cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Backers Say They Won't Give Up Nevada 










††Marijuana Backers Say They Won't Give Up Nevada 

Posted by CN Staff on November 08, 2006 at 15:59:28 PT
By Sandra Chereb, Associated Press Writer †
Source: Associated Press†

Nevada -- Backers of a move to legalize small amounts of marijuana in Nevada said they're not dissuaded by its defeat at the polls. If anything, they were encouraged by the support they received from voters and pledged Wednesday to try again.'The reality is, in the history of this country, no pot initiative has gotten the vote total we're going to end up getting,' said Neal Levine, campaign manager for the Committee to Control and Regulate Marijuana.
Nevadans can expect the issue to appear again in 2008 or 2010, he said.'It's 100 percent certainty that we will be back on the ballot,' Levine said. 'We've been working this state for five years, and we're not going anywhere.'Voters rejected Question 7, 56 percent to 44 percent. It passed only in tiny Storey County, by a mere 95 votes of 1,851 cast.But statewide, more than 250,000 people voted in favor of selling legalized marijuana to adults at state-sanctioned pot shops.Vewey Quong, 37, a part-time stage hand at Reno Events Centers, said he voted for it 'just on principle.''The state isn't going to enforce it, it is against federal laws,' he said. 'Once the feds say, 'OK, you either crack down marijuana or we cut down your highway funds,' we will see what the state does then,' he said.'I want to see the government sweat a little bit.'The committee, backed by the Washington, D.C., Marijuana Policy Project, collected 86,000 signatures to get the measure on this year's ballot.Nevadans sanctioned marijuana for medicinal purposes by approving a state constitutional amendment in 1998 and again in 2000.Two years later, voters rejected efforts by national advocates to further decriminalize marijuana by allowing possession of up to 3 ounces of the drug for non-medical use. When that failed, advocates circulated the Question 7 petition, tying legalization of less than 1 ounce to enhanced penalties for driving under the influence.Advocates argued that legalizing marijuana would take profits away from drug dealers, keep it away from children, and allow law enforcement to concentrate on violent crime.What set the Nevada initiative apart from others around the country was its lure of untapped revenues by requiring the state to establish procedures to tax and license growers, distributors and retailers.Opponents, including law enforcement, business and civic groups, said the allure of tax dollars was a mere pipe dream because marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.White House Drug Czar John Walters said the message is getting through that marijuana is a more harmful drug than people realize.'The results of this election shows that Americans simply do not want more drugs in their communities,' he said in a statement.But the committee's arguments resonated with some voters, and drew some unlikely allies, including a coalition of nearly three dozen clergy who endorsed it on moral grounds.'Some of us Protestants believe that one of the functions of government is to curb sinful behavior,' the Rev. Ruth Hanusa, chaplain at Campus Christian Association at University of Nevada, Reno, said during the campaign.'But our marijuana laws are not curbing marijuana use and they are causing more harm than good by filling the pockets of dangerous criminals and ensuring that children have the easiest access of anyone,' she said.Angelica Landeros, 26, a Reno market owner, said she voted for the initiative because of its revenue potential.'If we can pass it here in Nevada, that's just one more stream of income,' she said.Kevin Johnson, 44, said he didn't think law enforcement was using taxpayer money wisely now to enforce current marijuana laws.'I'm in favor of it because it also increases the penalties for people who injure or kill somebody if they're driving under the influence,' he said.Connie Avila, a 43-year-old casino worker said she doesn't smoke pot, but she voted yes so that medical users would have a legal way to obtain it.Others, like Corey Jay Johns, were not convinced legalizing marijuana would have any benefit.'I just don't believe people should have a right to marijuana,' the 31-year-old security guard said.'You tell your kids it's bad and they should stay away from it, then you are trying to say it is bad for you, but it's OK for me.'That doesn't settle with me,' he said.Complete Title: Marijuana Backers Say They Won't Give Up Nevada EffortSource: Associated Press (Wire)Author: Sandra Chereb, Associated Press Writer Published:  November 8, 2006Copyright: 2006 Associated Press Related Articles & Web Site:Regulate and Control Marijuanahttp://www.regulatemarijuana.org/Question 7: 'Drug Dealer Protection Act'http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22333.shtmlBush Official Speaks Against Question 7http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread22319.shtml

Home †† Comment †† Email †† Register †† Recent Comments †† Help





Comment #81 posted by FoM on November 11, 2006 at 15:43:23 PT
Whig
We're just taking a break from the news and watching TV today. I doubt much will happen for a while because I would think the organizations are re-grouping and trying to figure out what they did wrong. I hope they are at least. Have a nice time while in LA. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #80 posted by whig on November 11, 2006 at 15:28:18 PT
FoM
I'm still reading, and I'll keep trying to reply.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #79 posted by FoM on November 11, 2006 at 14:16:15 PT
Whig
I'm glad you made it safe and sound. Let us know when you get back and have the time. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #78 posted by whig on November 11, 2006 at 13:50:11 PT
FoM
I'm in LA now. My laptop works, but my time to blog is limited.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #77 posted by whig on November 11, 2006 at 13:48:21 PT
Dankhank
I voted for Jack Herer. It doesn't matter where I cast such a vote, if I put it in an election box it wouldn't be counted.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #76 posted by FoM on November 10, 2006 at 12:55:33 PT
Dankhank 
Thank you. I try really hard to be fair and balanced but it sure is hard for me sometimes. I am so afraid of people who are strong leaning to the right causing trouble before the majority of voters even have a chance to do anything. That anger that spews out is hard to dodge.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #75 posted by Dankhank on November 10, 2006 at 12:43:20 PT
the Whigster ...
Thanks FoM, I read that earlier, but ALWAYS appreciate your comments, as always, tailored to inform, not to criticize.Those who don't should, as we here do strive to emulate your, dare I say it? ... fair and balanced ministrations here.Damn you FAUXNEWS forever for poisoning that phrase.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #74 posted by FoM on November 10, 2006 at 12:03:21 PT
Dankhank 
I thought I should mention that Whig said he was going to LA so he might not answer your post. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #73 posted by Dankhank on November 10, 2006 at 07:51:15 PT
Vote?
Hey Whig ...Like your stuff on Harm Reduction it's spot on ...Re: what you'd vote for?You didn't vote, though, did you?To be fair, I'm guessing registering was low on your priority list when you moved, and even Jack couldn't move the election board to give you an exception when you got around to it ...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #72 posted by FoM on November 10, 2006 at 07:29:49 PT
Whig
I understand what you are saying. I don't even get information from MPP ( I just got another solicitation from them for money in my home mail unfortunately ) because I just can't follow how they are doing things. I have tried so hard to understand but I have given up. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #71 posted by whig on November 10, 2006 at 01:25:31 PT
Harm reduction
I simply can't summarize it in a single line. It is about choices, and people making them KNOWINGLY, advised of everything they want to know that you can tell them about what they are choosing. It isn't about PREVENTING harm. Harm prevention does not work: that is the ethic of prohibition.Just say KNOW.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #70 posted by whig on November 10, 2006 at 01:22:16 PT
Taylor121
I find it infuriating, on a personal level, and I hope you will not take this as an attack upon you, but I feel this very strongly -- it is WRONG to hurt one person to help another.I won't participate in that.I understand some people will be hurt no matter what we do. I realize that we cannot avoid harm altogether. But my job, my function, the purpose of my existence so far as I am here and doing anything on this planet, is harm reduction.Harm reduction means different things to different people, so I want to make clear what it means to me. It means that you don't intentionally cause someone harm, as one of its first fundamental precepts.And this is the same ethic that pervades every moral code. An ye harm none. Do unto others.I can't hold my fingers from this reply, so hopefully I won't be setting off a metaphorical explosion in the temple right before I leave town.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #69 posted by Taylor121 on November 09, 2006 at 23:40:38 PT
Well
"I don't approve of minors doing any substance but that's not the point for me. Why bother to put in a harsh provision? What good purpose does it serve? "If I would have written the initiative, it would not have had that provision. However, at the same time I would have voted for the initiative because I believe it would do more good than bad.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #68 posted by Dankhank on November 09, 2006 at 21:12:24 PT
Jail?
some of the present and past leadership are CRIMINALS.Go straight to jail dudes and dudettes ...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #67 posted by whig on November 09, 2006 at 19:40:59 PT
Let me just say...
I would not vote to punish. I vote to help people. I will vote to strip bad people from power and authority, but I would not take their liberty away from them, I would not put them in a cell, and I would not deprive them of the right to life.That said, I won't trade with people I don't trust. So they would have to find something to do on their own or decide to change.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #66 posted by Wayne on November 09, 2006 at 19:39:00 PT
some thoughts on DUI/D
