cannabisnews.com: Snuff Out Pot Measure

function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('Snuff Out Pot Measure');
 url=encodeURIComponent('http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/25/thread25963.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;
}












  Snuff Out Pot Measure

Posted by CN Staff on September 24, 2010 at 10:28:08 PT
LA Times Editorial Opinion 
Source: Los Angeles Times 

California -- Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in the United States. Seventy years of criminal prohibition, "Just Say No" sloganeering and a federal drug war that now incarcerates 225,000 people a year have not diminished the availability or use of — or apparently the craving for — cannabis. And helping meet the demand is California, the nation's top grower. Marijuana production here results in an estimated $14 billion in sales, and its cultivation and distribution are now tightly woven into the state's economy. It is grown in homes, in backyards and even in national parks, including Yosemite.
Marijuana is popular, plentiful and lucrative, costing about $400 a pound to grow and yielding $6,000 a pound on the street. So it is perhaps inevitable that an attempt would be made to legalize it, as Proposition 19 — the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 — purports to do. The act would authorize possession of one ounce of marijuana for personal consumption by people 21 and older, permit marijuana use in private residences or public places licensed for on-site consumption, and allow marijuana cultivation in private residences for personal use. It includes strong restrictions regarding the sale or use of marijuana to or around minors, and would permit city and county governments to regulate and tax it. Proponents of the proposition say it would bring public policy on marijuana into line with that on alcohol and cigarettes, both of which can be dangerous and deadly but are nonetheless legal. It is the criminalization of the drug that creates social problems, they say, including a violent drug war at the border, fueled in part by black-market profits, and millions of lives damaged by overzealous enforcement rather than by the drug itself.The proposal has riveted national attention on California, as did Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which permitted the medicinal use of marijuana. Thirteen states have since adopted similar measures, and public approval for medical marijuana has increased significantly. Californians' independent streak and willingness to challenge federal authority have galvanized the national debate on legalization. The question now is whether we will do it again. Will we thumb our noses at Washington and blaze another new trail?We should not.Whether marijuana should be legal is a valid subject for discussion. Californians ought to welcome a debate about whether marijuana is any more dangerous than alcohol, whether legalization would or would not increase consumption, and whether crime would go down as a result of decriminalization. But Proposition 19 is so poorly thought out, badly crafted and replete with loopholes and contradictions that it offers an unstable platform on which to base such a weighty conversation.Its flaws begin with the misleading title: Regulate, Control and Tax Act. Those are hefty words that suggest responsibility and order. But the proposition is in fact an invitation to chaos. It would permit each of California's 478 cities and 58 counties to create local regulations regarding the cultivation, possession and distribution of marijuana. In other words, the law could change hundreds of times from county to county. In Los Angeles County alone it could mean 88 different sets of regulations.The proposition would have merited more serious consideration had it created a statewide regulatory framework for local governments, residents and businesses. But it still would have contained a fatal flaw: Californians cannot legalize marijuana. Regardless of how the vote goes on Nov. 2, under federal law marijuana will remain a Schedule I drug, whose use for any reason is proscribed by Congress. Sure, California could go it alone, but that would set up an inevitable conflict with the federal government that might not end well for the state. That experiment has been tried with medical marijuana, and the outcome has not inspired confidence. Up and down the state, an untold number of residents have faced federal prosecution for actions that were allowed under California law. It's true that the Obama administration has adopted a more tolerant position on state laws regulating medical marijuana, but there's no guarantee that the next administration will. Regardless, Obama's "drug czar," Gil Kerlikowske, has firmly stated that the administration will not condone marijuana's legalization for recreational purposes.One reason given by Proposition 19 supporters for legalizing marijuana is that California is in dire fiscal straits, and taxing the cannabis crop could ultimately enrich state and local coffers by $1.4 billion a year. But again, critics say that argument is misleading. The act essentially requires local governments that choose to regulate and tax marijuana to establish new bureaucracies and departments, and much of the new revenue could be eaten up by the cumbersome process of permitting and licensing sales, consumption, cultivation and transportation.Far from helping the state's economic outlook, Proposition 19 could cause substantial harm. For instance, it would put employers in a quandary by creating a protected class of on-the-job smokers, bestowing a legal right to use marijuana at work unless employers could actually prove that it would impair an employee's job performance. Employers would no longer have the right to screen for marijuana use or discipline a worker for being high. But common sense dictates that a drug-free environment is crucial at too many workplaces to name — schools, hospitals, emergency response and public safety agencies, among others.The multiple conflicts with federal law, and the strong probability of confusing and contradictory municipal laws that would result from its passage, overwhelm the hypothetical benefits of Proposition 19.This is the first of The Times' endorsements in the Nov. 2 election. Upon publication, they will be collected at latimes.com/opinion.Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)Published: September 24, 2010Copyright: 2010 Los Angeles TimesContact: letters latimes.comWebsite: http://www.latimes.com/URL: http://drugsense.org/url/8rN7QSwFCannabisNews -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help    
     
