What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is the GRASS really greener in California?

From SF Weekly:




Get Up, Stand Up: Ammiano Introduces Marijuana Legalization Bill to the Press

By Joe Eskenazi in Breaking News, Government
Monday, Feb. 23 2009 @ 11:21AM
<table class="image right" width="222" border="0"><tbody><tr><td>
</td></tr></tbody></table>Assemblyman Tom Ammiano's press conference this morning announcing his marijuana-legalization bill started punctually and stayed relentlessly on-point -- thereby denying a barb to every journalist present. Ammiano and the assembled speakers at San Francisco's State Building also spoke calmly and methodically, at one point being drowned out by a floor-waxer. The famously funny lawmaker reined himself in, presenting "The Marijuana Control, regulation and education act (AB 390)" as a simple matter of fiscal common sense. If you believe Ammiano and his straitlaced panel, it is. In a nutshell, here's what the bill would do: "Remove all penalties under California law for the cultivation, transportation, sale, purchase, possession, and use of marijuana, natural THC and paraphernalia by persons over the age of 21," "prohibit local and state law enforcement officials from enforcing federal marijuana laws (more on that later)" and establish a fee of $50 an ounce on marijuana on top of whatever pot will cost in a legal future -- which legalization advocates say is about half what it costs now. This tax rate figures at about a buck a joint. <table class="image left" width="222" border="0"><tbody><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td class="caption">Ammiano addresses the crowd</td></tr></tbody></table> Betty Yee, the chairwoman of the Board of Equalization, called Ammiano's proposal "a responsible measure on how to work out the regulatory framework of the legalization of marijuana." Her board's research indicated $1.3 billion in tax dollars could immediately head into the state's coffers from the fee on marijuana and the sales tax on medical pot. She figured the halving of marijuana's street price would cause a consumption increase of 40 percent, but the $50 per ounce levy would cut use by 11 percent. Steve Gutwillig, the state director of Drug Policy Alliance, noted that regulatory measures like Ammiano's bill can work: Teen smoking is way down, and he claims juveniles report it is easier to obtain marijuana than purchase smokes. "Marijuana arrests actually increased 18 percent in California in 2007 while all other arrests for controlled substances fell," he said. "This costs the state a billion dollars a year and taxpayers are footing the bill. Meanwhile, black marketers are laughing all the way to the bank." But the morning's most forceful speaker was Judge James P. Gray, who retired from his 25-year post on the Orange County Superior Court six weeks ago. With his gray suit, tasseled loafers, and conservative salt-and-pepper haircut, he looked like central casting's offering for "Republican candidate for higher office." Not surprisingly, Gray did run as a Republican for Congress against Bob Dornan and Loretta Sanchez and Senate vs. Bill Jones and Barbara Boxer. He now says he's "not a politician -- and I have the votes to prove it." "I served 25 years on the bench and I've seen the results of this attempted prohibition. It doesn't make marijuana less available, but it does clog the court system," he said. "The stronger we get on marijuana, the softer we get with regard to all other prosecutions because we have only so many resources. And we at this moment, have thousands of people in state prison right this minute who did nothing but smoke marijuana." Gray noted that anyone who tokes up while out on parole can immediately be sent right back to prison, at great cost to the taxpayers. "You and I as adults can go home tonight and drink 10 martinis. It's not a healthy thing to do but it's not illegal. Someone who smokes marijuana and goes to bed risks jail," continued the judge. "I don't smoke marijuana and if you legalized it today and gave it away at every street corner I'm still not going to. But the most harmful thing about marijuana today is prison - and also the most expensive. I take President Obama at his word - he said let's look at what's working and what is not, and jettison those programs that are not working." Obama also wrote in his autobiography that he did "a little blow" and Ammiano is hopeful the new president will look upon this issue differently than his predecessor (it warrants mentioning that those fighting against torture and rendition also hoped that - and were disappointed). <table class="image left" width="150" border="0"><tbody><tr><td></td></tr><tr><td class="caption">Judge James Gray notes that quaffing 10 martinis is perfectly legal</td></tr></tbody></table> Ammiano told SF Weekly that he doesn't expect his bill to pass "overnight," but doesn't see it as merely a "placeholder." As far as superseding federal law, he pointed to a similar bill recently introduced in Congress by Rep. Barney Frank; hopefully the law of the land will change. If not, Ammano hoped to exploit "fuzziness" regarding state and federal laws and the low priority this state has given to busting marijuana users entitled by Proposition 215. He predicted that, in these dire economic times, "support will fall all over" for his bill. Perhaps, perhaps not. But this much is certain: If Ammiano pulls this off, there's a place for him reserved on the Mount Rushmore of Pot Gods, right between Cheech, Chong, and Bob Marley.
 
hahaha sweet. This has about 1 in 999999999999 chance of passing. What a way to fight off the recession haha. :-D
 
While it may not have a chance in passing this term at least it's been proposed and that's the first step in any sane solution to the "drug war" of the last 50 years or so. The economic benefits are secondary (and enormous) but certainly nothing to quaff at if you look at the taxation data from The Netherlands, which is nowhere near as large as California (much less the whole US). IIRC there's something like 120 coffee shops and they supply 1 billion in taxes to the country every 2 years.
 
