pot utopia where everything moves just a little bit more slowly than the outside world. Here, where medical marijuana is legal, you'll find the Blue Sky Coffeeshop, a pot dispensary where getting an actual cup of Joe takes 20 minutes but picking up a sack of Purple Kush wrapped neatly in a brown sack takes about five. There's the Bulldog Cafe, a lounge with a not-so-secret back room where the haze-induced sounds of Dark Side of the Moon seep through thick smoke. There's a glass-blowing shop where bongs are the art of choice, and, of course, there's the fabled Oaksterdam University, a pot school operated by a man named Richard Lee. At 47, Lee is a kind of unofficial Buddha to the pro-pot movement. He has transformed a neighborhood and brought thriving new businesses to Oakland's downtown. Now, as the sponsor of an initiative that was approved this week by the California secretary of state—to appear on November's ballot—Lee hopes the rest of California will join Oakland as a kind of trailblazer in the fight for marijuana legalization. If approved by voters, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act would make California the first state in the nation to make pot legal, allowing Californians 21 and older to grow and possess up to an ounce. And in much the same way Oakland has embraced the medical-marijuana industry, the law would pave the way for local jurisdictions to tax and regulate the marijuana trade—a concept that, with the California state government billions in the red, even Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said should be up "for debate." "People are no longer outraged by the idea of legalization," former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown wrote in a recent op-ed. "And truth be told, there is just too much money to be made both by the people who grow marijuana and the cities and counties that would be able to tax it." Click here to find out more! Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron has estimated that the cost to the country of cannabis prohibition is $13 billion annually, with an additional $7 billion lost in potential tax revenue. With that in mind, Oakland voters became the first in the nation earlier this year to enact a special cannabis excise tax—$18 for every $1,000 grossed—that the city believes will generate up to $1 million this year. Lee hopes legalizing marijuana on a state level would do the same, only on a much larger scale. "The reality," he says, "is that we're creating jobs, improving the city, filling empty store spaces, and when people come [here] they can see that." California has allowed for medical-marijuana use since 1996. But "medical" is something of an open joke in the state, where anyone over age 18 with a doctor's note—easy to get for ailments like anxiety or cramps, if you're willing to pay—can obtain an ID card allowing access to any of the state's hundreds of dispensaries, or pot shops. "You can basically get a doctor's recommendation for anything," one dispensary worker told NEWSWEEK. Federal law, of course, still forbids the cultivation and possession of marijuana. It was banned, over the objections of the American Medical Association, in 1937. But in February of last year, Attorney General Eric Holder stunned critics when he announced that the Department of Justice would cease raiding medical-marijuana dispensaries (in California and elsewhere) that had been authorized under state law. Obama's newly appointed drug czar, R. Gil Kerlikowske, has since condemned legalization, in a speech to police chiefs in San Jose earlier this month. You'd think it might make California users nervous—except that the drug czar does not have the legal authority to enforce drug laws. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy did not return NEWSWEEK's calls for comment, but experts say the reality is that the federal government doesn't have the resources, or the desire, to go after each and every Californian who is operating within their local laws. Federal punishment for marijuana possession of up to an ounce is harsh: up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine. Under California law, the same crime is a misdemeanor—subject to a measly $100 fine. "We already have the Justice Department saying they're not going to interfere with practices that are in compliance with state law," says Paul Armentano, the deputy director of NORML, a pro-pot lobbying group. "That statement was made in reference to medical marijuana, but there's no reason to think the approach to recreational use would be any different." The arguments against the passage of this kind of law are easy to list: that it glamorizes pot use, promotes a gateway drug, leads to abuse. And though studies show the health effects of marijuana are fairly mild in comparison to drugs like heroin, cocaine, or even alcohol, there are still risks to its consumption. Heavy pot users are more likely to be in car accidents; there have been some reports of it causing problems in respiration and fetal development. And, as the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Dr. Nora Volkow, put it recently, there are a number of medical professionals, and many parents, who worry that the drug's increased potency over the years has heightened the risk of addiction. "It's certainly true that this is not your grandfather's pot," says Mark Kleiman, a drug-policy expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. Opponents of the initiative, including California's Democratic Attorney General Jerry Brown, who is seeking the governorship, and San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, a Democrat who is running to replace Brown as attorney general, are gearing up for a fight. But Lee has pledged to use $1 million of his own funds from his various thriving businesses in Oaksterdam, and he has put together a highly organized group of allies, including former Clinton White House consultant Chris Lehane. It's also possible he'll tap multibillionaire investor George Soros and George Zimmer, the head of the Men's Wearhouse chain of clothing stores, who have donated to efforts to relax drug laws in the past. The vote will be the second time in nearly 40 years that Californians have had the chance to decide the issue of legalization; the first one was Proposition 19 in 1972 (it failed). But much has changed since then, in both legal regulation and cultural attitudes. Thirteen states now allow medical marijuana, and a number of cities, such as Oakland and Seattle, have passed measures making prosecution of adult pot use the lowest law-enforcement priority. In April, an ABC/Washington Post survey showed that 46 percent of Americans support legalization measures, up from 22 percent in 1997. And in California, a recent Field Poll showed that 56 percent are already on board to legalize and tax the drug. This month, NORML launched a national ad campaign that will appear in the center of Times Square, declaring "Money Can Grow on Trees!" And everyone from the president to the most successful Olympic athlete in recent history (Michael Phelps) has talked about smoking it at one point or another. "This is a new world," says Robert MacCoun, a professor of law and public policy at University of California, Berkeley, and the coauthor of Drug War Heresies. "If you'd have asked me four years ago whether we'd be having this debate today, I can't say I would have predicted it." We'll see if California voters will agree. Find this article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/235480 © 2010 __________________ 1982 Honda XR80 - blown motor, 1993 Kawasaki ZX6D - sold, 2001 Suzuki Bandit 1200S - sold, 1984 Honda Magna - sold, 2001 Kawasaki ZRX1200R - blown motor, 2007 Suzuki DL1000 V-Strom - totalled, 2003 Yamaha FZ1 - sold, 1994 Honda Magna - sold, 2001 Honda CBR600F4i - sold, 1998 Suzuki DR350 - stolen, 1989 Honda Super Magna - sold, 2007 Yamaha Stratoliner, 2000 Honda CBR 1100XX Blackbird

03-28-2010, 12:22 PM	#13
Homeslice Elitist Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: SF Bay Area Moto: Gix 750 Posts: 11,351	Coulda sworn that whatever California does sucks, at least according to this site.

03-28-2010, 08:17 PM	#17
sherri_chickie WERA Yellow Plate Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Calgary Moto: Gs500F Posts: 683	Companies can make rules that a person can not come to work if they have used alcohol ( or pot in this case) within a certain time frame of their shift. Pilots can't drink within 12 hours of a flight.