Ford Ranger Forum - Forums for Ford Ranger enthusiasts!

Go Back   Ford Ranger Forum - Forums for Ford Ranger enthusiasts! > >
Forgot Password? Join Us!

Welcome to Ford Ranger Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread

  #61  
Old 10-18-2010, 11:24 AM
JGiddy JGiddy is offline
-
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,682
Default Re: here it is on the ballot...

Quote:
Originally Posted by dixie_boysles View Post

Like Stephen said, I have seen way too many people I know use the stuff and let it lead into other drugs. It is a gateway drug, and it's proven. Too many lives have been ruined by drugs. I know personally from firsthand experience in the family.
Odd because the gateway drug theory was disproven a long time ago. Where is it proven? Link? I know TONs of people who smoke who have never touched hard drugs, and know people who used to do hard drugs who have stopped completely, and they say weed helped them step down off hard drugs. If anything, it's the opposite of a gateway drug for them.

People have been using marijuana for thousands of years, you think that's going to stop any time soon? It was legal in America until about 70 years ago when William Randolph Hearst started a smear campaign against pot further himself politically, to stunt trade with Mexico because he hated Mexicans, and to protect the tobacco crop so it wouldn't be compromised by a hemp industry

Last edited by JGiddy; 10-18-2010 at 11:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 10-18-2010, 12:21 PM
azgilamonster azgilamonster is offline
grumpy old ford driver
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,286
Default Re: here it is on the ballot...

When I was like 16 or so there was a group called N.O.R.M.L
it is still around
http://norml.org/
Attached Images
File Type: jpg NORML_Remember_Prohibition.jpg (23.8 KB, 3 views)
__________________
2001 Ranger Edge 4x4 , Stepside,FRF decals, 4.0L SOHC decals, Primus IQ brake controller, curt 2" rec. hitch, custom winch mount,
Tinted glass, Yellow BUGGMAN OVALS a real treat to have. OHC, CB, night vision goggles, 36" periscope,
DiabloAmarillo = The Yellow Devil

Last edited by azgilamonster; 10-18-2010 at 12:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10-18-2010, 02:33 PM
TomsFriendtheScienceNerd TomsFriendtheScienceNerd is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Default Re: here it is on the ballot...

Post 1 of 3 ---

So there I am being productive and then, out of nowhere, Tom links me to this little developing morsel.

Let me start by saying I am a huge lover of science and all things logic. I was, years ago, a huge prohibitionist until someone with better research than myself put me in my place and made me realize how pathetic the prohibitionist side truly is.

Academically, I have studied this subject passionately for a bit over 3 years. I have written numerous papers and arguments on it and even helped draft political speeches regarding the topic.

With that said, I enjoy the subject and am more than happy to jump in with my 2cents.

Feel free to glance over this for your username, as I likely responded to you if you posted against legalization (or if you posted in support, but were slightly off with your facts).

Let me just say that I'm sure most of this will come off as abrasive, but I've gotten really tired of pretending like I am not disgusted by so many myths. If you guys want to play science, let's play science.

On the plus side, I'm more than happy to answer any questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by azgilamonster View Post
it's all about the revenue.
It's hardly "all about the revenue." The revenue is more of an incentive mechanism for "the better good" of the cause, which is seen as a civil rights issue by supporters. This is why it is quite disingenuous when opponents to Prop 19 question how much money the bill might produce, as that is only a consequence of the primary purpose, which is simply moving towards legalization.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dixie_boysles View Post
why your at it, just pass crack, meth, and ecstasy, im sure they will make plenty of money too. A drug is a drug no matter which way you put it. I dont care for the "it comes from the Earth" bullcrap, its a drug which inhibits the senses.
This is a completely separate issue which ignores a lot of fundamental aspects of marijuana. It's like comparing soda to vodka and saying its a valid comparison because they are both liquids that tingle your mouth.

Simply put:
-Crack is pretty nasty, won't bother with this one.
-Meth is bad as well, but also very useful medicinally and, if used "responsibly" can be useful. The obvious issue is how addicting it is, but this could be remedied through proper regulation. But again, I'll give it to you that it should remain illegal for now just because of how much effort it'd take to regulate.
-Ecstasy is highly misunderstood. Pharmacologically speaking, it is not very dangerous at all when used responsibly. People who die from "ecstasy" don't usually die from the drug itself, rather they party until the point of exhaustion. While only a fraction of a percentage of people who die from alcohol, tobacco, etc. are reported in the news, nearly everyone who dies from ecstasy gets their 15 minutes of fame, which artificially inflates how dangerous it is perceived to be.

One of the most extensive studies which ranked drugs based on science can be found here: http://www.showmethefacts.org/myth-g...angerous-drug/

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2004xlmiller View Post
are we going to become a country where our money comes from drugs? we arent some country run by a druglord. this wont pass.
This is just silly. I hate to break it to you, but our country is run by "druglords." The pharmaceutical industry not only has one of the largest, most powerful lobbies in the country, they rake in tens of billions of dollars every year (and that's just going off the Forbes 500 big ones).

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephen View Post
...i had a bio teacher who majored in poisons he always said "the dose makes the poison" ... i have seen to many people destroy their lifes with drugs and they always start with pot.
If your bio teacher was implying that marijuana has a toxicity level, then he should lose his job or stick to what he knows. Study after study has proven that marijuana has no measurable toxicity level. It is often said that the only way to kill a rat with marijuana is 10 lbs dropped from 10 feet. It isn't magic or mystery, either. Simply put: your body already relies heavily only marijuana-like chemicals called endocannabinoids. In fact, it is so used to these types of chemicals that it is impossible to "fry" them (or overdose).

As for your friends who started with marijuana... marijuana is one of the most available, easy to get drugs out there. Most people start on it regardless of whether or not they ever wanted to try something harder simply because it was available to them. Further, those who are told that marijuana is as dangerous as other Schedule I drugs begin to question if any of them are dangerous once they try marijuana and see how harmless it is. Our own retarded policies help fuel the "gateway affect" -- not marijuana.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dixie_boysles View Post
It is a gateway drug, and it's proven.

I see it more as a problem than anything. The main problems I see are:
  • illegally exporting it from Cali to other states
  • illegally importing it to Cali to get even more of it
  • the lives that could be lost due to stupid users just like alcohol users
  • Teens and children being around it because it is now "legal"
  • the gateway for other drugs to be passed
  • the spreading of the stuff around the nation

that is all
To the first point, no -- it is not a gateway drug. And no, it has not been proven. You are a liar. Show me a single study that showed anything supportive of the "gateway effect."

A 5th-grade level of science education should make it obvious that it is impossible for a chemical to cause someone to desire some other obscure chemical. There is nothing in marijuana that tells your brain, "try crack!" As pointed out before, the only legitimate part of the gateway theory surrounds the bad policies we have enacted which make marijuana sold next to harder drugs, easily available to kids, or just flat out confusingly ranked with other, more serious drugs.

As for your list:

-Illegally exporting from Cali isn't our problem.
-Illegally importing it to Cali is just silly. Some of the best productions are from the Emerald Triangle in California, there is little reason for illegal imports. But even if there were, so?
-What lives would be lost? You can't just say silly things like that without providing reasoning. Why not be afraid that marijuana legalization will release dragons or angry unicorns? Either is just as realistic or founded as believing legalized weed will increase deaths, especially when you factor in how many people die due directly to it being illegal. You're stealing a pro-legalization argument and trying to call it yours. Stop.
-Teens and children are already around it and can easily get it since drug dealers do not card. Want to fix this? The only solution is legalization. Don't support legalization? You then support a system that makes it easy for kids to get. You can't have it both ways.
-Gateway theory = fairytale. Stop being afraid of things that aren't real.
-Spreading it around the country will happen regardless of its legalization. The only change is it'd be better quality than compared to the mexican stuff which funds nasty cartels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by azgilamonster View Post
If people who ACTUALLY use it for a pain med / chronic condition sure i am for it.
What's wrong with someone enjoying it recreationally? Why must we create some arbitrary restriction to its use? What logic supports the idea that something is too dangerous for well people but safe enough for the sick and ill?

Quote:
Originally Posted by joshyddog View Post
I have too seen my friends use it and it is a gateway drug!
No you haven't, and no it isn't. You may believe you have witnessed it, but you really just saw something that you were unqualified to figure out and called it what everyone else calls it. Anecdotes ≠ science.


Continued....
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 10-18-2010, 02:34 PM
TomsFriendtheScienceNerd TomsFriendtheScienceNerd is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Default Re: here it is on the ballot...

Post 2 of 3 ----

Quote:
Originally Posted by vapiper View Post
1)Problem is there is no medical use for marijuana that isn't covered by a legal drug choice.

2) Lovely people who know more about chemicals than you or anyone on this forum have been able to put the chemical that is in marijuana into pill form. However this does not have the "high" effect so ofcourse it didn't do well.

3) The long argued "tax it" and the government will make money. Name anything the government has "made money" on...government is not in the business of making money, they are in the business of spending money. Let's not forget the government will also have to spend money to hire/train even MORE DEA agents or open a new arm of government to regulate this new law, costing more money.

I find it funny that people are so willing to be "pro pot" yet want to make it a crime to sell a happy meal lol
1) Says who? http://www.showmethefacts.org - feel free to tell me that all those studies on the right side do not exist. Further, explain to me why the Medical Student Section (50,000 members) of the American Medical Association endorsed marijuana as a medicinal substance: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/...tors_support_m . What is your degree in? As for your qualifier of "that isn't covered by a legal drug choice"... that is highly subjective. While there are always alternatives, synethics come with side-effects that often require additional drugs to treat. If a legal synthetic works for you, awesome... but if you would rather use a drug that is cheap, effective, and requires no health insurance to get (yeah, those drugs you're talking about could care less about those without insurance), why deny them the freedom of using something that 50,000 smarter than you say is a good thing? Plus, worst case scenario is it doesn't work... there are no adverse health affects from dosing oneself with marijuana.

2) Yes, those lovely, kind people take 2 of the most active cannabinoids within marijuana (THC and CBD) then create synthetic copies of them and sell them for hundreds of dollars. Marinol is synthetic THC that costs hundreds of dollars a month and causes a slew of uncomfortable side effects. Sativex is THC and CBD and also costs hundreds per month. The problem with synthetics is that they can never quite reproduce the efficiency or effectiveness of marijuana because synthetics are perfect. The varying genetics of marijuana, as well as the dozens of interactions between cannbinoids within the plant, are what make it so effective and what makes it preferred when compared head to head with synthetics.

Also: It is completely possible to get high off the synthetics. Read the reviews of the drugs and even the list of side-effects. They use fancy words for "high," but it is still a sense of euphoria brought on via the drugs.

3) I don't think you understand economics. What you just described would require an insane amount of resources that just don't exist in reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by desjardo View Post
Well, its a plant, its not a drug or anything that requires processing, or manufacturing.
Which always makes me wonder why they call it a controlled substance.
Before Nixon started his War on Drugs, he hoped to have some scientific backing for it, so he created a commission called the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse and appointed a man named Shafer as the chairman. During this time, it was suggested that marijuana be temporarily placed as a Schedule I substance until the commission could report on its findings. In March of 1972, Shafer reported his findings to congress and found that not only was marijuana safe and not worthy of being illegal, it was believed to be unconstitutional to prohibit such a safe substance. Nixon was furious and ignored his own commission's findings and continued on with his war.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ER95 View Post
Please tell me the ''good things'' about it then.
IIRC, this was in reference to other harder drugs. Off the top of my head, LSD is one of the safest, least toxic drugs in the world that has really fantastic uses in psychological disorders. Further, it is an amazing way to expand your ability to think. The Nobel Prize winning scientist who developed the double-helix model of DNA (the same model that all modern biological science is based on) admitted that the only way he was able to wrap his mind around something so complex was by using LSD, which he often did when working on theorems. I remember reading about one of the architects of the first generation of what we now call the Internet saying how it took LSD for him to be able to figure out all the intricate routing systems.

Our bodies are chemically run and can easily be augmented through the use of other chemicals. People like to inject their sense of morality into the equation, but its really no different (from a philosophical standpoint) than using Ritalin, Adderall, or caffeine to modify your chemistry temporarily.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ER95 View Post
I don't know man, smoking marijuana can't be harmless.
Depending on who you are, it may carry some harm... however, from a scientific standpoint, there has been no proven harm or causation.

The closest I have seen is a correlation between testicular cancer and heavy-users of marijuana who are currently going through puberty. This is a fairly week correlation with attempts to retrospectively find causation (which is pretty much worthless), but its worth keeping in mind. In fact, if anything, this promotes legalization simply to make it harder for teens to get ahold of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trcothorn View Post
theres no tar or anything in weed that can cause lung cancer like cigarettes
Marijuana, when smoked, causes the user to inhale much more tar than compared to tobacco. This was proven by UCLA Medical's Dr. Tashkin through extensive studies.

This isn't bad, though... it only shows that there is a possibility for harm. Dr. Tashkin received another grant to prove this harm in the largest study of its kind... (which hooks into the next quote below)...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ER95 View Post
For instance, what about your lungs?
...in this study, Tashkin found that marijuana smoke contains chemicals (those fancy cannnabinoids) which seem to counteract the carcinogens. So while there are indeed more carcinogens in marijuana smoke than cigarette smoke, the study found that you are no more likely to get cancer from smoking marijuana than you are from smoking nothing. Further, he found slight signs of marijuana reducing existing growths/tumors. (http://www.alternet.org/drugs/142271...r/?page=entire)

But even if this weren't true, smoking marijuana is one of many ways to consume it. You can vaporize it, which produces no toxins, or you can eat it or drink it. People who hate on marijuana because they parallel it with smoking being bad aren't actually making a point against marijuana, just a use of marijuana.

For example, its pretty fatal to put alcohol up your ass, yet many people do it because its absorbed quicker and produces a different effect. It'd be silly to attempt to outlaw alcohol based purely on the fact that some people do something silly.



Quote:
Originally Posted by camodown View Post
for sure, it has to be regulated because anything can be abused just like alcohol or presciption drugs.

The only thing I can think of is they would have to find a way to test to see if you were under the influence of it or not at the current time of the infraction
First, while it may "make sense" to say anything can be abused, I would ask you to show me evidence of marijuana abuse. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, simply that it is so rare that it escapes any study I am aware of. It is fairly easy to show abuse with nearly any other drug, even caffeine or sleep pills, but our bodies are pretty well adapted to the chemical constituents of marijuana which make the line for "abuse" pretty hard to reach.

Second, there is no way to test whether or not you are under the influence of marijuana at the time of an infraction because there is no metric to show what constitutes impairment. The method behind testing for other drugs, like Alcohol, doesn't apply to marijuana since you are usually testing for the metabolites (meaning it has already been used by your body).

This is continued to the next post....

Quote:
Originally Posted by ER95 View Post
Yes sir.

Blood test would do it.
A blood test would not do it. People assume this because they just figure it would have to work, but a blood test would only show that marijuana is in your system... not that you were being inebriated by it.

It would be like if a test existed that would be able to show if you got drunk last night... getting pulled over for swerving on accident then being tested and charged with a DUI because you were drunk a day prior doesn't really address the purpose of the law, which is to prevent DUI's.

Similarly, this is why so many accidents are wrongly attributed to marijuana use. Someone has a fatal accident, and autopsy is done, and marijuana is found in their system without any real, definitive way of knowing when it was *active* in their system. Due to how broad the affects are form person to person based on physiology, body type, size, and even tolerance level will make it nearly impossible to create a "limit" like with alcohol (which represents a measurable ratio).

The closest we have are mouth swabs which will be able to give an idea of how recently marijuana was used, but I will still be surprised if this is enough to withstand a very basic courtroom appearance. Again, the point of DUI laws isn't to punish drug users, it is to punish people driving under the influence -- without an ability to prove influence, there is no ability to use the law to punish.

Continued...
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 10-18-2010, 02:34 PM
TomsFriendtheScienceNerd TomsFriendtheScienceNerd is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Default Re: here it is on the ballot...

Post 3 of 3 ---

Quote:
Originally Posted by sprocket226 View Post
Yeah that's just what i want, a freakin' pot smoker driving the tow-motor up and down the isles next to me.
No wonder PG&E wants our parts ASAP, they know what's going on...
Despite popular belief, it is entirely possible to drive safely while under the influence of marijuana. People have ignorantly associated it with alcohol use while ignoring the science behind how it all works.

Ever hear of beer goggles? Know people who pick fights when drunk? Those are caused by the part of the brain which is affected by alcohol. In essence, alcohol inhibits the part of your brain responsible for recognizing repercussions and making decisions. This is why people "think they can drive" when they are blitzed... the part of their brain that'd usually stop them has been taken out of the equation.