     
     
     





Comment #26 posted by FoM on September 28, 2010 at 16:02:20 PT
dongenero
The tea party started out with Ron Paul and now it is a republican conservative movement. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by dongenero on September 28, 2010 at 13:31:59 PT
HR 5231
HR5231 -It seems a natural that Tea Partiers would be all over this big government over reach. My internet search has not really turned up anything from the Tea Partiers about this bill.
I did find some libertarian comments about Ron Paul endorsing Lamar Smith though, and questioning the endorsement in light of HR 5231.Ironic that for all the "big government" and "spending" rhetoric, the TP never talk about the massive drug war spending or the king of all spending, military. And this HR5231, is just a exporting of our costly "war on citizens", all around the globe. We can be the drug warriors for the entire world. Hmmm, maybe this is the Conservative's economic plan for our nation? Rent-a-cops drug warriors for the rest of the world. Then again, not really ironic or surprising. Tea Party is just a rebranding of the same old conservative ideology, wrapped in a "Don't Tread On Me" flag. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by rchandar on September 27, 2010 at 20:54:46 PT:
Hope, Sinsemilla
Thanks, and I'm surprised too. Surprised that Pelosi would've even opened this for a vote--maybe to embarass the GOP leadership at election times, almost "see? this is what they'll do to YOU!"There will be more, even if the Dems hold on to both houses. It's not a guarantee, but in the nature of things there will be other bills that will come to the House.I honestly don't know how they would enforce such a law. A verbal confession doesn't amount to "evidence," possession does. Legally speaking, this bill didn't hold up: it would be impossible, without re-writing the Constitution, to make legal this bill's intentions. Amber Alert was soaked in save-the-children rhetoric; this one doesn't have any justification in a democratic society.In some ways, it's good. Good that Americans can see, well ahead of 2012, what the GOP has on their plates for us.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by Hope on September 27, 2010 at 10:13:01 PT
US would make Internet wiretaps easier
Report: US would make Internet wiretaps easierhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100927/ap_on_hi_te/us_internet_wiretaps
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on September 26, 2010 at 22:27:17 PT
Or maybe since it's called BILL of Rights....
...they don't think it was passed into law.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on September 26, 2010 at 22:24:42 PT
It's not a law, only part of the Constitution.
Congress thinks that the word "constitution" means "optional".
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Hope on September 26, 2010 at 20:51:16 PT
Sinsemilla Jones 
Thank you.That's cold. Isn't there a law about not having to incriminate yourself or something?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on September 26, 2010 at 20:24:57 PT
I think I know, Hope.
They probably expected people would incriminate themselves.I imagine Customs would ask folks returning from overseas, if they had used drugs that are illegal in the US while out of the country, and those who had and were honest about it would get busted.Just like with student aid, where they have the question on the form asking if they ever had been arrested for illegal drugs, and those who had and are honest are denied help.So, when in doubt, always lie to the government, because they don't have the time, resources, or competence to find out if you are telling the truth.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by Hope on September 26, 2010 at 09:08:33 PT
I'm serious... comment 15
How were the sponsors of this bill planning on finding the "criminals" they were trying to create?Informants? Is Lamar Smith Big Brother, himself?How? Are we all bugged to that extent?And then the arrest? Lawyers? Trials? Handcuffs? Raids? Throw downs? Lives damaged or ruined?How was law enforcement supposed to know when such a "conspiracy" as mentioned in the bill was afoot?I'm glad the bill is gone... but really... what was the plan? How were they going to get people for this so called "conspiracy" to do something in a foreign country that was not a crime in that country, but it is here? How would they know a "crime", like planning, discussing, hoping, "conspiring" on going to a coffee shop in the Netherlands, while on vacation was taking place?It's really bugging me. How did they plan to find and prosecute and jail this whole new class of criminals they were planning on creating?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by The GCW on September 25, 2010 at 22:55:15 PT
They get it and they don't get it.
"a valid subject for discussion. Californians ought to welcome a debate" It's not up for discussion or debate...It't at the election point!19 is NOW.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by FoM on September 25, 2010 at 09:16:49 PT
About An Article
I haven't found one either just info on blogs.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #15 posted by Hope on September 25, 2010 at 09:06:47 PT