Our DUI laws and blood-alcohol limits are actually VERY lax compared to the rest of the world. In Sweden and Finland, the limit is .02 and I think about .05 in France. Did anyone ever wonder why no one else has a problem with drivers and DUIs like we do? It's because those other countries have PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION! You don't have to worry about going out and getting drunk in England or France or Holland, because everything is right there in your neighborhood and you don't NEED to drive anywhere!! I went to England 10 years ago, and when I went out drinking it was great! You could get tanked (on some very tasty libations, I might add) and just walk down the street and hop on the Underground back to your hotel. No car!People in our society are going to ingest substances to change the way they feel, be it alcohol or cannabis or cocaine or whatever. That is unavoidable, history clearly shows that. I argue that it is very counterproductive to pass DUI and DUID laws without addressing the needs for public transportation. The lawmakers' hearts are in the right place, but in the end it's just another form of legislating morality with little tangible effect on overall public safety. People are going to go out and get drunk or stoned...period. I propose a new point of view: If the government was even remotely concerned about protecting the innocent, they would find a way to get those drunkards and stoners home without having to climb behind a wheel, as opposed to just cramming people in jail left and right.I have driven under the influence of alcohol and/or marijuana before. Hundreds of times, dare I say maybe even thousands. I don't do it even nearly as much as I used to, hardly at all anymore for that matter. I don't like doing it, I never did. I always hated having to take that risk. But frankly, in every place I've lived, there just isn't any other way to get around. My friends always lived on the other side of town, the bar was never "right down the street". I would love to take a taxi every time I go out, but frankly cabs just aren't cost effective. (Where I live, to take a cab from my house to the airport 2 MILES AWAY can cost upwards of $20). Some places I've lived don't even have taxi service. Riding a bike drunk is just as dangerous as driving a car. And we won't even go into taking buses. We don't have subways or elevated trains like in New York and Chicago.I'm certainly not advocating driving under the influence. But I'm looking at it as a realist, and it is a very real predicament for anyone who doesn't live in a big city (probably a majority of us). People are going to go out and get drunk or stoned. And there just is no real alternative for most of us to transport ourselves home other than driving. You could argue in favor of designated drivers, but really how many people want to get stuck babysitting their drunk friends all night and not being able to partake in the fun?If our governments and our communities would look into improving methods of public transportation, they would see a marked decrease in DUI-related incidents. I'm absolutely convinced of that.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #65 posted by FoM on November 09, 2006 at 18:09:08 PT
Taylor121
I don't approve of minors doing any substance but that's not the point for me. Why bother to put in a harsh provision? What good purpose does it serve? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #64 posted by Taylor121 on November 09, 2006 at 17:57:12 PT
Harshness
As FoM pointed out, the initiative would have increased penalties for giving or selling marijuana to a minor and it would have increased penalties for killing someone while driving under the influence of any substance. I personally do not find either provision worth voting against. I'm not an absolutist. The initiative would have prevented thousand of otherwise law abiding adult citizens from being arrested and given a record. It punishes irresponsible users harshly. I don't approve of giving marijuana to 17 year olds or younger.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #63 posted by FoM on November 09, 2006 at 17:43:11 PT
Hope
I looked at the link and found this. Sec. 11. Unless a greater penalty is provided pursuant to specific statute, a person who is 18 years of age or older and who knowingly sells, gives or otherwise furnishes marijuana to a person who is under 18 years of age and at least 3 years his junior is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 8 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $10,000. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #62 posted by FoM on November 09, 2006 at 17:26:00 PT
Hope
Imagine a young person who has friends some over 18 and some under 18. That isn't uncommon at all. Imagine the over 18 sharing his marijuana with a friend that is slightly under 18. If I am getting it right Question 7 would have increased the penalty for that slightly over 18 doing that if caught. What a way to wreck a young person's life. Maybe because it was complicated I misread their intentions. Like I said I feel things but don't get law issues very well.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #61 posted by Hope on November 09, 2006 at 17:17:37 PT
Thank you, Taylor, for clearing that up.
I misunderstood that you were saying it actually had a DUIA clause in it...which didn't make sense.I don't think people should drive under the influence of any thing...but normal, reasonable punishment for a wrong doing is adequate. If they had a punishment already for killing someone while driving under the influence...I'm sure it was plenty harsh enough. Last time the harshness had something to do with selling to a minor, or something like that.I could be wrong...but we should go for the right thing, the legality and the end of the persecutions, and let the punishers devise their punishments.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #60 posted by Taylor121 on November 09, 2006 at 17:00:47 PT
Fair enough
I just wanted to point out that we were wrong about it being the DUI provision. It is the provision that affects drivers that kill someone under the influence.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #59 posted by Hope on November 09, 2006 at 16:58:29 PT
Whig
"we cannot be ANGERING the alcoholics to the point that they think we want to prohibit them."I'm not an alcoholic, Whig, neither is my husband...but we might like to enjoy a beer or margarita with our Tex-Mex every now and then without worrying about the possibility of being hit by another car and because of a little alcohol in the system...blamed for the accident...even if it was the other guy's fault.As it is, my husband, who always designates himself driver...because he gets carsick riding, never allows himself even one drink when we go out. It's not that I care about drinking much, either...it's the "Punishers" and accusers among us that are getting so on my nerves.I'm glad to know they didn't involve alcohol in the initiative. They had unnecessarily harsh punishments in the last one, too. It's like, "Vote for this right thing...and look, we've added something so you can flog the hell out of anyone who messes up."I don't think that doubling punishment is right. I want the persecution for cannabis use to stop. Driving under the influence should be avoided...but making a harsh punishment harsher to try and convince people to vote for legality doesn't seem like a good way to go.I'm not cool about "any means to an end".I want legality and the persecutions to end...but I don't want to offer up any future offenders as a "sacrifice" to get it done.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #58 posted by FoM on November 09, 2006 at 16:58:14 PT
Taylor121
I don't analyze law related things very well. I want a yes or a no. If I don't understand something I would pass on it. I passed on voting on issues in my state that I didn't understand and sounded like double talk.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #57 posted by Taylor121 on November 09, 2006 at 16:54:57 PT
It's still not the same thing
A DUI law is referred to us a law that punishes you just for being intoxicated while driving. The initiative would only affect people that were driving under the influence but also kill someone so it is misleading to refer to it simply as a DUI law. It affects a very small % of people that drive irresponsibly while intoxicated on a substance.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #56 posted by FoM on November 09, 2006 at 16:51:58 PT
Taylor121
Unfortunately people do get killed all the time by driving a car at the speeds we do. It isn't transportation by horse and buggy anymore. So someone might be in a fatal accident and if they have THC in their system it could be worse for them then it already is if I understand what it's was all about. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #55 posted by Taylor121 on November 09, 2006 at 16:43:59 PT
The initiative text itself
(f) Has a prohibited substance in his blood or urine in an amount that is equal to or greater than the amount set forth in subsection 3 of NRS 484.379, and does any act or neglects any duty imposed by law while driving or in actual physical control of any vehicle on or off the highways of this state, if the act or neglect of duty proximately causes the death of, or substantial bodily harm to, a person other than himself, is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 2 years and a maximum term of not more than [20] 40 years and must be further punished by a fine of not less than $2,000 nor more than [$5,000] $10,000. A person so imprisoned must, insofar as practicable, be segregated from offenders whose crimes were violent and, insofar as practicable, be assigned to an institution or facility of minimum security.The area in brackets is what changed. The only change in law is if you kill someone under the influence. That is not the same thing as a DUI.http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/home/06init 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #54 posted by Taylor121 on November 09, 2006 at 16:36:55 PT
Actually it wasn't an increase in DUI penalties
Take a look at the initiative text. It actually doubled the maximum penalty for KILLING someone else while driving under the influence. That's not the same thing
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #53 posted by Taylor121 on November 09, 2006 at 16:34:05 PT
Hope
It had nothing to do with the DUI. The 2002 initiative didn't have a DUI provision and it failed with 39% of the vote. In 2006 it had the DUI provision and garnered 44% of the vote.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #52 posted by FoM on November 09, 2006 at 16:33:32 PT
Dankhank 
I think you're right. I call that playing politics like they do. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #51 posted by whig on November 09, 2006 at 16:17:03 PT
Hope
I agree with you, we cannot be ANGERING the alcoholics to the point that they think we want to prohibit them. DUI is a bad idea and dangerous to the public, but these CHECKPOINTS and unacceptable demands for PAPERS PLEASE must end.They can drink responsibly and not fear us. If someone is driving ERRATICALLY then by all means pull him or her over, but leave us alone if we aren't dangerous.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #50 posted by Dankhank on November 09, 2006 at 16:02:04 PT
Dui?
I think in Nevada it was an increased DUID law because an election or so ago there a stoned asshole in an SUV rear-ended a popular media figure and killed her ...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #49 posted by Toker00 on November 09, 2006 at 15:46:16 PT
Hey Hope.
