Decriminalization is an ass-backward idea.  Yes there will be nothing but a fine, but wait...if it isn't criminal, why is there a fine?  Aside from this, under decriminalization you're still unable to cultivate, or even legally possess it.

I think it's good that there would be less of a penalty, however it still makes no sense.  It's like admitting that you're wrong, yet you still punish those for indulging.

But I agree, I'm not too optimistic.  I guess we'll find out tonight though.

From what I understand (which may very-well be wrong) you are unable to be imprisoned, or have charges on your record, for merely possessing cannabis.  However, you are still issued a fine (possibly if as you said, above a certain ammount) and are still unable to cultivate, or sell it.

So it's pretty much removing the severe penalties, but if you're unable to cultivate where is it going to come from?  Black market me thinks.

I'd have to imagine the details can vary depending on location, and level of "decriminal-ness".

And Choop:  From what I've gathered, Prop 19 is currently looking grim.  Truthfully, I wasn't too optimistic for it, but one can always hope.

So you are saying we are just getting the tip right now, just to see how it feels?

I'd imagine a roadside sobriety test would work. 

Been there, done that.  For a better part of my high school career, I drove high more than not.  I will say that there is a limit at which I'd feel safer not driving, but that limit is seldom reached.

I never said that I thought driving while under the influence of any substance was "right", but that isn't to say (in my experience) I find driving while under the influence of cannabis to be more dangerous than not.  Having said that, I shall note that I've never been in an accident (Sans hitting a guard rail on an ice / snow covered road one time, merely scuffing my bumper)

I'd have to agree with Choopie.  It all depends upon the person, and their ability to cope with the changes any psychoactive substance brings.  Of course this are far too difficult to base an entire law off of, so I'd have to agree that a law which is applied to all is required.

As far as current poll results go:

http://www.ktvu.com/election-results/25609197/detail.html - http://www.ktvu.com/election-results/25609197/detail.html

I'll check back in later today to see what kind of puns have been formed about it. 

 

 

 

 

 

DAVE'S NOT HERE!

Trills.

Unfortunate that it got shot down, but there's always next time.  It's truly a shame being that I'm sure if Prop 19 would have passed it would have added quite  a bit of steam to the movement, fueling CO's attempt as well as MI's. 

This just in:  Alcohol and tobacco are drugs, and are FAR more dangerous to your health than cannabis.  I see absolutely no reason any drug should be illegal (and while that is entirely a long shot), you really would rather have a society of drunk drivers and people who abuse substances that eat your liver, make you black out from OD'ing, cause vomiting, decreases blood flow to the brain; as well as causes lung cancer, asthma, fungus of the tongue, and the various other problems caused by these two than having cannabis be legal?  The drug that hasn't once, in recorded history, caused a death due strictly to it's use?  The substance that poses countless medical possibilities, and even further countless textile possbilities?

And no, OS you are wrong.  I could live without weed, and I have done so for many years, and more recently many months.  The difference is, when I would like to indulge, I'd rather not have the possibilty of going to prison for it.

Aside from all of this, Hemp is the world's most useful textile, and it has been shown in medical testing that various cannabinoids, primarily THC, inhibit cancerous growth as well as the growth of tumors.  Not to mention, THC is an excellent anti inflamitory, and is far more safe than aspirin or any current pharmaceutical.

Also, I find your statistic hard to believe; "Most Americans are not responsible enough to interact with society while they are 'high'".  A majority of Americans have at one point, and only slightly fewer still use / have used cannabis.

Yes, OS, I do see a benefit from cannabis being legal.  It would lower the strain of our legal system, save tax payers countless dollars by not imprisoning cannabis users; as well as generate billions in tax revenue which could be put to use for things such as health care, education, etc.

Fixed

Cannabis is not physically addictive.  With that being said, it is clearly able to be mentally addictive, but that can be said for far more than just drugs.