Yeah, I actually expect these things to start passing. The public tide of opinion is turning, and people are a bit weary of paying so many billions of dollars fighting a futile war on this benign drug - money that could be so much more useful in other areas. Already, medical marijuana laws are passing in virtually every state that puts it on the ballot - the public is ready for this.
 
I thought marijuana was illegal because congress made it illegal, so that a state legislation can have no effect on it anyway... somehow I feel that made me sound stupid. Also I don't want any one to smoke in the first place, I hate the smell of smoke and second hand smoke is still unhealthy!
 
I thought marijuana was illegal because congress made it illegal, so that a state legislation can have no effect on it anyway... somehow I feel that made me sound stupid. Also I don't want any one to smoke in the first place, I hate the smell of smoke and second hand smoke is still unhealthy!

technically your right, but California and the other states that have passed various levels of pro-pot laws have decided this is a states rights issue and ignoring the feds....and i applaud every state that has done it cause i do view it as a state issue and not a federal one........

edit to add: it is very easily argued that since there are no anti-drug laws in the constitution that the federal government has no jurisdiction over the war on drugs as it pertains inside an individual state, as in if the pot is grown and used in California and never leaves the state the Feds have no business trying to enforce laws on it UNLESS the state asks for it.....if the pot is grown in Cali, then shipped over the border to Arizona and the ppl of Arizona do not want that to happen, then there is just cause for the feds to step in as it deals with interstate transportation, but intrastate stuff is no business of the feds...........
 
technically your right, but California and the other states that have passed various levels of pro-pot laws have decided this is a states rights issue and ignoring the feds....and i applaud every state that has done it cause i do view it as a state issue and not a federal one........

edit to add: it is very easily argued that since there are no anti-drug laws in the constitution that the federal government has no jurisdiction over the war on drugs as it pertains inside an individual state, as in if the pot is grown and used in California and never leaves the state the Feds have no business trying to enforce laws on it UNLESS the state asks for it.....if the pot is grown in Cali, then shipped over the border to Arizona and the ppl of Arizona do not want that to happen, then there is just cause for the feds to step in as it deals with interstate transportation, but intrastate stuff is no business of the feds...........

That sounds more like the old version of the constitution... Witch let the states act more like separate countries then on big one. So I am 100% against this, states are overstepping their rights. If 2 states want it to be legal and 48 don't they shouldn't be able to do it. It would also make it easier for marijuana to be spread where it isn't legal.
 
its not legal other than medicinal purposes in all but a couple states......hell before it was legal for medicinal use in Montana it was easy to get...marijuana is called weed for a reason, when they made it illegal in the 1920's(i believe, maybe it was the 1930's) it was growing wild on river banks in DC and most states......it will grow wild even here....

in something like marijuana uses one state wanting it to be legal and making it legal does not affect the right of any other states around them that it isnt....

That sounds more like the old version of the constitution..

wasnt aware there is a new Constitution.....few things have been added but mostly they are clarifications of previous amendments.....
 
I am sorry but -- being from SF -- I cannot take anything seriously coming from a man who sounds like Carol Channing when he speaks (heh, heh, heh) . . .
 
  • #10
i hope it becomes legal soon. Honestly, if tobacco is legal, marijuana should be. Tobacco and all its tars and crap is far more dangerous IMO.

Swords, i have family in Holland and they say that each coffee shop sends more than 3,000,000 euro to their goverment in taxes and various costs. Crazy they can turn a profit huh? The goverment uses tons of "pot money" to fund everything from schools to hospitals. Literaly, pot drives the country. But the ironic part is most of the people there (including my extended family) frown apon the stuff. So a minority is funding the majority. :)
 
  • #11
Hahaha, lol Bigbella.
 
  • #12
i hope it becomes legal soon. Honestly, if tobacco is legal, marijuana should be. Tobacco and all its tars and crap is far more dangerous IMO.

for the record....pot has more tar and bad stuff than real tobacco(the heavily manufactured cigarettes from the major brands is different due to the additives though its pretty easy to find normal tobacco if you put forth a lil effort)......however smoking pot is far from the only way to ingest it.....vaporizers, pill form and eating it are all fairly safe from a health stand point.....vaporizing a lil less so but miles ahead of smoking it in a pipe, bong or joint......
 
  • #13
rattler,

Sorry i forgot to throw that in too. I was referring to the nasty cigs.
 
  • #14
It's funny, California loves their marijuana smokes but hates their cigarette smokers.

By the time marijuana is legalized, you wont be able to legally smoke anywhere anyway. (And that's only half joke.)
 
Last edited:
  • #15
It's funny, California loves their marijuana smokes but hates their cigarette smokers.

