The Regulate Marijuana Like Wine Act of 2012
- Thread starter Thread starter Herborizer
- Start date Start date
I was actually thinking about this a bunch lately. Cannabis is a MUCH safer recreational alternative to booze. I dont see that argument being made enough in my opinion.
been there done that, drank a shit ton and made poor choices, can't say the same for when I was high as a kite.
if highschool kids toked every weekend instead of binge drink at their friends, you'd hear a lot less stories about how the star jock wrapped his car around a tree and killed his prom date etc etc.
I get how parents want their kids to not drink and do drugs, but guess what, they're going to. Might as well have a safer (in every way shape and form) alternative for them.
Make them take the 'Prescribed' drugs that the Doctor gives their kid! (Prozac, Adderal, Perc, ect...)
Long time since I didn't have rights, don't know what they're shoving down kids' throats these days.
I think the HRO aspect is pretty strange. Who is going to spend $200 and devote a minimum of 2 days to training, plus $100 licensing fee, for a job that is unpaid? It must be for the privilege of "compelling persons to comply with this Act by informing persons of compliance requirements or perceived violations, and reporting actual uncorrected violations to law enforcement for follow-up action".
Private Joker
Member
If this is true, I will vote yes, same as I did for prop 19. Everyone needs to get off their asses and vote.
medicalgreen
Member
It's like saying "you are not making apple pie" because you are using peaches to make peach pie.
They are two completely different things. We cannot change Federal Laws with the initiative process in the states. But we can change state laws in each state, then the feds have to eventually go along with it, because the government is supposed to represent the people.
It's the least and the best we can so, here in California.
you're right, fed legalization and this initiative is apples and oranges (or peaches 
).
I guess my point was that fed trumps state. State jurisdiction ends at the state line, federal jurisdiction is nation wide.
when you have two different laws, which one do you follow? Its usually not up to the defendant, I'll tell ya that much.
another way I kinda think about it is like this; can you imagine wal mart or marlboro actually starting construction to produce cannabis if this bill passes, yet nothing changing federally?
Would the people who are going to dump millions into the industry and promote job growth "risk it"?
its a step in the right direction, we just need a wholeeee lot more steps before you're gonna be able to go on down to 7/11 and pick up a pack of joints and freely smoke them on the walk back home.
).I guess my point was that fed trumps state. State jurisdiction ends at the state line, federal jurisdiction is nation wide.
when you have two different laws, which one do you follow? Its usually not up to the defendant, I'll tell ya that much.
another way I kinda think about it is like this; can you imagine wal mart or marlboro actually starting construction to produce cannabis if this bill passes, yet nothing changing federally?
Would the people who are going to dump millions into the industry and promote job growth "risk it"?
its a step in the right direction, we just need a wholeeee lot more steps before you're gonna be able to go on down to 7/11 and pick up a pack of joints and freely smoke them on the walk back home.
^Fed does not really Trump state. There is such a thing as states rights. the state has the right to tell the federal government to fuck off.
medicalgreen
Member
And I do believe this is the direction we are going. A standoff between California and the feds, and then, all states will follow California's lead as we start growing HEMP and Medicine and Paper and Plastic and Fiber and Fuel, and we show em how the a real revolution is done!
ijim
Member
Finally someone has come up with a bill that makes sense. Now the rest of the country will look to California to do what is right. Put your in fighting away for at least a year and take another step into the future of Cannabis in our country. I think most of us can squeeze by on consuming 4 ounces a week. If there are two adults in the home then 50 flowering plants and 24 pounds a year. Production will be able to move from secret indoor locations to greenhouses where quality wont be reduced but the strain on natural resources will be reduced and Cannabis will be green again. Pun intended. Sure some will have to wake up an go to work each day. 'If they can find jobs' Because the value of Cannabis will decrease significantly. But Cannabis can only be considered open to all if all can afford it.
ijim
Member
The feds will threaten the state with reduction in law enforcement money. But does California really need more swat teams and goon squads? What this will open up is the commercial cultivation and processing of Cannabis. It will allow Californians to legally lobby federal representatives to open markets in their states for California's agricultural products. The future of Cannabis in our country is in the hands of Californians.
T
Tripp Inmiasov
There can never be state reform of cannabis laws unless the federal prohibition is repealed.
There can never be federal reform of cannabis laws unless the voting majority understands the truth behind campaign contributions.
The "invisible hand" of the two major political parties is the money that is feeding corruption at all levels of government.
For those who can read between the lines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_alcohol_fuel
The above is a timeline of events related to the use and control of alcohol. Compare that with the regulation of cannabis and you begin to see how money influences federal and state law in order to control the population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States
The control of all forms of media by wealthy business moguls maintains a population of misinformed puppets who think they can elect a government official who will do their bidding.
There can never be federal reform of cannabis laws unless the voting majority understands the truth behind campaign contributions.
The "invisible hand" of the two major political parties is the money that is feeding corruption at all levels of government.
For those who can read between the lines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_alcohol_fuel
The above is a timeline of events related to the use and control of alcohol. Compare that with the regulation of cannabis and you begin to see how money influences federal and state law in order to control the population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States
The control of all forms of media by wealthy business moguls maintains a population of misinformed puppets who think they can elect a government official who will do their bidding.
