cannabisnews.com: Legalize Marijuana? Not So Fast
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('Legalize Marijuana? Not So Fast');
 url=encodeURIComponent('http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/25/thread25317.shtml');
 site = new Array(5);
 site[0]='http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[1]='http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit.php?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[2]='http://digg.com/submit?topic=political_opinion&media=video&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[3]='http://reddit.com/submit?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[4]='http://del.icio.us/post?v=4&noui&jump=close&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 window.open(site[num],'sharer','toolbar=0,status=0,width=620,height=500');
 return false;
}






Legalize Marijuana? Not So Fast
Posted by CN Staff on January 13, 2010 at 05:19:07 PT
Editorial
Source: Los Angeles Times
California -- Marijuana advocates are cheering the Assembly's Public Safety Committee for voting out a measure Tuesday designed to legalize, tax and regulate the sale of the drug to adults 21 and over. The bill is being marketed as a revenue raiser; the Board of Equalization estimates that the state could reap up to $1.3 billion in sorely needed tax revenue, and proponents have skillfully wielded the budget crisis to boost support for the measure.
Polls show that 56% of Californians back legalizing marijuana. Across the country, the numbers are somewhat lower, but nevertheless momentum is building for a reconsideration of marijuana laws covering both medicinal and recreational use. Many states now treat marijuana offenses as mere infractions, not subject to jail time. The American Medical Assn. recently reversed its long-held position and urged more research into the drug's properties.Still, for California to purport to legalize marijuana unilaterally raises several serious concerns. For one thing, to do so simply because the state faces a budget crisis would be a rash and reckless way to make public policy. More important, California does not have the authority to take such a step. Cannabis may be the nation's largest cash crop, but marijuana remains a Schedule I drug, deemed by the federal government to have a high potential for abuse, no accepted medical value and illegal to use under all circumstances. Perhaps Californians have been emboldened by their pioneering role in legalizing medicinal marijuana, but in truth, the conflict between state and federal law has had serious consequences for users and distributors caught in the federal web. Yes, the Obama administration now has a formal policy of ignoring medical marijuana activity in states that have passed laws permitting its use, and the Justice Department has halted raids on dispensaries and prosecutions of sick patients. But that is merely a truce. Widespread legalization for recreational purposes is almost guaranteed to upset the delicate detente with Washington.AB 390, sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), would not be an appropriate first step for California. It's true that a $50-per-ounce fee is included in the bill that would go to anti-drug programs. But that's not enough. The state needs a thorough airing of the pros and cons of legalization and the pitfalls related to abuse of the drug before taking such dramatic action. We welcome a debate over legalizing marijuana, but we do not support this bill.Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)Published: January 13, 2010Copyright: 2010 Los Angeles TimesContact: letters latimes.comWebsite: http://www.latimes.com/URL: http://drugsense.org/url/FLD6S3i7CannabisNews  -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 
     
     
     
     




Comment #30 posted by FoM on January 14, 2010 at 16:41:33 PT
Rebuttal To The LA Times Article
California is Free To Make Its Own Drug LawsBy Tamar ToddJanuary 14, 2010 The Times raises two objections in its Jan. 13 editorial, "Legalize pot? Not so fast," to a proposed state bill that would legalize, tax and regulate the sale of marijuana to adults 21 and older.First, the editorial claims that the purpose of AB 390 is "simply" to raise tax revenue for the state. This alone, The Times says, does not justify what it calls "rash and reckless" public policy. Second, The Times writes that California "does not have the authority to take such a step." Both assertions miss the mark.URL: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-todd15-2010jan15,0,7448213.story
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by Hope on January 14, 2010 at 08:30:25 PT
Comment 25
I like this that Rep. Cohen said, "This is an issue that's important. It's a freedom issue. It's an intelligence issue."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by Totalrod2 on January 14, 2010 at 05:51:20 PT:
I agree
Canis420, I couldn't agree more. I live South Carolina (but originally from New England). While southerners are certainly some of the nicest people you'll ever meet, they're NOT the most progressive thinkers by any means.
