The Real Reason The Federal Government Is Coming Around On Marijuana Legalization

[Eighths-n-Aces]

because weed is finally getting mainstream and they can't stop it

 

[bigshrimp]

Damn that picture showed me - its funny all you can do is label me a liberal.

I guess thats all you can do when your arguments can't stand by themselves.

 

[Jhhnn]

While I agree with most of what you post here from time to time Jhhnn, there is no evidence -- absolutely ZERO evidence -- that "existing MMJ businesses" had any effect on the outcome of the vote for Prop 19, pro or contra. There is no evidence that it was "poorly conceptualized", either.

The only effect that any canna business measurably had was Oaksterdam which financed the signature gathering campaign. The End. The rest is smoke and light.

The grim reality is that Prop 19 was lost because those who were middle-aged parents of teens voted against legalization when victory appeared to be imminent. They saw the reality of legalization and they blinked. They did so even though they personally do not have a problem with cannabis and they smoked it when they were younger, too. Their votes were illogical, hypocritical and difficult to parse out on a rational basis -- but that's because those parents voted out of emotion and fear, not reason.


"Not Your Father's Pot"

In my opinion, a significant element in this voting decision is the insidious allegation that today's pot is not the pot of the 60s, 70s and 80s. It is a brilliant piece of propaganda by the prohibitionists that drives a wedge between the older voter's personal experience and their confidence that they are well familiar with today's cannabis. In my view, the "Not Your Father's Pot" argument needs to be met head on and relentlessly treated as another myth. Because make no mistake, it is one of the best political arguments that the prohibitionists have.

These are important lessons to learn and, respectfully, I don't think you learned them. It was never about the details of what was in Prop 19 for the broad mass of voters.

Those middle-aged voters in Cali who voted against their own personal experience with pot didn't go away. They are still likely to vote the same way next time, too. This is a HUGE problem for the legalization movement and nobody knows how to address it. Mostly, people "address it" by ignoring the statistics and demographics and pretending that what happened, didn't and somehow, next time it will all be better.

If next time is 10-12 years from now, maybe. By then, enough of the hardcore prohibitionist seniors will be dead that it might have a chance. Otherwise, unless the rules of the road are fundamentally altered, the same result at the ballot box is likely.

That's not the read a lot of sources have taken on it, at all.

http://www.laweekly.com/2010-11-04/...ted-election-results-legalize-marijuana/full/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-bloom/post_1229_b_780511.html

Vested interests, such as Northern California growers and medical-dispensary owners, joined the internal opposition. For them, the system is currently working, so why change it? Without 100% support from California's marijuana smokers and cultivators, Prop 19 didn't stand a chance.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/california-prop-19

Thankfully, the campaign here in Colorado was better organized, better timed, & striking a better balance between vested interests and personal freedom, getting all the Pro- MJ forces onboard.

We now have A64, which is nearly impossible for Anti- forces to reverse. That's the great thing about constitutional amendments- they can't be legislated away.

 

[fatigues]

That's not the read a lot of sources have taken on it, at all.

http://www.laweekly.com/2010-11-04/...ted-election-results-legalize-marijuana/full/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-bloom/post_1229_b_780511.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/california-prop-19

In a word? Bullshit.

Read the link in my sig. Unlike these guys -- I have numbers, data , graphs and exit polling.

They are wrong. Dead wrong.

The one Huffington Post article you do need to read is Ryan Grim's. His is not noted or mentioned in those links above. I do link to it in my prop 19 Post-mortem though.

 

[Hydrosun]

Your thread is closed, but a couple of years hind sight and we can see CO and WA voted differently than CA and OR did on legalization bills. Perhaps an enlightenment happened in a couple of years or cannabis legalization was voted up or down by the same demographic in the four states (CA WA CO OR) and there were two passes and two fails.

I submit that the fails were because of poorly written bills. If the CA and OR propositions were more like the CO constitutional amendment they wouldn't have failed IMO.

 

[fatigues]

Your thread is closed, but a couple of years hind sight and we can see CO and WA voted differently than CA and OR did on legalization bills. Perhaps an enlightenment happened in a couple of years or cannabis legalization was voted up or down by the same demographic in the four states (CA WA CO OR) and there were two passes and two fails.

I submit that the fails were because of poorly written bills. If the CA and OR propositions were more like the CO constitutional amendment they wouldn't have failed IMO.

The biggest issue was one of timing. Non-presidential election years skews to older, more conservative voters. NORML, MPP and DPA tried to persuade Richard Lee to hold off until 2012 [Edited to correct 2014] but he was having none of it.

My tolerance for amateur politicians is even lower than it is for amateur politics. They were right and Lee was dead wrong. But, Lee was the one writing the cheque -- so Lee got his way.

The real problem wasn't those in the cannabusiness and it sure as hell wasn't those in the Emerald Triangle, either. Prop 19 was a ballot initiative that got more interest -- and votes -- than did either the Governor or US Senator that year. Engagement was extremely high.

But the broad mass of voters don't give a shit what's in - or isn't in - a given initiative. For Mom and Dad voter - It's a vote for legalization; a binary proposition - yes or no.

The problem was L.A. and how its middle aged voters chose to vote. And they were strongly against legalization with a 13% gap preferring "no". Unlike in WA or OR, those voters in LA County had experience with legal weed. In Los Angeles nearly ~1,200 dispensaries had opened in the city in the two years prior to the vote on Prop 19.

And it turns out that a clear majority of those voters weren't very happy about that, either. They didn't want to see more -- they wanted to see less. That's not a message that cannabis activists want to hear.

The problem with my message and analysis is that if it is right, it is difficult to ignore. You can't just shrug it off, say you'll write it differently next time, and it will all turn out in the end.

And that's the problem: my analysis does not extend false hope in the short term. It does work in the long term though.

Cannabis activists are an impatient lot -- and they are by nature highly individualistic and emotionally invested in the policy. As a result they are fractured and disunited. Getting them to agree on anything is like herding cats.

Put the Libertarians in the same room as the Liberals and it takes all of 10 minutes before the "fuck-yous" start. This thread is a classic example of it.

 

[Hydrosun]

Correct me if I am wrong, but CA prop 19 failed in 2010 an off year election, which is the same as 2014 an off year election. Perhaps you meant 2012.

In 2012 Oregon failed and WA and CO passed. I don't doubt your demographic split. But CO had experience with dispensaries and it voted to legalize. OR and WA both have had a culture of cannabis for many decades and WA passed while OR failed.

I agree with your analysis of herding cats and libertarian's penchant for telling rule makers to fuck off

All that being said legalization is spreading AND there has been ZERO harm to the children in WA and CO. The house of cards that is prohibition can not stand.

 

[Grass Lands]

Follow the money trail, they now understand they can make a shitload more money by taxing, regulating and creating a cannabis industry then they can to jail the likes of us.

The gov could give two shits about us as humans, they see the revenue.

 

[Ga farmer]

Damn that picture showed me - its funny all you can do is label me a liberal.

I guess thats all you can do when your arguments can't stand by themselves.

I don't argue with fools it only brings me down to their level!!

 

[HUGE]

But they can be legislated into something horrible. Look at what just happened to us in nevada. Constitution says cannabis plant. Original program was ran through department of agriculture, only legal means was self cultivation for 10 years. Then one day they write sb374 tjat cancells all home growing. Because as mark hutchison puts it " the intent of the constitutional ammendment was refering to the medicinal properties of the plant not the actual plant" even though it explicitly states tjat the plant of the genus cannabis shall be free from seisure". These fucking pricks can do whatever they want. They make it up as they go. As carl rove said. "You in the reality based community are busy studying one reality while we are busy creating another"

That's not the read a lot of sources have taken on it, at all.

http://www.laweekly.com/2010-11-04/...ted-election-results-legalize-marijuana/full/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-bloom/post_1229_b_780511.html



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/california-prop-19

Thankfully, the campaign here in Colorado was better organized, better timed, & striking a better balance between vested interests and personal freedom, getting all the Pro- MJ forces onboard.

We now have A64, which is nearly impossible for Anti- forces to reverse. That's the great thing about constitutional amendments- they can't be legislated away.

 

[OrganicBuds]

Sorry, i cant take somebody who describes the US political/economic system as "Marxist" seriously.

Why? Truth hits too hard? Explain Obama's policy's then would you?