By the time marijuana is legalized, you wont be able to legally smoke anywhere anyway. (And that's only half joke.)

actually there is so much truth in that it aint terribly funny........
 
  • #16
I know where you're coming from Est. I've often thought that way about Cigar smokers VS Cigarette smokers. I think it breaks down like this:

Cigars=rich people

Cigs=poor people

in the old days it was
pot=migrant workers, black jazz musicians, poor hippies

now
pot=money, moviestars, michael phelps

I was surprised when the financial channel ran a special last year called "California's Cash Crop" and it pretty much came off positive for anti-prohibition and taxation. I think all the schedule 1 consciousness expanding drugs should all be legalized. These were given the stiffest penaties in the 60s as the Kennedy/Johnson & Nixon governments were trying to quell the youth uprisings and protests to the war. These substances are all completely benign in comparison to alcohol, speed, meth and coke which can all stop your heart and make you a violent paranoid after prolonged use or overdose. Weirdly these far more dangerous things carry less penalties than magic mushrooms, peyote, ayahuasca/yage none of which will stop your heart or kill you in any easily ingestible amounts and have been used for millenia by native peoples as "healing" sacraments.

My one sway on the "hard" or "overdosable" drugs is Heroin. As I'm well acquainted with a lot of Nam vets (my dads old pals) most of whom who came back heroin addicts. I think junkies should be given a legal script for a maintained dose so they can go on about living their life, working, etc. If they want to stay on the junk let them have access to buy clean needles and safe proper dosages that have been worked out with their doctor. The incidents of ODs would drop considerably at least amongst experienced junkies. Or help them to quit if they wanna kick, maybe every filled script would come with a booklet about quitting. The real danger of heroin is that someone get's used to some cut junk and then getting something of a much higher quality and then it's the golden lotus pad into paradise for you. I know of at least two of these old guys who have nodded out and never came back. My dad's ex-roommate from back in the day was found by the fire dept face down by the lake and revived before he headed over into the western lands. These incidents all took place when their normal junk was cut off and they got something new and they shot the same dose. A legal standardized dose obtained on a pharmacy script would never have this happen.

On the plain old Cig side of things MN just made a law you get a $100 fine if they pull you over while you're smoking and there's a kid in the car (this is the same fine as being caught with an ounce of pot).

They didn't say what the fine would be if you were driving with kids in the car, while tying on, smoking a joint, snorting a line and drinking a Chardonay... lol! :D
 
  • #17
actually there isnt a whole lot wrong with cocaine.....the problems mainly come with some of the substances used to cut it to make more money or converting it into crack cocaine.......pure coke, taken in moderation, is prolly safer than alcohol.......

and to put things in perspective on issues between legal and illegal drugs, i dont remember about 2 months of my life due to a sleeping pill given to me by a doctor......that pill prevented my short term memory from converting to long term memory......and i didnt notice it happening other than im told i argued a whole lot with ppl about things they told me that i swore they never did......hell ive lost time due to drinking, but never more than an hour or so.........
 
  • #18
Yes those synthetic prescription drugs are something else. I don't take any prescriptions myself and I avoid docs like the plague! My mother was prescribed the Levaquin anti-biotic for a bad cold and 12 hours after one dose she acted as if she had alzheimer's or something and this lasted for almost two weeks. I had to take care of her during this time making sure she tested her blood sugar and took her heart meds. She just sat there like a zombie with nobody home. When I looked it up online to find out side effects there were so many cases against the makers lawyers weren't taking on new Levaquin cases. She said she didn't recall any of the two weeks. Contrast this with me being given a Vicodin (sp?) script for an abscessed tooth and even with 3 times the dose I didn't feel any relief with it at all. Six Ibuprofen was better. The only thing that really worked was when they shot my face up with a lot of Novocaine in the ER.

I haven't had a drink in about a dozen years, anything that makes me sick both while I'm drinking it and after just isn't for me. I used to love it when I was a hoodlum teenager but it lost it's luster when I got to about 21 or so and got indigestion every time I took a swallow of any sort of alcohol. That does make it very easy to stop swallowing it! IIRC my last drinks ever were a about a half dozen rum & pepsis at a Misfits concert in 1996 or 1997.
 
  • #19
Rattler and Ant:
The only test for whether Congress can regulate an activity is whether it affects interstate commerce. Even if the particular item being regulated (i.e. an MJ plant) never leaves the state, it can still affect interstate commerce. The case where this was decided held that Congress could regulate a farmer growing tomatoes for his own consumption because it affected the price of tomatoes on the market. They would find the same here. I'm not saying this is good or bad, that's just the way it is.

As for my own opinions, I think this is far past due, and will happen eventually. It may not be now, but as someone pointed out, the tide is turning, and eventually even the feds will get on board and change the law. Who knows how long.
 
  • #20
but there is no official market for MJ if it is illegal.....Cali making it legal creates the market....the market is officially only with in the state of Cali....feds have no bearing in the matter at all.....
 
Back
Top