Look in any yellow pages in any sizable city, and count the number of night clubs, legally selling alcohol until the weeee hours of the morning...I can't possibly recall the number of trips home I have made from them, driving DRUNK. Twenty years, no DWI. No life, but no DWI. Then a miracle happened. I got a most Deserved DWI in Longview, Tx. The financial, social and legal hassle I went through changed my life. It's at that point that I UNDERSTOOD where I was. That was 18 years ago. Between that, and the rehabilitative powers of Cannabis, I am alive. And I actually have a LIFE! But the bummer side of that law, is when someone drinks one or two beers and goes to the store for cigs, and gets a DWI,
it's the same punishment, though the level of intoxication is vastly lower than my deserved DWI. Then you have the Rich and Famous filming themselves drunk driving and running into things, and no one even gets a ticket. Go figure.Toke.  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #48 posted by Hope on November 09, 2006 at 14:41:01 PT
The DUI situation in most states
is already rough...and people are seeing a problem with tightening up and tightening up until we have a virtual prohibition of alcohol. While they may not be against cannabis use by adults....this harsh punishment thing for everything is completely out of hand in this country.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #47 posted by Hope on November 09, 2006 at 14:37:04 PT
You mean to tell me
that the Nevada cannabis initiative had increasing DUI alcohol offenses within it? I'm stunned. No wonder it was voted down.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #46 posted by Taylor121 on November 09, 2006 at 13:29:55 PT
Doesn't really bother me much
Well like I said I think the DUI penalty increase was to show the people of Nevada that the Committee was not looking to make a rule less society which the vast majority of people oppose. They wanted to make a proposal that would allow judges to throw the book at irresponsible users.I can understand where you are coming from though. They could easily be argued to be two separate issues.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #45 posted by whig on November 09, 2006 at 13:24:02 PT
Taylor121
I want to say that I don't agree with legislation that combines two completely different things like cannabis legalization and increased DUI penalties for alcohol.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #44 posted by FoM on November 09, 2006 at 13:19:47 PT
Taylor121 and Dongenero
I know we all are on the same page. I think that we need to keep pushing until if nothing else voters say for pete's sake vote yes just to shut them up! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #43 posted by whig on November 09, 2006 at 13:19:09 PT
dongenero
You are absolutely right we have to do this from the grass roots. People who spend lots of money can't win no matter how much they spend, unless the grass roots agrees. And with the internet money matters less than the ability to communicate effectively.Which is what WE are doing.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #42 posted by Taylor121 on November 09, 2006 at 13:18:58 PT
I agree Whig
The people that donated know where that money is going.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #41 posted by whig on November 09, 2006 at 13:17:37 PT
medicinal toker
It seems to me that the five million or however much money was spent on that campaign was raised and donated willingly by people who wanted to do so. I won't begrudge anyone from spending what they want on the way they think best to move our issue forward.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #40 posted by dongenero on November 09, 2006 at 13:15:26 PT
cannabis law reform.......
....must be a grass roots effort , I believe.The people will have to lead on this one because the politicians are so terrified of being soft on an issue for which they could be politically attacked. Most politicians see touching marijuana laws as akin to touching the third rail.Until the message is clear from the people that it is not instant political death, politicians will be too fearful to make the change on their own.And FoM....we gotta have hope. The message from the American public is pretty clear from Tuesday's election. Any politician, Democrat or Republican who does not take that to heart, will not last long.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #39 posted by Taylor121 on November 09, 2006 at 13:01:31 PT
Of course it's fine :)
You know I care about everyone here. I should also make it clear that I support changing Federal law too, I just think we have to change some state laws before Congress will take us seriously.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #38 posted by FoM on November 09, 2006 at 13:00:04 PT
Taylor121
That's ok to disagree with me. I just think the way I do and that's ok too.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #37 posted by Taylor121 on November 09, 2006 at 12:48:14 PT
Parts
I have to strongly disagree with you. The California medical marijuana law has protected thousands of sick and ill people from arrest for using their medicine. Congress didn't start considering medical marijuana a priority until states started passing their own laws, before that it wasn't even considered an issue. The Feds won't listen until states tell them they want change. A good example is if you look at states that have medical marijuana laws how many more Congressmen and Congresswomen support change relative to those that do not have a medical marijuana law. It's complicated because it is not a simple issue. The Feds don't have the resources to arrest individual patients, therefore the law protects a vast array of people that would normally be subject to persecution while at the same time sending a message to Congress.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #36 posted by FoM on November 09, 2006 at 12:42:21 PT
Taylor121
That all sounds complicated to me. I don't think that way. I see people getting busted who open Shops in California and now they will be sacrificed for the cause. I believe let's change the law on a federal level.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #35 posted by Taylor121 on November 09, 2006 at 12:33:40 PT
Maybe I'm wrong but if any state legalized marijua
"Maybe I'm wrong but if any state legalized marijuana it still is against Federal Law so it will wind up being fought in the courts and people will get arrested when they thought it was legal if it passed. Why did they try to increase penalties for DUI? It didn't ma"ke sense to me. Like it's politics instead of an issue.99% of marijuana related arrests are made on the state and local level. If you changed state law, state and local police would not be making any marijuana related arrests. The Feds make up the other 1% of arrests throughout the country, but they generally focus on large distribution rings. They simply do not have the resources to arrest people with a small amount of marijuana on them. As for the shops themselves, I will point you to California. It is illegal for the pot shops to be opened there, but there are literally dozens of them operating. The Feds can only shut down so many with their limited resources. Afterall they have meth and other dangerous substances to go after.As for why they tried to increase DUI penalties, it's worth noting that the initiative increased the maximum penalty for DUI which would allow judges more flexibility, not less. So this wasn't a mandatory minimum. The idea is when someone is DUI they are endangering other people. Perhaps the idea was to show this wasn't about making society a free for all, but about protecting the liberty of individuals.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #34 posted by Taylor121 on November 09, 2006 at 12:29:42 PT
Nevada vote went from 39% to 44% support 
Which state would you focus on besides Nevada? I don't think the money was wasted. More people are becoming educated every time a campaign like this is run. The campaign in Nevada was extremely well done. We are talking about changing an attitude on a substance that has been demonized for 70+ years. We have to keep trying.Leaving Nevada would mean all of that money spent would go to waste. I think we can have victory by 2012.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #33 posted by FoM on November 09, 2006 at 10:57:16 PT
Nausicaa
Maybe I'm wrong but if any state legalized marijuana it still is against Federal Law so it will wind up being fought in the courts and people will get arrested when they thought it was legal if it passed. Why did they try to increase penalties for DUI? It didn't make sense to me. Like it's politics instead of an issue.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by Nausicaa on November 09, 2006 at 10:43:28 PT
#30
How many "yes" votes did the last ballot measure in Nevada recieve? I remember hearing it was in the low 30s, if anyone has the exact percentage, please let me know. But if my memory is correct, that is a pretty major improvment. I can't imagine how few states there are where these ballot measures even stand a chance - I think Nevada is a good place to keep pushing this. All we need is one state. One state where cannabis is legalized to some extent will send a message to all of America, and I can see many people, even myself, starting and participating in similar campaigns around the nation.And what's with the security guard, and why did he get the last word in this article? What a dim human being. There are many, many things we tell our children not to do, that we regard as perfectly acceptable behavior for adults. With drugs such as cannabis and alcohol, it's pretty obvious why we draw a distinction between adult and adolescent use. One brain is still developing, and the other is not and a man is more established and independent than a boy.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by FoM on November 09, 2006 at 08:06:02 PT
$5,000,000 on Nevada!
Oh my goodness what a waste of money. Why do they care. I won't say anymore.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by medicinal toker on November 09, 2006 at 07:53:17 PT
$5 million+ wasted and counting
I think it's time to stop beating a dead horse. The $5 million wasted so far cannot be recovered. But think what it could have accomplished in other places. It's time to reflect and move on to something with a real chance of success and stop wasting scarce reform dollars on a cmpaign whose time has not yet come!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by FoM on November 09, 2006 at 06:58:45 PT
afterburner
I went to bed early last night and I had the best and most restful nights sleep I have had in I don't know how long. I think I will turn off the news and turn on music today and enjoy a wonderful victory. Greendale sounds like a good choice. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by Hope on November 09, 2006 at 06:20:51 PT
Yoshi
Don't believe I've noticed your moniker before. So...Welcome! We're glad to have you speak up here with us.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by jasgrave333 on November 09, 2006 at 05:42:54 PT:
Me too - "'I want to see the government sweat...&q
...talking about sweating, it's raining up there right now; is Rove next? CheneY?Xciting times... legalisation is almost just round the corner, can ya taste it... yes on 7, 8, 9 and 11?
119 some big leaves and two small leaves at the back...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by whig on November 09, 2006 at 01:21:05 PT
Impeached
http://cannablog.wordpress.com/2006/11/09/fallen-angel/He is now impeached in the court of public opinion.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by yoshi on November 09, 2006 at 00:48:46 PT
Ahh Nevada
Don't be suprised if Nevada casinos are no smoking, while selling cannabis in the gift shops. Booming tourism will light the lights in the politicians eyes.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by whig on November 09, 2006 at 00:27:09 PT
It's like a Boomerang
What you give comes right back to you.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by whig on November 09, 2006 at 00:24:12 PT
And there is the music
Enjoy.http://cannablog.wordpress.com/2006/11/09/a-little-distortion-but-powerful/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by whig on November 09, 2006 at 00:16:25 PT
Diesel now
Max this is an excellent way of matching wavelengths. I can just tell you things here which you will understand if you smoke the right bowl. See how I'm doing it?What I'm learning to do right now is communicate, between the cannabis and the people to whom I am speaking and the cannabis which they are experiencing. We are a symbiote.Do you copy? This is a way of speaking to God. This is a way of God speaking to you. This is a way of God speaking through you. This is a way of knowing God.We are not sleeping and we are waking one another up because there is a need for all of us. You don't like my metaphors sometimes, and that's cool. I'm writing to the largest number of people that I can at one time when I write in Christian phrase. I use Music to communicate to others.But it's not My Personal music, it's God's music. All Music is God's music. So I put my personal words in front, and I say what I want, and what I believe, and then the music comes to me and I play it for you.This is something YOU CAN DO TOO.This is something WE ALL CAN DO.We are all God. We are just trying to communicate.You are UNIQUE but you are CONNECTED.Smoke 'em if you got 'em, or better vaporize, that's what I did.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by whig on November 09, 2006 at 00:07:35 PT
Americans for Safe Access
http://safeaccessnow.org/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Max Flowers on November 08, 2006 at 23:03:11 PT
whig
Nope, but I guess they'd be first on the list to check with.Congrats on the Albany thing!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by whig on November 08, 2006 at 22:11:32 PT
Max Flowers
Have you talked to Americans for Safe Access? They are the main group of people supporting medical marijuana here in California politically and in the courts, and I know there are affiliates around the country.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by Max Flowers on November 08, 2006 at 22:07:34 PT
== OO ==
Sorry , that last post was kind of California-centric. I mainly meant all the major activist groups in CA, but of course we like help from other states too. It's all working toward the same goal.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Max Flowers on November 08, 2006 at 22:03:32 PT
Let's lobby Jerry
I've been thinking... we really need to organize a petition or letter drive to the new AG Jerry Brown and let him know that we expect him to start standing up to the feds in a serious way. Basically, to tell them to stop their raids and harassment of CA's medical cannabis patients. I mean like something organizing all the major medical cannabis activism groups to present a formal letter, so he knows we're very serious.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by afterburner on November 08, 2006 at 21:45:11 PT
Remember How We Stayed Up Until All Hours...
stressing and worrying about every initiative? Not this time. We have gathered momentum. We have convinced the thoughtful, the practical and the open-minded. We will just get up and go again. We will educate, demonstrate, medicate, regulate."No army can resist the strength of an idea whose time has come." Like drops of water that wear away rocks, we will continue to resist the wall of cannabis prohibition until it crumbles like the Berlin Wall.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by John Tyler on November 08, 2006 at 21:34:47 PT
re #8
#8 Glad to hear George Allen will be conceding. He always seemed to me to be an arrogant, spoiled, rich, frat boy all grown up. It was so good to see him lose. This will eliminate him from presidential contention too I hope. Maybe, he will learn some humility and try to be a better person. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by John Tyler on November 08, 2006 at 21:19:30 PT
keep on keeping on
We lost this one and the Colorado one too, but the politicians should look at the flip side. Literally hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voted for it and it is garnering more votes at each election cycle. A wise politician would look at this group as a source of potential voters. The issue is not going to go away ever until we get our freedom. The unlearned should know that cannabis not just some drug. It is special plant that has been with mankind for thousands of years. It has many, many wonderful uses. Small-minded fear mongering men who didnít know the harm they would cause banned it years ago. To cover their mistake they perpetuated a whole school of lies that we are still dealing with today. So let the truth be told, cannabis is good. Prohibition is bad.   
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by whig on November 08, 2006 at 21:05:04 PT
The GCW
You can't force people to vote without denying them the right to not vote.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by The GCW on November 08, 2006 at 20:40:20 PT
Staunch show up.