OS, you must realize, It wasn't long before that generation that 'Reefer Madness' was where many got their 'facts'.  I'm sure it's entirely accurate, because you know...smoking cannabis makes you insane and want to murder others, and makes blacks kill and rape whites.

On a side note: There are several other ways to ingest cannabis without smoking it.  Ideally using a vaporizer, which doesn't combust any of the plant material leaving many of the unwanted chemicals / tars out of your lungs.  Another alternative is to make baked goods / various food items.  

I'm curious as to how in the world that happened with cannabis. 

I also am a realist when it comes to law creation. 

So Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, etc. had no logic?

If his ass has a good job, treats my daughter as a damn queen he can smoke as much pot as he wants for all I care.

 

Watching the show police women of dallas or watever,  They wanted to take a 17yr old to jail for under a GRAM! Holy! Thats brutal. 

 

Give somone a record for the rest of thier life for that? Thats ridiculous.

 

Now I see whta you guys are saying about the thousands if not millions going to the jail system for nothing really.

 

People getting arrested for under a gram.... Jeez! 

Well, the argument can be made: How many people die per-year from obesity, diabetes and heart-related issues vs. will die from marijuana related issues? 

Dear lord, this.

I feel Gatyr appropriately addressed this, however being as it's directed at me I'll just throw my 2 pence in.

I do not base my judgement of someone from their drug use.  (Hypothetical) If my daughter were to date someone who smoked weed, would I shun them?  No.  Would I attempt to stop my daughter from dating them simply for smoking weed?  No.  (Although the roles are reversed here, I find it to be the same) One of my best friend's ex girlfriend, who is also one of my best friends, is able to keep up with even some of the heaviest smokers.  She also currently has a 4.0 while attending NYU.  While I myself would not want to date her, in no way would I believe that she's unfit to be the partner of another.  She did far more for the relationship then the boyfriend, in many regards (Who is also a heavy smoker.) Would I call her a pothead?  That depends upon what you define a pothead as; whether it be someone with absolutely no responsibility for themselves, or merely someone who smokes a fairly large amount of cannabis.  I also have a good friend who is currently attending PSU Main, double majoring in Nuclear and Mechanical engineering whom is another heavy smoker.  In no way do I think that drug use itself depicts the picture of one's life.

As with any drug (Since this is what the thread is about), there are people who will make less of their potential through drug use, while others will find no problem keeping up with their responsibilities and duties.

And as far as why the proposition was shot down, there were actually many cannabis users / growers in CA that had voted against it for it was in their minds very poorly written, and would (once again, in their minds) ruin the current industry they have and simply hand it over to 'Big Business' among other various reasons.  In my personal opinion, if you had voted "No" on prop 19, despite whether or not you use cannabis, then you're for prohibition.

And, if I do say, your broad generalizations about those of your era; how do you know them to be accurate?  How are you, yourself, able to state what everyone of your generation believes and does? 

little devil wrote: Not living in the states I had no lcue how harsh the penalties on pot are in some states.   Watching the show police women of dallas or watever,  They wanted to take a 17yr old to jail for under a GRAM! Holy! Thats brutal.    Give somone a record for the rest of thier life for that? Thats ridiculous.   Now I see whta you guys are saying about the thousands if not millions going to the jail system for nothing really.   People getting arrested for under a gram.... Jeez!

Yeah LD, it's rather ridiculous.  This varies drastically from one area to another though.  For instance, when I had my run in with the law with an eighth, they didn't jail me, and ultimately my chargers were dropped in court.  On the other hand, I have several friends who have been caught and have faced FAR more severe penalties.

The question is: What exactly is "Small government" about keeping marijuana illegal despite its extremely low levels of detriment?  

While I can respect that as a legitimate point (Probably the best one you've made in years), it certainly does strip you of some of your "Small government" cred. Especially if you are going to use the FDA as an example of a positive in decision making. 

Welcome to the dark side of thinking not all governmental regulation is evil.