California bill seeks to legalize/regulate marijuana

[Ennui]

SACRAMENTO -- California would become the first state in the nation to legalize marijuana for recreational use under a bill introduced Monday by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco.

The proposal would regulate marijuana like alcohol, with people over 21 years old allowed to grow, buy, sell and possess cannabis - all of which is barred by federal law.

Ammiano, a Democrat in his third month as a state lawmaker, said taxes and other fees associated with regulation could put more than a billion dollars a year into state coffers at a time when revenues continue to decline.

He said he thinks the federal government could soften its stance on marijuana under the Obama administration.

"We could in fact have the political will to do something, and certainly in the meantime this is a public policy call and I think it's worth the discussion," Ammiano said. "I think the outcome would be very healthy for California and California's economy."

A spokeswoman for the Drug Enforcement Agency in Washington, D.C., declined to comment on the proposal. A White House spokesman referred to a statement on a question-and-answer section of an Obama transition team blog that says the president "is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana."

While Californians have shown some tolerance for marijuana, such as use for medical conditions with voters' passage of Proposition 215 in 1996, the proposal will face tough opposition in Sacramento.

A lobbyist for key police associations in the state called it "a bad idea whose time has not come."

"The last thing our society needs is yet more legal intoxicants," said John Lovell, who represents the California Peace Officers' Association, California Police Chiefs Association and California Narcotic Officers' Association. "We've got enough social problems now when people aren't in charge of all five of their senses."

But Ammiano's proposal has the support of San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey, who said the idea "should be the subject of legislative and public debate."

It also has the backing of Betty Yee, who chairs the state Board of Equalization, which collects taxes in California. An analysis by the agency concluded the state would collect $1.3 billion a year in tax revenue and a $50-an-ounce levy on retail sales if marijuana were legal.

The analysis also concluded that legalizing marijuana would drop its street value by 50 percent and increase consumption of the substance by 40 percent.

A spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, which advocates for reform in marijuana laws and is backing Ammiano's proposal, said any expected increase in consumption is a "false notion."

"They are making an intuitive assumption that a lot of people make that really does not have that much evidence behind it," said Bruce Mirken, the group's spokesman, who predicted it could take up to two years before the idea wins legislative approval.

"Don't tell me that doing something like (this) proposal is going to introduce another drug into society. That's a load of bull."

source

And here's the text of the bill [PDF]

Not going to get anywhere, obviously, but an important precedent nevertheless. If the economy keeps getting worse, all it's going to do is help the legalization argument. Check the bill itself out, it's quite reasonable, I think this is a very good step for the pro-cannabis movement. There's been an amazing amount of marijuana coverage in the media in the past year or two - Phelps, Obama, Raich, the online petitions, etc - and while legalization is still undoubtedly something of the distant future, it's good to see that awareness is being raised.

Let's keep this thread primarily to discussion of the laws. Anecdotes and the like are fine, but don't turn this into a pothead circle jerk, Munro doesn't like it.

 

[Qonfused]

I'm glad someone is introducing this. As you said, it's never going to get off the ground, but it's a good step. At least it'd put the issues in the limelight.

 

[swan_song1973]

as long as they keep trying, something might get through someday.

 

[Escaep]

Then wouldn't it seem that people would just grow it in their yards instead?

*goes and reads article*

 

[Ennui]

I think the bill allows for up to 10 plants in a private residence, either inside or in a part of the yard that is not readily accessible to the public (so you have to grow in your fenced-in backyard, rather than having a big weed jungle in the front).

 

[Escaep]

I think the bill allows for up to 10 plants in a private residence, either inside or in a part of the yard that is not readily accessible to the public (so you have to grow in your fenced-in backyard, rather than having a big weed jungle in the front).

Ahh i see now. So what do you do, go to a gas station and ask for a blunt?

 

[Raziaar]

State law is still 100% different than federal law unfortunately.

You can legally do all that shit in California if this passes, and if the federal government doesn't change it's old tune, they will still be able to raid your completely legal marijuana store/farm/party and throw everybody in jail.

Sucks.

 

[Tyguy]

That's awesome...good for Cali

 

[Eejit]

State law is still 100% different than federal law unfortunately.

You can legally do all that shit in California if this passes, and if the federal government doesn't change it's old tune, they will still be able to raid your completely legal marijuana store/farm/party and throw everybody in jail.

Sucks.

Would the Feds/DEA have to do it rather than your local cops?

 

[Top Secret]

Yes. In California, for example, I believe a law passed which says the police may choose to follow state law. Which is technically illegal.

Every cop I know in Modesto will not but someone unless they have more than 12 plants.

 

[CptStern]

a few friends and I were heading back into canada across the border a number of years ago. we stopped right before the border and ditched our weed we had bought in some dump in the outskirts of buffalo. we also dumped our empty beer cans we had been drinking (this was the early 90's when drinking while driving was in vogue) ..anyways a cop surprises us with his flashlight saying "DROP THE NARCOTICS AND BACK AWAY FROM THEM" ..so he walks to where we were standing and stands right in the puddle of piss my friend had just made, looks through the bushes sees empty beer cans and says he's going to search our car and accuses of drinking in public. "If I find even one beer you are all spending the night in lockup" ..so he starts searching (we have no beer so are not worried) ..he's searching for a minute or so and lets out an "AHA!" and pulls a beer bottle from under my seat "WHAT'S THIS" he says then looks at the bottle, sees there's a hole in the side and says "oh this beer bottle is old" and then lets us go after finding nothing

guess he was a. too stupid to notice that the hole in the bottle was strategically placed near the bottom just large enough to allow a lit cigarrette to enter and b. too stupid to notice that the entire interior side of the bottle was covered in black resin. Had he realised what he had he might have had a closer look to see what we threw in the bushes

 

[Raziaar]

He was just cool with dopers, that's all.

 

[CptStern]

no, he was Deputy Eager Beaver of the Haspickleuphisass police Department. One of my friends snickered when he made the comment about the hole in the bottle and Gunnery Sgt Hartman gets in his face asking him "what's so funny boy?" then goes on and on about how we need to respect law enforcement yadda yadda etc. my friend responded with "yessir, right away sir" to which the cop said "boy you a sassy mouth" but then let us go with a warning "if I catch you drinking in public I'll have you arrested"

 

[jet_porkins]

Not too fond of it personally.

 

[CptStern]

because the streets will be filled with teens whacked out of MARIJUANA stuffing twinkies down their throats and giggling like madmen

oh the horror!

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I doubt it will get anywhere, and even if it does the federal government will ignore it.

Now I'm off to go smoke some weed myself.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

It's essentially already legal for anyone with the brains to secure a card and a medical excuse. All the second hand market does in the L.A./San Fran areas is sell off the extra from the medical fields.

On the topic of the OP, I really ****ing hope this bill picks up steam.

 

[nipples]

I think the only way marijuana should be legalized is if it doesn't get regulated and mass produced. Can you imagine how clean cigarettes were before they started adding all the shit to it? I bet cigarettes weren't even bad for you back then and I'm pretty sure weed would be tampered with just like tobacco.

 

[Ennui]

I think the only way marijuana should be legalized is if it doesn't get regulated and mass produced. Can you imagine how clean cigarettes were before they started adding all the shit to it? I bet cigarettes weren't even bad for you back then and I'm pretty sure weed would be tampered with just like tobacco.

What? Yes, cigarette companies put additives in cigarettes that make them worse for you (the price of a smooth, cool, evenly-burning cigarette I suppose) but tobacco itself is bad for you and you are pretty much equally likely to get cancer or whatever smoking unprocessed tobacco (like you can buy for rolling cigarettes) as you are smoking a normal stoge with all of its additives and evil addictive chemicals. The idea that cigarettes aren't bad for you to begin with and that it's all Big Tobacco trying to kill your family is ludicrous though.

State law is still 100% different than federal law unfortunately.

You can legally do all that shit in California if this passes, and if the federal government doesn't change it's old tune, they will still be able to raid your completely legal marijuana store/farm/party and throw everybody in jail.

Sucks.

More news from the weed smoking front! Obama has pretty much ended DEA raids on California medical MJ dispensaries. Growers and the like are still being raided as usual, but given that most of them operate in a pretty much totally illegal context that makes sense. It's a huge step (and a relief to see Obama keeping his word) to stop raiding dispensaries though, since it was a regular occurrence under Bush.

?What the president said during the campaign ... will be consistent with what we will be doing here in law enforcement,? he said. ?What (Obama) said during the campaign ... is now American policy.?

Obama indicated during the presidential campaign that he supported the controlled use of marijuana for medical purposes, saying he saw no difference between medical marijuana and other pain-control drugs.

?My attitude is if the science and the doctors suggest that the best palliative care and the way to relieve pain and suffering is medical marijuana, then that?s something I?m open to,? Obama said in November 2007 at a campaign stop in Audubon, Iowa. ?There?s no difference between that and morphine when it comes to just giving people relief from pain.?

White House spokesman Nick Shapiro hinted at the policy shift shortly after the California raids, telling The Washington Times that the dispensaries were legal in California and that the Obama administration?s stance was that ?federal resources should not be used to circumvent state laws.?

source

 

[Sheepo]

What's next? Animal fornicating? Devil worshipping? Rock music?!

 

[Kadayi]

What's next? Animal fornicating? Devil worshipping? Rock music?!

He is the AntiChrist!!! We must march on Washington and burn him!!!

In all seriousness though, the utter retardness of not legalising the Mary Jane in the present climate given that there is a potentially huge revenue stream sitting there is hilarious.

 

[nipples]

What? Yes, cigarette companies put additives in cigarettes that make them worse for you (the price of a smooth, cool, evenly-burning cigarette I suppose) but tobacco itself is bad for you and you are pretty much equally likely to get cancer or whatever smoking unprocessed tobacco (like you can buy for rolling cigarettes) as you are smoking a normal stoge with all of its additives and evil addictive chemicals. The idea that cigarettes aren't bad for you to begin with and that it's all Big Tobacco trying to kill your family is ludicrous though.

Either way, if companies started producing joints you know that there would be additives in them.

 

[Geogaddi]

This would be a good time to mention that pot, for me, controls my asthma far better than emergency albuterol inhalers or even nebulizer treatments.

It's no secret that THC is a bronchiodialator.

Albuterol inhaler = 30 minutes of minor relief
Nebulizer breathing treatment = 3 hours of good relief
One puff of really high quality cannabis = feeling like an Olympic sprinter for 36 hours

It makes me angry that this life-improving drug isn't available to me for no good reason.

Even if the federal government abolishes it's drug laws, Alabama will be the last state to legalize it, even for medical use.

 

[jet_porkins]

because the streets will be filled with teens whacked out of MARIJUANA stuffing twinkies down their throats and giggling like madmen

oh the horror!

Yes, thank you for expressing my opinion for me.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Either way, if companies started producing joints you know that there would be additives in them.

No need really, marijuana burns well enough already and I think people/society as a whole are much smarter than when tobacco first came around. People would definitely have a problem if companies started putting additives in marijuana that made it more harmful than it already is. People are so much more aware and alarmist these days, I believe a boycott would happen.

 

[CptStern]

Yes, thank you for expressing my opinion for me.

well you could try to not beat around the bush so much and actually say what's on your mind . It leaves your statements open to interpretation :E

 

[Tyguy]

It's essentially already legal for anyone with the brains to secure a card and a medical excuse.

unless you happen to live in the 40 states where medicinal marijuana is still illegal

 

[Qonfused]

Yay for Michigan. No dispensaries, though.

 

[jet_porkins]

well you could try to not beat around the bush so much and actually say what's on your mind . It leaves your statements open to interpretation :E

Whenever there is a need for it, doctors prescribe it. I'm not convinced as to why it needs to be legalized for recreational purposes. Regulating it like alcohol will obviously make it more available. I know dozens of teens who drink alcohol as a result of having friends who are eligible to purchase beer; they leak through the system, making it quite accessible for them. Regulating marijuana along the lines of alcohol, IMO, will generate the same 'leakage' in the system, and I think we'll see a rise in both lower and upper teenager consumption, which is for obvious reasons a bad thing.

As far as I have heard in defense of legalized recreational marijuana, the general argument is "Why not?" Obviously that's a very simplified generalization. However, there is no need for it, and if there IS a need for it medical marijuana can supplement that need, society as a whole I don't think will benefit from it, and all it will generate in the long run is death. IMO.

EDIT: So I do favor completely legal medical marijuana. I'm simply not sold on recreational purposes.

 

[Sheepo]

Teens smoking marijuana isn't exactly a rare occurence now...

 

[jet_porkins]

Teens smoking marijuana isn't exactly a rare occurence now...

I'm more than aware. One of my best friends smokes weed. Just because there's a problem now doesn't mean we might as well make the problem worse.

 

[Sheepo]

But I think what's being argued is that it isn't much of a "problem" at all.

 

[Ennui]

Nor would legalizing it really increase availability all that much. It's already completely widespread, generally it's much easier for me to access weed than alcohol here and I could have gotten weed in middle school if I had wanted to.

 

[CptStern]

Whenever there is a need for it, doctors prescribe it. I'm not convinced as to why it needs to be legalized for recreational purposes. Regulating it like alcohol will obviously make it more available. I know dozens of teens who drink alcohol as a result of having friends who are eligible to purchase beer; they leak through the system, making it quite accessible for them. Regulating marijuana along the lines of alcohol, IMO, will generate the same 'leakage' in the system

they already have quick access to drugs without meeting any age requirements whatsoever. teenage "leakage" is everyone, regardless of age, engaging in criminality. it's by far the lesser of two evils, you're just not looking at it correctly

and I think we'll see a rise in both lower and upper teenager consumption, which is for obvious reasons a bad thing.

slippery slope logical fallacy. without proof your point is invalid and mere speculation based onnothing more than "gut instinct"

As far as I have heard in defense of legalized recreational marijuana, the general argument is "Why not?"

as opposed to the argument against legalisation: "just because"

Obviously that's a very simplified generalization. However, there is no need for it,

there's no need for alcohol, coffee, cigarrettes, tiny umbrellas in tropical drinks etc etc etc etc

this is not a very good argument to make as the list of things we dont need is endless

and if there IS a need for it medical marijuana can supplement that need, society as a whole I don't think will benefit from it,

there will be a concrete and measureable effect as soon as it becomes legal:

all those pot smokers engaging in crimnal behaviour are no longer criminals

and all it will generate in the long run is death. IMO.

this is lunacy, this is madness, this is bullshit:

From Pharmacology and Toxicity of Cannabis", published in Cannabis in Medical Practice - A Legal, Historical and Pharmacological Overview of the Therapeutic Use of Marijuana:

"The estimated lethal human dose of intravenous Marinol is 30 mg/kg (2100 mg/70 kg). Using this estimation of lethal dose, the equivalent inhaled THC would represent the smoking of 240 cannabis cigarettes with total systemic absorption of the average 8.8 mg of THC in each cigarette.

Since absorption is much less than 100 percent, the amount of smoked marijuana required to reach lethality is on the order of one to two thousand cigarettes.

The physical impossibility of a fatal overdose using smoked cannabis is obvious."

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/3576/gentlemenlz1on91od1.jpg

EDIT: So I do favor completely legal medical marijuana. I'm simply not sold on recreational purposes.

you dont have to be; thankfully you dont get to decide

 

[jet_porkins]

^^^ You asked my opinion. That's my opinion. Facts and arguments have nothing to do with it.

Also, you haven't posed any argument FOR recreational marijuana.

 

[CptStern]

^^^ You asked my opinion. That's my opinion. Facts and arguments have nothing to do with it.

so long as we're in agreement that facts have nothing to do with it ..... :thumbs:

Also, you haven't posed any argument FOR recreational marijuana.

now why would I have to do that?

but I'll indulge you by saying "why not"

 

[Eejit]

^^^ You asked my opinion. That's my opinion. Facts and arguments have nothing to do with it.

So you reach (hear and swallow whole?) an opinion and will nevermore be swayed from that no matter what facts or arguments contradict it?
Well that's... tenacious... of you.

 

[CptStern]

So you reach (hear and swallow whole?) an opinion and will nevermore be swayed from that no matter what facts or arguments contradict it?
Well that's... tenacious... of you.

HEY IF IT WORKS FOR RELIGION!!!!




ps. the jesus is strong in this one

pps: the above is speculation ...it may be the spaghetti monster however all indications point to jesus

 

[Eejit]

Yeah but religion IS WHAT GOD SAYS OKAY?! I don't think the bible talked much about MJ's legal status.

 

[Sheepo]

The purpose of recreational marijuana is... recreation. People enjoy using it, it makes them happy. There's no reasonable argument against it, so why not?