This is kind of a big deal:
A group of police officers, judges and prosecutors who fought in the failed “war on drugs” is cheering this Tuesday’s upcoming marijuana legalization votes in the California Assembly’s Public Safety and Health committees as a sign of increasing public frustration with the harms caused by prohibition and the widespread desire for a new approach.
Judge Jim Gray, who retired last year from the California Superior Court in Orange County and is a speaker for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) said, “The mere fact that there will be votes in the Assembly to regulate and control the sale and distribution of marijuana would have been unthinkable even one year ago. And if the bill doesn’t pass this year, it will soon. Or, the bill will be irrelevant because the voters will have passed the measure to regulate and tax marijuana that will be on the ballot this November.”
Apparently they vote tomorrow.
shoutingattherain
It’ll never pass, but I’m too stoned to care.
low-tech cyclist
I remain against legalizing the sale of marijuana. Possession, sure – legalize that, and let people grow it in their backyards or under their grow-lights, and let people by all means share it with each other.
But haven’t we figured out yet that giving companies an economic stake in increasing the use of drugs, whether we’re talking beer or prescription drugs, is a risky proposition? It’s hard to see that marijuana would work out differently.
Let’s legalize it, but keep it outside the realm of corporate commerce.
jeffreyw
A friend pointed me to the story from Great Britain about the spontaneous snow rollers there. I told her I was still waiting for the story about self assembling doobies in a hemp field here.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
I hope it passes but it probably won’t because it makes sense and saves money.
The Republicans can’t have that!
Xenos
If they legalize it they could also pardon everyone imprisoned for possession. That would save a few dollars.
Nicole
NY1 did a piece this morning on a fight between a 15-year-old and a 12-year-old that broke out after they went to a park to smoke pot. It’s very upsetting (the 15-year-old stabbed the 12-year-old) but all I could think was, if they’d gotten around to smoking up before the fight started they probably wouldn’t have had a fight.
Some days I’m a really bad person.
(The 12-year-old is going to be okay, btw)
AkaDad
If God didn’t want us to smoke weed, he wouldn’t have created it. Those who reject his will are going to burn in hell.
The Grand Panjandrum
In my lungs, and sometimes up my nose.
BR
For those of you who are also CA voters, here’s an idea I wanted to run by you on this:
Suppose this legislation or, more likely, the equivalent proposition passes. Arizona or another neighboring state will surely sue in federal court to put a stop to it on “interstate commerce” grounds, and the court may do their bidding.
Here’s my end run plan: call Ammianno (who’s sponsoring this bill) and others in the assembly and ask them to pass a full decriminalization bill immediately after the election at the end of this year. If the voters vote for a full legalization bill, the legislature won’t be nervous about supporting a weaker bill (that would eliminate all criminal penalties and fines for possession, sale, and growing of reasonable amounts, but wouldn’t outright make it “legal”).
This way, even if the full legalization bill gets struck down, we will have made progress.
BR
Also, here’s an idea for ads that should be run to support the proposition to tax and regulate cannabis. We need to convince conservatives to vote for it, not just liberals.
They need to do a media blitz of Orange County and other conservative areas with a three-part message:
1. Let the free market handle this – keep the government out of personal decisions. This is about personal responsibility.
2. Tax the hippies – they’re already smoking weed, and they don’t pay taxes like you and I do for our scotch or beer.
3. Shut down the Mexican gangs and drug cartels that are making Southern California dangerous.
In all good campaigns you have to identify the villain. For conservatives the villains are those cannabis tax-dodging hippies, the Mexican gangs/cartels, and the government telling you what you can and can’t do.
Erik Vanderhoff
An Orange County judge? That, in itself, speaks volumes.
Dork
CA cant even handle gays being married. Not a chance in hell they can handle some green herb in a white wrapper.
Bob (Not B.o.B.)
I agree that Phillip Morris type companies shoudl not be selling weed. Pretty soon, they will doctor it to enhance its addictive properties.