Bryan
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by BGreen on January 13, 2010 at 23:58:46 PT
If you want to know how f'ed up Missouri is
The current population in the Greene County jail in Springfield, Mo contains two prisoners accused of different crimes but with the same bond amount.http://www.greenecountymo.org/sheriff/offender.php?id=1000498973One is in jail for the misdemeanor crime of possession of under 35 grams of cannabis. Bond = $300,000http://www.greenecountymo.org/sheriff/offender.php?id=0900462472The other is in jail for the felony of 2nd degree murder. Bond = $300,000What kind of idiotic bastards from hell would put the same bond on possession of an ounce of cannabis versus 2nd degree murder?Yes, this is an isolated case. The African American with dreadlocks I saw locked up last week for possession of under 35 grams of cannabis only had a bond of $100,000.This is a perfect metaphor for how f'ed up the area I live in really is. This crap I've posted is in the county of the third largest city in the entire state. Those of us living out in the rural areas are even more F'ed with a capital F.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on January 13, 2010 at 23:39:43 PT
Thank you Tennessee Rep. Steve Cohen!
He said his own campaign polls have shown nearly 3-1 support for medical marijuana."And that's in Memphis, Tenn.," he said. "This is an issue that's important. It's a freedom issue. It's an intelligence issue. ... I'm proud to be here."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on January 13, 2010 at 23:33:30 PT
Another southern politician with balls!
Metaphorical and actual this time -Tenn. lawmaker applauded by pro-pot activistshttp://www.timesdaily.com/article/20100113/APW/1001130763
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by Canis420 on January 13, 2010 at 21:32:03 PT:
Comment #20
Sooner or later cannabis prohibition will end around the country...i just do not think it will happen quick or the domino theory will prevail...the southeast is mired in denial which will not change anytime soon...sucks for all of us down here
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on January 13, 2010 at 21:17:15 PT
FoM #5 - Thanks, I missed that!
As Alabama goes, so went the nation.Probably not this year, but perhaps, eventually, Bama will let the rest of the Union help us along.Thanks Patricia Todd!Thanks Laura Hall!Thanks Loretta Nall!Since it seems only women politicians in this state have any balls, not to mention brains, I'm going to try to vote an all female ticket next election.Plus, men here tend to run as Ds, only to expose themselves as Rs after the election.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by FoM on January 13, 2010 at 19:29:20 PT
More News From Los Angeles
LA Council Rejects 500-Foot Buffer Between Pot Dispensaries, HomesJanuary 13, 2010URL: http://www.dailybreeze.com/latestnews/ci_14181836
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by ezrydn on January 13, 2010 at 19:16:16 PT:
"Wall" It Off
That's what they're probably considering about the whole of the West coast (CA, OR & WA). They did it to Mexico. No reason they can't be considering it for the Left Side. Isn't that a picture the world would love to see?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by John Tyler on January 13, 2010 at 19:11:38 PT
sooner or later
Sooner or later cannabis prohibition will end in one state after another, probably in rapid succession. Once one state ends prohibition not only will the cannabis industry blossom, but related industries will bloom also, such as tourism, craft shows, trade shows and conventions promoting cannabis related items. Maybe even more and better concerts with great light shows. (Show biz industry). Then there is the whole hemp segment for fuel, food and fiber for a green future. The money will flow to the first state that ends prohibition. Other states will see this have to get on board or lose valuable revenue. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by gloovins on January 13, 2010 at 17:07:35 PT
RChandler
Yeah -- I know they've always been conservative I agree, but on the issue of L.A. -- the city and medical cannabis & the clubs in particular, the LA Times lacks any knowledge, depth or journalistic integrity that's all. They are cowards, living in an ignorant by-gone era, just like the politicians. It makes me kinda ill and stressed out but that's ok, I have just the cure for that.... ;)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by rchandar on January 13, 2010 at 16:35:16 PT:
Gloovins
Man, I hate to cut you off, that's a great post and all.However, LA Times was always conservative.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by gloovins on January 13, 2010 at 16:17:23 PT
Taxation without a brain should be a crime....