Marijuana doesn't affect this part of the brain. It is completely possible to get "wasted" with marijuana, yet have a complete understanding of your limitations. This means that people aren't likely to even attempt to drive if they are not capable of it (anymore than they would be likely to drive if they were too sleepy or gassy or anything else that may make it hard to focus on the road). Further, while some marijuana strains cause sedation, others provide a stimulant-like feeling (like coffee). Of the few studies performed, people drove more cautiously and more safely while high than they did sober or while drunk.

Ever hear the stereotype of marijuana users being "paranoid?" This is due to the amount of "alertness" and sensory-enhancement caused by some strains of marijuana. This leads to more attention being placed on the road. Hell, go listen to cops talk about how they figure out who is likely high on the road. It is a common joke among my cop friends that you look for the person driving "too cautiously" or "too safe." Think about that for a moment. We are claiming that these guys are dangerous, yet one of the effective ways to find them is to look at the people driving *least* recklessly.

In the end, you shouldn't drive under the influence of anything. I'm in support of erring on safety. But its ridiculous to be afraid of the alternative when there is little evidence to suggest it would increase dangers... especially when you note that countries with decriminalized marijuana show no increases in accidents from marijuana. This is a lazy, fear-mongering myth that America is obsessed with yet never apparently asks, "Why?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coleosis View Post
[1] Sure, the smoke from marijuana is hotter than cigarette smoke, so that can kill cells in your lungs, there is no study to prove it, but common sense tells you dead cells can turn malignant

[2] BUT marijuana smoke doesnt contain the deadly chemicals that tobacco smoke does. If you chew on weed stems, you wont run the risk of having your jaw removed.

[3] Not to mention if it is passed, it isnt like employers cant not tell you to smoke it. In America employers have the right to not hire people as long as it isnt based on race, religion, or sexual orientation. If they want you to pass a drug test still, they are more than welcome to make that a requirement.
1) I've never heard this before. Smoke is a product of combustion and combustion of marijuana is pretty much on par with combustion of tobacco. As for cells turning malignant, marijuana causes autophagy in cells that are malformed (and possibly cancerous). In other words, it has been shown to limit tumor growth and, in enough quantities, cause tumors to eat themselves.

2) It does contain deadly chemicals. More than tobacco. But that shouldn't scare you as long as you understand that the problem isn't the chemicals, its how they interact with your body. In tobacco, these chemicals (though fewer in volume) have much more ability to cause havoc with your cells. In marijuana, these chemicals appear to be neutralized by the cannabinoids. So its safer than tobacco, but not because it doesn't have the "deadly chemicals."

3) Many employers may still be required to do drug tests if they receive any federal contracts (under the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988). Others that are not required to will likely choose not to, as they are additional costs that can be better spent elsewhere (but are currently required due to various liabilities surrounding illegal substances).


------

Sorry for the lengthy post, but I hope it was worth the read.

If you disagree with anything I've said, feel free to provide a rebuttal citing whatever support you may have for your position (or against mine).

In a way, I would love to be a prohibitionist again. That's how sick I am in the head... I love science so much that I know if a study was able to outweigh all the positive ones it would be one hell of a piece of research and I would salivate over reading it.

But, alas, this just doesn't seem likely these days as it is fairly definitive that marijuana is on par with green tea in terms of how it should be available.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 10-18-2010, 03:58 PM
azgilamonster azgilamonster is offline
grumpy old ford driver
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,286
Default Re: here it is on the ballot...

" It's hardly "all about the revenue." The revenue is more of an incentive mechanism for "the better good" of the cause, which is seen as a civil rights issue by supporters. This is why it is quite disingenuous when opponents to Prop 19 question how much money the bill might produce, as that is only a consequence of the primary purpose, which is simply moving towards legalization." quote from Tom's friend

can you prove that it is a wrong statement that " it's all about the revenue"
I was stating a fact that is in black and white on the ballot . it is shown for the profit.