You should have to grow your own, or perhaps sell in regulated amounta per year and it should have to be organic.
BR
@Dork:
The reason prop 8 passed was in large part due to political malpractice on the part of the No on 8 campaign. They didn’t run any worthwhile ads while the state was getting flooded with out-of-state-money-funded Yes on 8 fearmongering ads.
The polls were 55-45 in favor of No on 8 before the ads. The No on 8 campaign could have done two things (that I called and emailed them about repeatedly):
1. Hit back with ads like “Do you want the Mormon church in Utah, which practiced polygamy and didn’t allow blacks to join their church just a generation ago and is spending millions of dollars for Prop 8, to tell us Californians what marriage means?”
2. Use Obama’s letter. (He wrote a letter opposing Prop 8 – Obama won CA by a huge margin and surely it would have helped to run ads saying “Obama opposes Prop 8”).
BR
@Bob (Not B.o.B.):
The good news is that there are so many medical cannabis dispensaries in the state that it’s likely this would remain a local-business fueled industry. Not to mention that all the big tobacco companies probably don’t have much in the way of operations in CA. (The legislation doesn’t allow any inter-state sale/growing/etc.)
RandyH
In Nevada this November there is a ballot initiative to legalize possession of up to 1 ounce for all people 21 and over, create authorized marijuana outlets and tax it $50/ounce. Strangely, it doesn’t legalize growing it, but registered medical marijuana users already have the right to grow up to 7 plants at a time and most of it would come in at a wholesale level from California anyway.
Should be interesting to see if it passes.
MikeJ
Legalizing it won’t be a problem. Is there actually anyplace in CA that it is legal to smoke?
BR
@MikeJ:
The legislation won’t legalize public consumption. (I mean, it basically makes it equivalent to alcohol, and I don’t know of any CA cities that technically allow public alcohol consumption, except on a few beaches and in a few parks.)
BR
@RandyH:
It’s pretty important that more than one state other than CA passes legalization. If just CA does it it’d be easy for the GOP to make noise and get it shut down. If NV, OR, WA, MA, or VT (all states with propositions or legislation pending) do it at the same time, it’s harder to say “crazy California liberals are destroying America”.
El Cruzado
I think they got it wrong in CA.
FIRST you legalize cannabis.
THEN, when it comes the time to legalize gay marriage, whatever, dude.
cleek
i’d be happy if they just banned pre-employment drug screens (in NC).
the need to keep clean might be the worst part of looking for a job.
Trevor B
Saw a documentary about bud growth in BC, they said CA could save about 15 million a year by legalization, this does not include taxation though. Seems like a good way to cover a portion of the budget deficit.
The Grand Panjandrum
OT: I’m not a big HuffPo fan but if Tucker Carlson thinks his Daily Caller is going to be the right wing analog … well let’s just say that you have to take a look at what $3 million gets you when a conservative spends your money.
Kevin K has a good first shot:
Ouch.
zoe kentucky in pittsburgh
I know it doesn’t even seem to be on Obama’s list– and it might be a hard thing for any dem to try and do– but I’d love to see him address how screwed up the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines are, especially those for non-violent drug offenses. Next step is to decriminalize possession of marijuana. Although I’m sure the prison industrial complex will lobby against that and, likely, win.
Unfortunately I only see gopers being able to go near the issue otherwise they’ll scream that dems are soft on crime/criminals.
jeffreyw
@AkaDad: If god didn’t want us to have breakfast he would never have invented sausage n eggs.
Brachiator
@Bob (Not B.o.B.):
Yeah, right. And all wineries and distilleries should be illegal, and everyone should be forced to brew their own beer and to make their own wine.
Not in public. And I imagine that health advocates are gearing up a anti-marijuana second hand smoke campaign if something as rational as legalization ever happened.
wasntme
“Green turns to black, that’s what we work for. ” Says SoCal reggae/movement band Rebelution. All those potheads in prison? Lets fix that, too.
Roger Moore
@MikeJ:
You’re still allowed to smoke in the privacy of your own home, and some public areas have designated smoking areas. Besides, it’s possible to consume pot without smoking, e.g. in brownies. It should make school bake sales very interesting.
RandyH
@Brachiator:
Under the Nevada proposal it won’t be legal to smoke pot in public places either because second-hand pot smoke can make others fail drug tests even if they don’t breathe enough to make them high. Hopefully they will allow it inside marijuana outlets though so you can have the Amsterdam Coffeeshop experience like medical marijuana outlets often have.
Keith G
I would feel a whole lot better if we could spend a bunch of time actually scientifically studying all effects of all types of usage before we do much in the way legalizing. Weed is not anywhere near as bad as it was made out to be (a really over the top anti- film I saw in school in the 70s actually made me want to try it, which I shortly did).
Yet it is not with out harm and as one who eventually made extra bucks as a retailer in college, I can attest to some deleterious outcomes. But that anecdotal, so I would really like the feds to let outside organizations be able to do comprehensive clinical studies and such.
les
@The Grand Panjandrum:
Looks pretty much like Huffpo; bad (visual, at least) taste is not very politically oriented. Not that Huffpo is noticeably lefty.
les
@RandyH:
Ah, but if it’s legal can employers still discriminate on a positive cannabis drug test?
Roger Moore
@Keith G:
I disagree; I think that it should default to being legal. We have a great deal of evidence that shows prohibition is destructive at a societal level. It should be up to the people who want to make it illegal to show that individual use is sufficiently damaging to justify the societal costs of prohibition.
Damned at Random
Legalization will boost California tourism.
Brachiator
@Keith G:
There’s a Catch-22 at work here. Marijuana is officially classified as “Bad For You” (whatever the Class Level thingie is), so it is very, very, very hard for researchers to get approvals to do any rational studies as to its effects.
Keith G
@Roger Moore: I respectfully disagree. Part of it is the old Putting toothpaste back in the tube” thingy.
I hate the war on drugs as I hate what has been done to so many young lives after a bust for what you and I would consider inconsequential possession. Decriminalization would be cool pending thorough clinical study and cost/benefit analysis. We already have too many legal drugs. I hesitate adding one more on anecdotal considerations.
Dreamer that I am, I would like to know more about the social cost of legalization. Would a more robust youth market evolve? Would that initiate more developmental problems? More economic concerns? Would there be any impact on adolescent education (hell even college)? Can we live with any generated impacts or be willing to fund mitigation.
We have a chance to do this right, unlike, say, tobacco. We can always squeeze that tube empty at a later date.
Keith G
@Keith G: Edit fail and I wasn’t even high
Keith G
@Brachiator: You are 100% correct. That is irksome and very unwise, which is why in the next paragraph I typed:
Roger Moore
@Brachiator:
It’s classified as “Schedule 1”. That doesn’t actually mean “Bad For You”; it means that it has a high potential for abuse and no accepted clinical use. IOW, it’s for purely recreational drugs whether they have particularly bad effects or not. The FDA justifies the claim that pot has no legitimate clinical use by saying that people should use the purified active components instead. Since those purified versions are supposed to have the full effect of pot but have all the quality control of a proper pharmaceutical (e.g. standardized dosage), it’s considered to be a superior replacement and justifies placing pot on Schedule 1.
CalD
Hey now. That is kind of a big deal.
Carol
The movement to legalize sets a limit of 21 like alcohol. That pretty much keeps it out of the hands of children and teenagers-and that market will vanish almost immediately once you can sell pot at a markup to adults legally. Pot disappears to be sold behind the counter.
The reason why pot is such a concern about youth is because the current unregulated illegal market uses teenagers as mules, sellers and consumers. Kids sell to other kids and to any adult who wants to pay. There is no reason either for kids to wait until they are adults because pot is illegal then too. Of course, adult dealers don’t care either and need the money anyway to pay demanding suppliers.
Legalization will cure 95% of those ills immediately.
I hope that when this passes, whether or not it’s this year, that there is a real bill to release all of the non-violent sellers and users. Let those people out so that they can resume their lives, and don’t discriminate against them once they are out regarding public services either.
John
Legalization by a state seems obviously unconstitutional. How can a state regulate the sale of something that it is illegal to sell under federal law? Decriminalization by states seems like a great idea, but I don’t see anyway that full legalization and regulation could pass constitutional muster.
Keith G
@Carol:
That’s a good one!
Seriously though, so none of your teenagers drink and none of their friends have problems associated with alcohol? Nice neighborhood.
Bobby Yamaha
@les: One of the first things that has to happen before widespread legalization can occur is the invention of a test similar to the Breathalyzer that can differentiate between last week’s THC and today’s.
Not so easy to do since THC is stored in body fat.
But it definitely needs to happen.
Xenos
@John:
Easy. They go ahead and do it until the Federal government goes to court and stops them. If the Feds don’t want to get involved, they don’t have to. Federal laws preempt state laws, but that does not make the state police powers disappear.
Dreggas
@BR:
Orange County isn’t that bad and we have tons of pot smokers here, even so-called conservatives. It’s easy to get and almost everyone does it.
DZ
I have mixed feelings about this. Pot should be legal but I do not want tobacco companies or other corporate scumbags involved. The cost would go up while quality would go down. Legalize home cultivation and use and leave it at that. Can’t sell it, can’t transport it, can’t drive under influence, etc.
Plus, it would encourage home ownership.
Mike G
Looks like our governor got a three decade head start:
latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/arnold_pot.jpg
RandyH
@les:
In the Nevada proposal, they don’t change any of that. Employers can still drug test and discriminate as they currently do.
Dustin
“Cost would go up while quality would go down.”
By your logic my little 2500 barrel/year brewery should ALSO be illegal because, after all there’s no middle ground between corporate “lowest denominator” swill and homebrew. Or is pot somehow exempt from free market supply and demand and something only mega-producers can provide?
And the next moron to say that ‘organic’ pig shit fertilizer is safer, or better for anything but marketing, than synthetic nitrogen-fixation derived fertilizer deserves a boot to the ass. Not to harp on the hippies but the “organic” is just a freaking marketing ploy. You get inferior yields, increased risk of contamination, and increased useage of ‘natural’ fertilizers to offset the inefficiencies in the growth cycle.
In short, if you’re interested in helping the environment don’t be an ideologue. It’s as bad as the global warming deniers.
Brachiator
@Keith G:
The problem is that the feds don’t seem to be willing to reconsider their position with respect to testing marijuana and, worse, they ignore studies that indicate the relative benign aspects of marijuana because … wait for it … they did not conduct or authorize the studies.
Hence, the intellectual Catch-22.
Roger Moore – It’s classified as “Schedule 1”. That doesn’t actually mean “Bad For You”; it means that it has a high potential for abuse and no accepted clinical use.
It really means that the government makes crap up. They have to ignore the existence of medical marijuana. And the Schedule 1 rules go as follows:
Oddly enough, cocaine is a Schedule II drug because it has some medical uses.
And yet the drug folks haven’t really studied whether all the components are equally efficacious and they in the past ignored the reality that smoking pot is better for nausea for some people than taking a pill, which can be thrown up. I’m not sure if there is a medical marijuana inhaler.
Not quite the government’s rationalization is as follows:
So it’s not that the standard dosage of purified components is better, it’s that marijuana is bad for you.
Remember November
Actually, you don’t need to smoke it to get the benefits- you can essentially boil it and breathe in the vapors- no carbon emissions. pure buzz. No trauma to lungs w/ carcinogens.
Keith G
@Brachiator: You are right. Luckily the anti-testing lobby is slowly diminishing. I would imagine that as things change through out the states, there will be a bit more push for analysis.
My years of starting a new college term with a full backpack and living of the earnings is decades behind me, as are one-hits after a long night of studying. I do not have a dog in this fight. I just hope that if pot is legalized, twenty years hence people aren’t scratching their heads and wondering, “Why the fuck did they do that?”
Carol
@Keith G
No, kids do drink and get drunk and smoke cigarettes. They have to steal from adults to do so, while others just wait until they are old enough to get their own without the extra hassle.
But a kid can make thousands selling pot to all comers because it’s illegal and get caught up in gang activity that way. No teenager can own a bar or tend bar or sell cigarettes. How many do so on the side or under the table, not many, there just isn’t the market for the stuff. There are no adult customers for teenagers to sell under the table alcohol and cigarettes.
And a legal market saves kids in another way. Kids don’t get involved in violent underground activity or introduced to harder drugs by people who desperately need to make a profit no matter what. Legal sellers can refuse to sell.
Keith G
@Carol:
I would bet that most pay someone to buy for them, others know the right store to go to. Theft of Mom’s ciggies is probably more of an occasional early middle school phenomenon. In some respects there is a social geography to drug usage. The closer you are to those who use, or where the market is, the easier and more likely it is for you to use. That’s one argument for the raising the age for alcohol use. It made it just a bit more difficult for the average high school-er to get it. But I do not want to head out into these weeds, so to speak.
I understand what you are getting at and am not flatly opposed.
In a relatively short amount of time, we should be able to create acceptable social and economic models to check the validity of your anecdotal assertions. Health studies will take longer, but I’m certain that strong preliminary analysis over some effects can be known with in a year or two. I am just advocating a thoughtful caution and a faith in a peer reviewed scientific research. Loosening restrictions will be easier socially, than tightening them.
Al Swearengen
The press here in Colorado has been in full-yellow meltdown mode continually since medical use was approved.
Every fucking day and night the lead in the newspapers and TV news has been some “YOU WON’T BELIEVE HOW THIS DENVER COUPLE TREATS THEIR CHILD’S AUTISM!!!!!!!! MARI-JUANA-ANA-ANA-ana-ana-ana” (The shot of the dumb-shit parents gets the negative posterization treatment.) Every tiny scrap of news is given the full blowup as being the end of the world as we know it.
The fuckhead media whores are doing everything they can to screw it up for everybody.
Pete Guither
I’m baffled by those who are hesitant to legalize marijuana out of concerns of some kind of danger, or potential danger. So you want to leave it in the hands of criminals to regulate?
Every model that exists in the world shows that there is unlikely to be any increase in abuse of marijuana under legalization. Portugal showed a decrease in problems with decriminalization, the Netherlands has a much lower rate of use than the U.S. (particularly with teens), and even U.S. states that experimented with decriminalization showed no significant increases in use.
Prohibition is chaos. It leaves everything related to the growth and distribution of pot to criminals, who grow it with dangerous chemicals in national parks to enrich violent cartels in Mexico, and sell it to kids without age restriction. Sure, it makes the prison unions rich at our expense, but it does absolutely nothing to reduce the harm (or availability).
Pot is available now, unregulated. Why are you opposed to regulating it? And why would you want to keep increasing the size of the criminal class? Every time we arrest a pot dealer, it creates a vacuum that is immediately filled by someone who needs an income (particularly in the cities). The one we arrested gets room and board paid for by us while they continue criminal training (with few other options once released) and the new one gets added to the ever growing criminal ranks.
If there are dangers to the use of marijuana, they can be addressed through education and other means. Prohibition is the wrong tool — it doesn’t work and causes problems of its own. It’s time to legalize and regulate.
Keith G
@Pete Guither:
Doh! How did I miss that?
I am not. I don’t, I don’t and I don’t
No argument about that from me as I have repeatedly said above.
The stats from Portugal and the Netherlands look promising. As best I could see, these seem to be single source. Replication of data would by others be really groovy.
Joeradish
“Legalize it, Yeah Yeah
Don’t criticize it”
A whole class of criminal would disappear like sage-smellin smoke. California would solve its financial crisis, sending out waves of giggles nationwide.