RChandar
There's blog posts and alerts, but I've seen no news articles about it in a simple news search.How in the world did they expect to know if a person "conspired" with someone else to go to a coffee shop while they were in the Netherlands? How? Tattletales? Informants? Are we all monitored somehow... even more than we realize? What? Then they were going to send police out to arrest you and anyone you "conspired" with? They were going to try and imprison people for that?How are they monitoring people to even suggest such a thing?How? I want to know! 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #14 posted by Hope on September 25, 2010 at 08:52:59 PT

And... thank you...
I'm so glad to hear that it was trashed.Aaargh. The very idea!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #13 posted by Hope on September 25, 2010 at 08:52:14 PT

Comment 12
Lamar Smith, not Alexander. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #12 posted by rchandar on September 25, 2010 at 08:45:12 PT:

H.R. 5231
This bill makes it a crime to use drugs outside the US. It was axed a few hours before the scheduled vote, so kudos to the people who e-mailed Pelosi like crazy. Could you post an article on the subject? Here's a draconian bill, sponsored by an extremest (Lamar Alexander), and should NEVER be allowed to pass.Be Informed.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #11 posted by John Markes on September 25, 2010 at 08:39:25 PT

LA Times Subsidizes Cartels
Why The Los Angeles Times wants us to continue to subsidize the black market criminals, gangs and cartels selling marijuana is amazing and disturbing. They should be supporting better public safety instead of encouraging less. They should be working to rid us of gangs and cartels instead of subsidizing them.It's sad they have to resort to lies and yellow journalism.Anyone who wants to continue prohibition of marijuana supports the gangs and cartels that make their money from prohibition.Legalize and save us from the gangs and cartels and their supporters in yellow journalism.

[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #9 posted by rustyfuggerIVXX on September 25, 2010 at 07:49:33 PT:

Snuff Out Pot Measures
The states wide regulations would be no more difficult to control as is traffic violations. The counties would have to follow state mandated rules. Gil Kerlikowske was chosen by Obama as a "drug czar". Lets work on the more serious drug problems like coke, meth, oxies, and so on. 
14 Billion Dollars. What about the creation of new employment, manufacturing, research & developement, medical,bio fuels, and many many more, almost forgot the paper in which the LA Times can be printed on.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by Paint with light on September 24, 2010 at 20:52:33 PT

what about speeding laws?
 "It would permit each of California's 478 cities and 58 counties to create local regulations regarding the cultivation, possession and distribution of marijuana. In other words, the law could change hundreds of times from county to county. In Los Angeles County alone it could mean 88 different sets of regulations."I wonder how many different individual speed zones there are in the same area.Sounds like they can figure out regulation if they want to."But common sense dictates that a drug-free environment is crucial at too many workplaces to name — schools, hospitals, emergency response and public safety agencies, among others."Schools, hospitals, or emergency response crews are not drug free now. It is just that all big pharma drugs are seen as okaySome are, some aren't.Legal like alcohol.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by The GCW on September 24, 2010 at 18:07:43 PT