As you stated in your own words this country is ran by druglords well what motivates them guy's MONEY = Revenue maybe you can explain that with some facts
__________________
2001 Ranger Edge 4x4 , Stepside,FRF decals, 4.0L SOHC decals, Primus IQ brake controller, curt 2" rec. hitch, custom winch mount,
Tinted glass, Yellow BUGGMAN OVALS a real treat to have. OHC, CB, night vision goggles, 36" periscope,
DiabloAmarillo = The Yellow Devil
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10-18-2010, 04:26 PM
JGiddy JGiddy is offline
-
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,682
Default Re: here it is on the ballot...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bwad View Post
America's going even farther down in the shitter every day.
So that means America started off in the shitter since pot was legal till the 1930's. LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by vapiper View Post
1)Problem is there is no medical use for marijuana that isn't covered by a legal drug choice.

I find it funny that people are so willing to be "pro pot" yet want to make it a crime to sell a happy meal lol
bullshit. try telling that to chemo patients who won't take anything else because nothing eases the pain they're dying with like marijuana. That is straight from the horses mouth and you can't argue with that, if you try to, you're stupid and ignorant.

The pro pot side is based in scientific and social FACTS. The anti pot people have nothing but propaganda, girl logic, and obsolete bullshit scare tactic rhetoric to fall back on. It's hilarious. It literally makes me lol because I just can't take them seriously anymore.

And this is coming from a guy who doesn't enjoy weed all that much and might actually vote NO on prop 19 because I dont think the bill is thought out and writtten well enough

Last edited by JGiddy; 10-18-2010 at 04:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 10-18-2010, 04:47 PM
TomsFriendtheScienceNerd TomsFriendtheScienceNerd is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Default Re: here it is on the ballot...

Quote:
Originally Posted by azgilamonster View Post
can you prove that it is a wrong statement that " it's all about the revenue"
I was stating a fact that is in black and white on the ballot . it is shown for the profit.
The statement isn't "wrong," it is, as I said, disingenuous. It's about reading between the lines. Look at the groups that are supporting the measure and what their goals are (full legalization based on civil rights arguments).

Marijuana users aren't stupid, so yes, it is a fair statement to say that Prop 19 is about revenue, as it is being sold as that. But Prop 19 is only 1 of many strategies that have been attempted over the year for the purpose of legalization... and that is the goal... legalization. If making money gets to that goal, so be it, but it wasn't about the money. The money is further magnified (and utilized) due to our current economic issues, but even when our country was doing great there were people pushing for legalization.


Quote:
As you stated in your own words this country is ran by druglords well what motivates them guy's MONEY = Revenue maybe you can explain that with some facts
There are two different entities at play. On one side, you have a group that wants something, but that something is controlled by another group.

If it just so happened that the group that controlled the something in question loved fluffy teddy bears, then finding a way to provide them with teddy bears through legalization would be an efficient way to pass it. It wouldn't mean that legalization was "entirely about teddy bears," only that teddy bears were the most effective means to pass an agenda.

The group, however, is called "the government," and they love money more than teddy bears.

So a more realistic way to view Prop 19 is as a strategic mechanism rather than the entire goal itself. This is why a majority of supporters belong to groups that identify the cause as a civil rights issue (like NORML) rather than packs of economists. It's also why many supporters, like myself, don't really care whether or not it provides significant amount of money to balance the budget. It would be nice, but if it doesn't, it is still a success to me and others.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 10-18-2010, 04:51 PM
TomsFriendtheScienceNerd TomsFriendtheScienceNerd is offline
Learning to use the forums
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Default Re: here it is on the ballot...

Quote:
Originally Posted by gts007 View Post
And this is coming from a guy who doesn't enjoy weed all that much and might actually vote NO on prop 19 because I dont think the bill is thought out and writtten well enough
Just keep in mind that rarely is there ever a "properly" written bill. Even Prop 215 required SBS 420 to really solidify its power within the state.

The groups that are backing Prop 19 are emptying their coffers to try to pass it, which means if it fails it will be many, many years before it is attempted again.

I'm not happy with the way it is written, and I think many aspects of it (like the flat tax) are confusing and idiotic... but overall, it is a decent step towards the right direction and, most importantly, an opened door.

If prop 19 fails, I guarantee you no one will care that you thought it wasn't written correctly. It'll be touted as a failure due to marijuana "being bad" and Americans "being smart enough not to pass it."

Every No vote against 19, regardless of the reason, will be used as fuel to promote further prohibition. It's high-stakes, winner-keep all this November.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search