White House Drug Czar John Walters said ""'The results of this election shows that Americans simply do not want more drugs in their communities,' he said in a statement"""77777777777777744 out of a 100 do not agree with the Walters dude.That's a significant bunch of Americans that think they do not have a problem with cannabis.44 And in these elections, imagine the group hurt the most by loss of votes due to people being complacent is this issue with young voters for their combination of reasons... When I spoke to people in Summit County (which passed 44 -62% to 38 %) I ran accross plenty of young people that supported it but were not even registered.Imagine, if the states / country would require people to vote, this issue in Nevada and Colorado would have a better chance to pass.420In Colorado for example, only 40 percent of the population that can vote, voted...And the staunch don't miss it, they do vote...420 + 7 + 44In Colorado, 14 couties passed 44.- imagine some of those counties that opposed 44 with 80% or more; those are backwards places...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by user123 on November 08, 2006 at 18:29:43 PT:
O'Tay
Others, like Corey Jay Johns, were not convinced legalizing marijuana would have any benefit.'I just don't believe people should have a right to marijuana,' the 31-year-old security guard said.'You tell your kids it's bad and they should stay away from it, then you are trying to say it is bad for you, but it's OK for me.'That doesn't settle with me,' he said.How ironic, the gov't that keeps saying that weed is so bad, has worked its propaganda on a 31 year old security guard. I can see the ONDCP comerical now, aluding to the fact that if you smoke weed, you might end up as a 31 year old security guard.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by mayan on November 08, 2006 at 18:23:18 PT
Get Busy!
Subpoena Power, Congressional Hearings, and Special Counsel:
http://www.teamliberty.net/id314.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on November 08, 2006 at 18:04:12 PT
nuevo mexican
Yes we are watching Keith now. Check this out about what Limbaugh said today. They mentioned it on MSNBC and then I did a search for an article. Here it is!Rush Tells His Audience 'I'm Full of Crap'...Seriously!http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-derych/rush-tells-his-audience-_b_33690.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by nuevo mexican on November 08, 2006 at 17:59:33 PT
It's official FOM! Allen will conceed tomorrow!
We won the HOUSE and the SENATE!!!!Happy days are here again!WOW!Light up, everybody!(Keith O just announced it, AP reported it, and now Joe Scarborough announced the the Dems now control both houses!Everyone here is just AWESOME!Thank Five Planets in Scorpio, and it's not over, the times they are a changin!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by BGreen on November 08, 2006 at 17:18:29 PT
Security Guard
Others, like Corey Jay Johns, were not convinced legalizing marijuana would have any benefit.'I just don't believe people should have a right to marijuana,' the 31-year-old security guard said.'You tell your kids it's bad and they should stay away from it, then you are trying to say it is bad for you, but it's OK for me.'That doesn't settle with me,' he said.A security guard at which casino? Aren't those casino's places where we allow adults to drink and gamble, yet we also tell kids those activities aren't good for them?Idiot!The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Sam Adams on November 08, 2006 at 16:51:44 PT
Ah yes
Others, like Corey Jay Johns, were not convinced legalizing marijuana would have any benefit.'I just don't believe people should have a right to marijuana,' the 31-year-old security guard said.'You tell your kids it's bad and they should stay away from it, then you are trying to say it is bad for you, but it's OK for me.'That doesn't settle with me,' he said.No kidding? What a surprise. The less "rights" people have, the more work for uniformed brutes like you. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on November 08, 2006 at 16:45:52 PT
BGreen 
You're a guy and I am not! That's why we see it differently! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by BGreen on November 08, 2006 at 16:37:33 PT
Oh yeah?
I'll bet you a ten dollar hooker that you're wrong. LOLActually, the vast majority of Nevadan's aren't interested in gambling and prostitution either, but they're liberal enough in their thinking to understand they're not going to stop those activities, and smart enough to have realized, at least on those two issues, that regulation and oversight by the State is better than unfettered control by organized crime.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]

†


Comment #3 posted by FoM on November 08, 2006 at 16:26:19 PT

BGreen
I know but it still doesn't make any sense to me since very few people would want marijuana associated with gambling and prostitution even though I have no problem with what people want to do.
[ Post Comment ]


†


Comment #2 posted by BGreen on November 08, 2006 at 16:22:51 PT

Nevada is important because ...
Nevada was the first state to allow two federally prohibited activities, prostitution and gambling, and the State rights of Nevada trumped federal law for years before gambling was allowed anywhere else in the country. Prostitution is, to this day, legal ONLY in some counties in Nevada, despite federal laws prohibibiting this activity.That's why it makes total sense for the same State's rights over federal law priviledge that Nevada has enjoyed to apply to cannabis.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


†


Comment #1 posted by FoM on November 08, 2006 at 16:03:39 PT

A Question
They must have lots of money to keep doing this year after year.  Why is Nevada important to win? I won't go there after just one visit. Once was enough. Why not put money into changing the laws in other states? How much money over these years has been spent on this effort? Is that for the general public to know?
[ Post Comment ]





††Post Comment