The LA Times, what a f*ing joke. Remember awhile back, they profiled the cannabis clubs and it ended with the writer throwing out this medicine they had obtained because he couldn't get the tube it came in open?! I do. Now, after so many negative articles over the years in total slant to LEO's and the City Council prohibitionists, they finally come out and say it, like a bad Arnold parrot: "We welcome a debate over legalizing marijuana, but we do not support this bill." What a crock, as others have posted, it's been debated for nearly a 100 years! (with no o.d.'s either ;)) Well, we now see the LA Times true colors. So telling that indeed no one had the daring gall to attach their name to this pile of pablum. Can't they point out what other recent articles have and say that some states lifted their prohibition laws during alcohol prohibition, like NY, and then it was a Federal problem when establishments served booze. No, that would require a knowledge of history, the law, cannabis and human nature....something the LA times will never comprehend. Yes the people are light years ahead of the MSM and the politicians on these issues and have been for some time now. 2010 is shaping up to be We The Peoples year. And if I may say, the $50 oz tax is excessive. I believe it should be no higher than $3 per oz with a mandate that at least half this goes in the state education fund. I envision oz's to cost between $10 & $100 oz depending on quality. This is how I see it. As it stands now, OZ's run $60 (brown schwag) to $400 (OG Kush ) at the cannabis clubs. This has gotta change -- and will. Calif politicians have seen the money revenue that the clubs have provided in the last couple years via the sales tax they charge on it....bastards. They don't tax xanax or viagra, wtf? MMM, well this river of money is a godsend to them, have no illusion but I think what is stalling the Calif legislature now and has been for sometime is the fact that they are charging 9.25% sales tax on the premium top dollar prices of these clubs...if it were legal like booze they KNOW the price will drop and so will their source of status quo revenue. So, they in their greedy, $ hungry way of thinking (they know no other way these career politicians) well, they are just gonna slap us "pot smokers" with a $50 per oz tax. Ahhh, no. I don't care if it ALL goes to educated retarded kids in wheelchairs: ITS EXCESSIVE. Thats all. Hope all are having a great 2010. I can't say it's been boring.... 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by rchandar on January 13, 2010 at 16:00:35 PT:
Reality Check
There is no federal law requiring state governments to prohibit marijuana. None, no such thing has ever been devised.Ok, so say this bill passes. MJ is still illegal. But it is an enormous practical step in that virtually all possession arrests will cease. We could cut that number down from 60,000 to about 2-3,000 per year. Then, there's the great amount of time that police departments will be saved--allowing them to tackle real crimes that are a much more imminent problem.California does not need this law. It already has the "three strikes and you're out" law. Meaning, any human who commits and is convicted of three violent crimes goes to jail for the rest of his/her life. There is no room for MJ prohibition--this is a government that holds an array of knockout-punch laws and, should it still be a democratic and fair state, should not try to add to it.I can guarantee that this bill will meet with conservative opposition. It is simply a matter of making our case, one voter at a time.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Had Enough on January 13, 2010 at 14:20:34 PT
The LEOs gathered enmasse to intimidate!
They gathered in their masses...Just like witches at black masses...Evil minds that plot destruction Sorcerers of death's construction War Pigs - Black Sabbath...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo135x0oXo8***It’s all about the dough alright...the dough that can get the dough for the doughnut munching crowd’s masters.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by James Crosby on January 13, 2010 at 13:36:17 PT:
Isn't long now.
I bet it isn't long after legalization that the L.A. Times changes it's position on this issue. Most journalists smoke herb. This is the last attempt of a dying beast, and no one even had the balls to sign their name to this piece of trash. Can't even take any credit... lol
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by runruff on January 13, 2010 at 13:23:34 PT
The LEOs gathered enmasse to intimidate!