G
guest86120975
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Legalization should not be attempted yet. Before you jump on me, listen. I've been trying to get someone, anyone to listen to me. I want marijuana to be legal, but we are really unlikely to get the votes needed next year again. The best bet is to vote on a bill which mandates a maximum penalty for any non-violent offense to 6 months in jail (a misdemeanor). Here is some legislation going on right now, but this would still give the DA's a choice of whether to charge a felony or misdemeanor:
http://www.baycitizen.org/marijuana/story/bill-could-make-growing-pot-misdemeanor/#comments
The problem w/ this bill though, is it gives the DA a *choice* of whether to still charge a felony. The only felony that would remain under my proposal is sales to minors and growing where you don't have permission or causing environmental damage.
The proposal I make will bring about the change we seek, but in a more fluid way...
The most appropriate vote at this time is to mandate a maximum sentence of 6 months in jail for any non violent MJ offense. The chances of it passing are drastically higher. But, keep on shooting for the stars and get nothing. The word "legalization" is too scary at the moment.
http://www.baycitizen.org/marijuana/story/bill-could-make-growing-pot-misdemeanor/#comments
The problem w/ this bill though, is it gives the DA a *choice* of whether to still charge a felony. The only felony that would remain under my proposal is sales to minors and growing where you don't have permission or causing environmental damage.
The proposal I make will bring about the change we seek, but in a more fluid way...
The most appropriate vote at this time is to mandate a maximum sentence of 6 months in jail for any non violent MJ offense. The chances of it passing are drastically higher. But, keep on shooting for the stars and get nothing. The word "legalization" is too scary at the moment.
I'd say if you could get it rescheduled down to Schedule III you have the quickest route to "legal".
"Schedule III
(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II. (heroin(I), cocaine(II) etc etc. oxy's(II), PCP(II)
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence."
you would bypass a couple years worth of BS "get your foot in the door" type of legislation and open the door for a legalized and regulated market for the product.
again I know this is apples and peaches
, but theres no way the Feds are gonna walk away from low hanging fruit that safeguards their paychecks. (all this talk of fruit has me hungry now!)
"Schedule III
(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II. (heroin(I), cocaine(II) etc etc. oxy's(II), PCP(II)
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence."
you would bypass a couple years worth of BS "get your foot in the door" type of legislation and open the door for a legalized and regulated market for the product.
again I know this is apples and peaches
, but theres no way the Feds are gonna walk away from low hanging fruit that safeguards their paychecks. (all this talk of fruit has me hungry now!)
T
Tripp Inmiasov
maybe4sure, federal elected representatives for congress and senate, and federally appointed judges, overstep their constitutional authority when they attempt to mandate moral behavior. There is no way for federal authorities to enforce morality laws. The constitution never allowed for it and it is impossible to enforce it at a federal level.
The use of cannabis does not harm an individual or those in proximity to the user. The same cannot be said for alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs which are legal.
The US federal government has been a tool of organized crime for over a century. It is difficult to differentiate between large business concerns and organized crime.
The use of cannabis does not harm an individual or those in proximity to the user. The same cannot be said for alcohol, tobacco and prescription drugs which are legal.
The US federal government has been a tool of organized crime for over a century. It is difficult to differentiate between large business concerns and organized crime.
G
guest86120975
I know, right... and again, I am 100% for legalization. But you're both talking about direct federal actions there, and good luck w/ that. I will reiterate that taking action at the state level IS taking action at the federal level........read about alcohol prohibition repeal and how it took place. The feds will never take action until the states tip the scale, and California will never legalize until the scale is tipped a little more.
Think about it this way, instead of direct legalization, just sabotage prohibition instead-----meaning? if every offense was a misdemeanor, how could they justify anymore spending alllll that state money rounding up people? It's all about tipping the scales. All about the scales.
Again, keep in mind...we would need an additional 5% to win legalization. A tall order. Then, you're going to have the federal gov't challenging the new law and tying it up in court for potentially years. You know how the bastards are, right? Going against the will of the people whenever it suits their pathetic little schemes?
Finally, think about how much more likely it would be to pass the "sabotage prohibition act of 2012"? You instantly win over all the people who are scared of the word legalize... there are many more who think that 6 months is a reasonable sentence for a marijuana offense who wouldn't be for outright legalization.
Think about it this way, instead of direct legalization, just sabotage prohibition instead-----meaning? if every offense was a misdemeanor, how could they justify anymore spending alllll that state money rounding up people? It's all about tipping the scales. All about the scales.
Again, keep in mind...we would need an additional 5% to win legalization. A tall order. Then, you're going to have the federal gov't challenging the new law and tying it up in court for potentially years. You know how the bastards are, right? Going against the will of the people whenever it suits their pathetic little schemes?
Finally, think about how much more likely it would be to pass the "sabotage prohibition act of 2012"? You instantly win over all the people who are scared of the word legalize... there are many more who think that 6 months is a reasonable sentence for a marijuana offense who wouldn't be for outright legalization.
You do make a good point. Reduce the penalties to minimums and you take away the DAs incentives to prosecute.
medicalgreen
Member
I find such absolutism to be self defeating.
Your statements lead no possibility for anything. You are not helping by pointing out what you are stating.
Should we listen and heed your words, we'll be living in hell with no chance for change.
I prefer not to espouse such absolutes, since they are in fact, only half-truths.
You do not count the power of the human spirit in the equation.
T
Tripp Inmiasov
I find such absolutism to be self defeating.
Your statements lead no possibility for anything. You are not helping by pointing out what you are stating.
Should we listen and heed your words, we'll be living in hell with no chance for change.
I prefer not to espouse such absolutes, since they are in fact, only half-truths.
You do not count the power of the human spirit in the equation.
Your post is a perfect example of what I was attempting to explain.
Good one!