"the world must not only be interpreted, it must be transformed." Karl Marx

 

[soil margin]

The Feds are going to do what they want. If they are keeping their hands off of CO and WA, it has nothing to do with the 10th amendment.

The federal government is already experiencing unprecedented budget deficits. They definitely don't have the resources to start an anti-cannabis campaign across multiple states.

 

[Jhhnn]

In a word? Bullshit.

Read the link in my sig. Unlike these guys -- I have numbers, data , graphs and exit polling.

They are wrong. Dead wrong.

The one Huffington Post article you do need to read is Ryan Grim's. His is not noted or mentioned in those links above. I do link to it in my prop 19 Post-mortem though.

I understnd what you're saying, but my original point still stands, that prop 19 was poorly conceptualized, on a lot of levels.

Not a presidential election year.

Lack of concessions to MMJ interests led to lack of support.

Vague wording leaves too much leeway for local vs state control, which plays right into the issues in LA.

An unfortunately smart & effective campaign from Anti-MJ forces.

Very recent decrim set parents at ease about their own kids going down.

The wrong pitch from Pro- MJ forces. In Colorado, a big part of it was the tax revenue angle coupled with reduced govt expenditures for pot prosecutions.

I'd really hate to think that Colorado is actually more liberal, more progressive than California, which is what I'd need to believe to take your argument as the whole truth. I just think that A64 was better formulated, better timed & more effectively presented than prop 19.

That, or we just got lucky.

 

[bigshrimp]

Why? Truth hits too hard? Explain Obama's policy's then would you?

"the world must not only be interpreted, it must be transformed." Karl Marx

If you asked a Marxist about obama, they would say he is the errand boy of a capitalist elite. Making minor adjustments in policy in order to maintain the status quo and ensure efficient exploitation of the working class.

Marxists reject electoral politics typicaly ,seeing them as inherently corruptive.

I guess if a Marxist were possibly elected, they would be doing thingslike
seizing industry, organizing alternative political structures, redistributing the wealth of the top 1%, dissolving the US constitution, you know things that would actually change the balance of power from capitalist to proletariat.

But then again what billionaire or corporate interest is going to give money for that.

The politics on this forum are a joke.

 

[bigshrimp]

Oh shit am i a liberal or a commie - don't hurt yourselves trying to figure out what to label me.

Or wait do you even know the difference?

 

[Hydrosun]

Oh shit am i a liberal or a commie - don't hurt yourselves trying to figure out what to label me.

Or wait do you even know the difference?

I think you are part of the big under the bridge party. The Trolls.

 

[OrganicBuds]

If you asked a Marxist about obama, they would say he is the errand boy of a capitalist elite. Making minor adjustments in policy in order to maintain the status quo and ensure efficient exploitation of the working class.

Marxists reject electoral politics typicaly ,seeing them as inherently corruptive.

I guess if a Marxist were possibly elected, they would be doing thingslike
seizing industry, organizing alternative political structures, redistributing the wealth of the top 1%, dissolving the US constitution, you know things that would actually change the balance of power from capitalist to proletariat.

But then again what billionaire or corporate interest is going to give money for that.

The politics on this forum are a joke.

You forget that America has to be transformed before any large scale actions are to take place. I guess you would say that Obama is a progressive Marxists. If you don't think "seizing industry, organizing alternative political structures, redistributing the wealth of the top 1%, dissolving the US constitution, isn't already taking place then you should open your eyes. I could go on for hours, take it to PM's?

 

[Eighths-n-Aces]

I could go on for hours

please don't

 

[Weird]

And you can bet that anyone who makes and sells marijuana outside their system will still be considered a criminal.

i made huge arguments here years ago that if it goes legal we will still criminals because the skew of corporate America on American law and the massive amount of capital at stake and available to profiteers

I only say it because boy did everyone get on my dick for being leery of legalization

 

[Hydrosun]

i made huge arguments here years ago that if it goes legal we will still criminals because the skew of corporate America on American law and the massive amount of capital at stake and available to profiteers

I only say it because boy did everyone get on my dick for being leery of legalization

We should be leery of anything politicians do, however I am fine with being a criminal for the rest of my life if cultivating cannabis is a crime.

The good news is that the vast majority of Merikans don't grow or distribute so legalization will keep them out of cages. A great first step in my opinion.