Great Editorial
US CO: Editorial: Medical Pot Trial A Showcase For Injusticehttp://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n776/a08.html?397
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by observer on September 24, 2010 at 15:21:32 PT

hackneyed title alert:
re: "Snuff Out Pot Measure"Oh, I forgot. Hackneyed title - http://mapinc.org/title/Snuff+OutSo not original.

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by FoM on September 24, 2010 at 14:39:32 PT

Oregon Representative To Introduce Marijuana Bill
Oregon Representative To Introduce Marijuana Legalization BillBy Phillip SmithSeptember 24, 2010Supporters of marijuana legalization in Oregon failed to get the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act(OCTA) on the ballot this year, but now another path appears to be opening. State Rep. Peter Buckley (D-Ashland) has announced he will introduce a legalization bill. He said he expected a hearing in February.Buckley told the Portland Medical Marijuana Examinerhe was using OCTA as a starting point because it was "a good proposal." He said that with budget concerns and "the desire to make progress on this," the OCTA proposal was something for the legislature to consider.URL: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/sep/24/oregon_representative_introduce
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by observer on September 24, 2010 at 13:21:10 PT

The Call of the Mockingbird
This is the first of The Times' endorsements in the Nov. 2 election. Upon publication, they will be collected at latimes.com/opinion.The Mockingbird calls, the Mighty Wurlitzer pipes up. And, we note, first things first - the bird-callers and organ grinders have centrally decided that this "little" nose-thumbing exercise is actually the most inportant thing of all. Remember that cannabis prohibition is the lynch-pin and cornerstone of the "War on Drugs" (so-called). Remove cannabis prohibition from the equation of tyranny in the United States at this time, and many walls of injustice and oppression will come tumbling down. Those responsible for coordinating the editorial lines of newspapers in the mainstream media know this. And we know it too. =====And here's a little aside: an interesting and fun little google search for cannabis news readers from the USA: http://www.google.com/search?q=stamp+tax+act When I did that search, the "Stamp Act 1765" and the "Marihuana Tax Act of 1937" are, ironically, the top two hits. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by dongenero on September 24, 2010 at 12:37:54 PT

To the LA Times
LA Times should look at the steps in which alcohol prohibition was repealed and counties and municipalities allowed to establish their own regulations, including whether or not their county will allow sales or remain "dry". What none were allowed to do any longer was arrest or incarcerate people for possession.Many of these post-prohibition regulations remain in the liquor market.Ok, cover your head again so you aren't hit by a piece of falling sky.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by firedog on September 24, 2010 at 10:50:52 PT

FUD
Well, the anti-19 forces have learned a thing or two about spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt."...bestowing a legal right to use marijuana at work unless employers could actually prove that it would impair an employee's job performance..."If it impairs job performance, then focus on the impairment - not the marijuana. Evidence of impairment, regardless of cause, should be necessary and sufficient to take any needed disciplinary action. If a person can't do the job, does it really matter why?And if it doesn't impair job performance, then what's the issue? In certain professions (creative ones, in particular), marijuana can enhance job performance. Just ask any pro snowboarder, musician, NBA player, or graphic artist.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on September 24, 2010 at 10:35:14 PT

reminder
this is a good time to remember that the circulation of this newspaper is probably 1/10nth what it was 20 years ago.Even in the face of their failing business model they cling to their bitter, racsist, classist position on cannabis prohibition.Good thing no one is reading!!!
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment