Why Hello Reform! Californians Poised To Legalize Marijuana

Signaling a move that the Golden State is about to turn green, Debra Bowen, California's Secretary of State, has validated a proposed initiative to legalize the recreational use and sale of marijuana. The initiative will appear on the November ballot and Californian voters will be able to decide whether or not to be the first state to legalize marijuana, a currently federally restricted drug. If passed, adults 21 and older may legally possess up to one ounce and may also grow it at home if they so choose. State and local governments would be able to permit legal sales, generating badly needed tax revenues while saving time and money by removing the cost criminalization currently places on the criminal justice system.

While the ballot initiative does have it's opponents, they are unlikely to mount a successful campaign against it's passage. Recent polls in California show a 56% plurality in favor of this type of legislation, the national average for supporting legalization currently stands at 44%. If passed, this state law would further challenge the federal prohibition on its possession and use. Many states, including California, already have laws permitting the legal sale and possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes and other states are also considering the passage of similar laws. It remains to be seen what the overall impact of such a sweeping change in attitudes towards the recreational use of marijuana might be, but it would certainly take a large chunk out of the criminal cartels involved in it's illegal trade. If passed, it could be a rare first step (well, second after the med laws) to approaching sound reforms in the nations drug policies and enforcement. Let's not forget the old adage when it comes to groundbreaking political changes, as goes California, so goes the... Um... Uh... Whoa! What were we talking about again?

That's awesome! (And I don't even smoke it.)

great now california will be too busy getting high to balance out texas on the political landscape.....



yes, I am joking.



It will be interesting to see what effect this will have in the government, I am sure it will trigger an initiative in congress by the right.

well, marijuana doesnt have man on man relations so I think that somehow makes it less evil in the eyes of the lord.

I do think this might actually pass as from what I have been told by my friends living in california there are plenty of communities in the rural areas that have no problem with marijuana.

Pot growers say no to legalization

Kind of funny that the people who have fought to stop being harrassed, arrested and prosecuted for doing something illegal(ish), are bitching that making it legal are complaining about it.

Presumably the complainers are those growing it legally - right? I mean, the article seems to imply it's the illegal growers, but they can't honestly be making the case that leaving it illegal is helping the state's economy. What money is the state getting from that?

Anyway, boy, it would sure be nice if this happened. I still have my doubts.

The biggest problem with be law enforcement. Their groups are already in the press opposing it, saying it will make their jobs more difficult, etc.

Yeah, this is one hop-head that would like to see civil rights equality before I can toke up on my back porch.

...but, shit, does that sound nice.

Make it more difficult how? I suppose it would be hard to track who would be selling to minors, but possession by minors and sale from legitimate businesses should be no different than alcohol. My guess is they will probably require any businesses selling it to have a similar license to a liquor license. Since growing your own would be legal, I'm also guessing it would be similar to making your own wine or growing your own vegetables - you can give it away to neighbors and friends, but selling without a proper permit would be heavily frowned upon.

The growers in Humbolt will be fine. They'll continue to sell to their middlemen, who will distribute to the shops like they currently do, or will find ways to sell it out of state.

Meh. It would basically be a done deal if the cops were okay with it. That the cops oppose it makes sense, and is unlikely to sway too many votes on this issue, I would think.

The logic escapes me, too. Hardcore MJ trafficking is done by people that aren't high and have weapons to back up their illegal trade. How is more people smoking more weed--legally--something that will make more difficult the job of the police? Their suspect will either be sitting on a couch watching TV, or in a car in a parking lot getting confused.

...that last bit of reasoning should taste plenty salty to everybody.

Ah, there is the rub - driving under the influence. How do you check at a roadside stop? Throw a bag of Doritos on the ground and see if they start to cry or dive for it?

That's great for San Francisco, but people can still lose their homes and cars in my state, so I'm pretty keen and pretty clear on what this legislation is doing.

Well, I think they are lying out of their ass. More illegal drugs means more jobs and job security.

More jobs means more powerful union, etc.

On the face of it, I agree. But I would assume that smoking restricitons apply universally, regardless of what it is you're smoking.

What I read from those two pieces of legislation:
"Don't smoke near bus stops" Translation: You don't have the right to jeapordize the health of others.
"You can grow weed at home." Translation: What you do in the private is your business.
Those two ideas don't seem diametrically oposed.

The question is: Would health insurance premiums for pot smokers go up just like they would for people who smoke cigarettes?

-ReAct
"Has a mondo bad case of the munchies."

Not contradictory at all. I think pot should be legal, but I would also want the same restrictions that are being imposed on tobacco.

It's about your own right to do whatever you want to your body vs. my right to not be an unwilling participant in someone else's drug use.

Pot and cigarettes should both be legal. It should not be legal to smoke either of them in an enclosed public space, unless everyone in the room has given their consent.

actually a number of former law enforcement officials have gotten behind the measure to legalize (and tax) it. Their logic is that the current enforcement policy has only fueled the demand and created violent cartels and gangs and that this move would take away some of that while at the same time raising revenue.
it was brought up on NPR just a while ago.

the argument put forward by cops against the measure were basically "why would we want yet another legal mind altering substance on the market?" which is ridiculous. but most of the cops that I know are fairly evenly split on the idea but with most leaning towards legalization just because they think that on the small end it's a waste of their time to be hassling college kids and hippies and on the larger end it's given rise to some of the most violent cartels law enforcement has ever had to deal with.
as far as the job security issue. there's always enough crime to go around. Cops rarely have a slow day.

Well that's easy, you pass it on the left hand side... OK, jokes aside, I think it's going to pass because it's a popular idea. We already have had medical marijuana for years and it just makes sense. Once the voters hear the law enforcement officials who will actually be campaigning for it's passage I think it will be a shoe in.

Also, I'm pretty sure that there are demographic differences between people who oppose gay marriage and oppose the use of marijuana. I don't think they are comparable.

There is so much unintentional hilarity in this article.

You know, I've seen Reefer Madness a bunch of times, I just never suspected there were people who actually believed it.

Also, California, really not in a position to moralize, seeing as how you've been ordered to lower your prison population by over a quarter since conditions bought on by overcrowding now constitute an Eighth Amendment violation of prisoners' rights. Seriously, that ground you're standing on? Neither moral nor high, just give it up & do what you have to do.

In all seriousness, though, another quote from the same article (1st one, not the 2nd) is a bit more disturbing:

Which doesn't say anything about what the administration would actually do should the law pass, but does raise some questions.

My guess is their current stance: let CA deal with the pot in CA, and continue to try and arrest those distributing across state lines.

That is one of the big problems. Once they have a safe, easily portable, and reliable test for pot, these legalization bills will start passing. States will push them through based on the huge amount of revenue that they will have coming in. Not to mention the taxes gained.

They do, they've been using the roadside tests in Australia for a while now. It's a saliva swab test and takes about 5mins, the test picks up MDMA, methamphetamine and THC.

They do, they've been using the roadside tests in Australia for a while now. It's a saliva swab test and takes about 5mins, the test picks up MDMA, methamphetamine and THC.

Does that pick up the THC that stays in your system long after you're no longer high?

That's my hope but its too soon to say what the administration would theoretically do if this passes.

Also, I dug this up, an old op-ed that appeared in Time in 2008. Its written by members of the writing staff of The Wire, which included a veteran crime beat reporter & a former police officer who worked several high profile drug cases. Its useful insight, particularly when its well-thought out, well argued points are contrasted with Mr Standish's vaguely retarded comments about pot smoke & crime scenes.