Plain and simple. It is not one of those murky dark and lingering questions.It is as simple as reflecting on typical cop behaviour. The only thing you will see cops enmasse for is doughnuts and budget matters!Doughnuts were not mentioned in the article.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Sam adams on January 13, 2010 at 11:24:52 PT
men with guns
no kidding, it's very clear what's going on here. The pols want the tax money, bad. The pols want to legalize. The pols are scared to death of the cops.  Probably with good reason. They can tap their phones. They can hack their emails. They can follow them and investigate - anything. They can arrest the pol's friends and/or use physical violence or larceny or violent intimidation.So, they give a weak endorsement by passing the bill out of committee, and hope like hell the referendum passes.I think this endorsement is huge for the referendum campaign though. We can claim that the legislature's policy committee approved the change, they are supposed to be the experts. It's should be a excellent badge of credibility for the campaign.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Hope on January 13, 2010 at 10:31:07 PT
Tyrants with gavels, too.
Tyrants with money and political influence.And tyrants with guns.I hear your outrage, Runruff.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by runruff on January 13, 2010 at 10:09:31 PT
"What’s taking so long!!!"
Some of the old guard still grasping at a few broken shards of skewed reasoning.Spewing regurgitated swill in hopes that it might still find some emotional traction with "the people."Of course we know what took so long? I can tell you in a sentence, no three words; tyrants with guns! That is what took so long!jes' screaming!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Had Enough on January 13, 2010 at 09:49:24 PT
This Headline...
Legalize Marijuana? Not So Fast...Should read... Legalize Marijuana...What’s taking so long!!!It’s only taken about 100 years or so...LA Times...Hhhmmm...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Had Enough on January 13, 2010 at 09:21:16 PT
Not Enough???
“”It's true that a $50-per-ounce fee is included in the bill that would go to anti-drug programs. But that's not enough.””Not enough??? That’s too much...Try to propose that over-priced sin tax on booze, and you will hear these same people scream ‘bloody murder’...This LA Times piece is enough...sounds like the death throws of a dieing beast...I’ve had enough...and I’m sure others have too...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Hope on January 13, 2010 at 09:16:56 PT
It's still fairly early in the morning in Olympia,
isn't it?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Sam Adams on January 13, 2010 at 09:02:01 PT
LA Times
here is a great example of the "state-worship" of the MSM.If you legalize "The Emperor" will not be pleased!ah yes, the home of the free!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on January 13, 2010 at 09:01:49 PT
Med Marijuana Bill Makes Its Way To Legislature
It's too late to stop us now!***January 13, 2010MONTGOMERY, AL (WAFF) - A bill to legalize marijuana for medical purposes in Alabama is back before the State Legislature in 2010.State Representative Patricia Todd, D-Birmingham, proposed House Bill 207.Todd's proposal is a 13-page bill that outlines ways marijuana for medical purposes could be used in Alabama.House Bill 207 aims to make a distinction between medical and non-medical use of marijuana.URL: http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=11815156
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by dongenero on January 13, 2010 at 08:44:59 PT
Los Angeles Times
"....welcomes a debate on legalizing marijuana." Ha, that's funny. It's been debated daily since it became illegal, what are you talking about? I've been debating it here at C-News for about 10 years! Wake up LA Times, pay attention.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Cheebs1 on January 13, 2010 at 08:19:12 PT:
Republic
The last time I checked states have a right to their own ideas and policies. It is never more evident than in a little saying I learned in first grade and said every day with my classmates." I pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the republic for which it stands...."If more people went back to their childhoods we might understand that we don't live in a democracy but a republic. Can't wait for this year on MJ reform. I think it's going to be one hell of a fun ride.Peace, Love, and Pot
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by runruff on January 13, 2010 at 08:07:12 PT
Ten thousand years of usage?
"the pros and cons of legalization and the pitfalls related to abuse of the drug before taking such dramatic action."The naysayers have run out of steam! The best they can do now is point to hundreds and thousands of years of benign history and claim, "we need more study?"When the politicians claim to be on board for "copassionate use" what we have had must have been "dispassionate misused law".jes' sayin'
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by TroutMask on January 13, 2010 at 07:34:22 PT
CA has no authority?
"More important, California does not have the authority to take such a step."...because...??Of course, there is no "because." No US state is required to duplicate all federal laws. California has complete authority to drop any law(s) it wants to.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment