tvashtarkatena Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 You're king for a day. Wuchoo gonna do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 correct ur grammar [video:youtube]f8fbrUjjivw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhöQ Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 [video:youtube]WruyjJwyf0M&eurl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Miamiherald.com California bill seeks to legalize marijuana By Jim Sanders The Sacramento Bee Smoke weed – help the state? Marijuana would be sold and taxed openly in California to adults 21 and older if legislation proposed Monday is signed into law. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, said his bill could generate big bucks for a cash-starved state while freeing law enforcement agencies to focus on worse crimes. "I think there's a mentality throughout the state and the country that this isn't the highest priority – and that maybe we should start to reassess," he said. Critics counter that it makes no sense for a Legislature so concerned about health that it has restricted use of trans fats in restaurants to legalize the smoking of a potentially harmful drug. "I think substance abuse is just ruining our society," said Assemblyman Paul Cook, R-Yucca Valley. "I can't support that." "I think it's a slippery slope," Assemblyman Tom Berryhill, R-Modesto, said of easing pot laws. "We'll do everything we can to defeat it." Medical use of marijuana already is legal in California, but the new legislation would go a step further by allowing recreational use. Assembly Bill 390 would charge cannabis wholesalers $5,000 initially and $2,500 annually for the right to distribute weed. Retail outlets would pay fees of $50 per ounce of cannabis to generate revenue for drug education programs statewide. The bill would prohibit cannabis near schools. It also would ban smoking it in public places or growing it in public view. Before California could sell marijuana openly, however, it would have to persuade the federal government to alter its prohibition on pot. To read the complete article, visit www.sacbee.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Miamiherald.com California bill seeks to legalize marijuana By Jim Sanders The Sacramento Bee Smoke weed – help the state? Marijuana would be sold and taxed openly in California to adults 21 and older if legislation proposed Monday is signed into law. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, said his bill could generate big bucks for a cash-starved state while freeing law enforcement agencies to focus on worse crimes. "I think there's a mentality throughout the state and the country that this isn't the highest priority – and that maybe we should start to reassess," he said. Critics counter that it makes no sense for a Legislature so concerned about health that it has restricted use of trans fats in restaurants to legalize the smoking of a potentially harmful drug. "I think substance abuse is just ruining our society," said Assemblyman Paul Cook, R-Yucca Valley. "I can't support that." "I think it's a slippery slope," Assemblyman Tom Berryhill, R-Modesto, said of easing pot laws. "We'll do everything we can to defeat it." Medical use of marijuana already is legal in California, but the new legislation would go a step further by allowing recreational use. Assembly Bill 390 would charge cannabis wholesalers $5,000 initially and $2,500 annually for the right to distribute weed. Retail outlets would pay fees of $50 per ounce of cannabis to generate revenue for drug education programs statewide. The bill would prohibit cannabis near schools. It also would ban smoking it in public places or growing it in public view. Before California could sell marijuana openly, however, it would have to persuade the federal government to alter its prohibition on pot. To read the complete article, visit www.sacbee.com. Well the critics have a point. All those stoners will get the munchies and scarf down that oh-so-bad fast food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHarry Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Legalize and regulate pot. Summary execution for meth addicts and crack heads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Yeah, Sales at convenience stores will go up. Getting stoners out of jail will save tax money too. It really should be treated as a medical problem. Teenage kids should be told, "yeah you can do that, but this is what can happen... Just the same way you get told yes you can drink, but if you like to drive... I believe the recent study involving the link between THC and testicle cancer might be a good article to give kids. Link Of course that might cut down on State revenue after lots of guys read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 cc.com roadtrip to calif, post signing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 25, 2009 Author Share Posted February 25, 2009 BC's closer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 25, 2009 Author Share Posted February 25, 2009 It's funny how critics of reform warn of the destruction of our society, yet pot was perfectly legal and used for over well 100 years before the Marijuana Stamp Act of 1937 came along. For some reason, historians don't mark that year as a watershed moment when our society began to finally turn around. Sending normal people who occasionally enjoy a smoke like most of us enjoy a drink to prison doesn't do a whole hell of a lot to improve the quality of our society. I think we should send Pink to prison, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 i was going to post my reform ideas, but then decided to shoot some smack instead ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 25, 2009 Author Share Posted February 25, 2009 cc.com roadtrip to calif, post signing? Borrow a moto, bitch. I'm headed down there this spring on the bike. Sierra f'n road triop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Legalization is not very likely given that it would take something along the lines of a constitutional amendment to get around the powers granted to the Federal gov't as a consequence of the Commerce Clause. See Gonzales v. Raich. Regulation and taxation have been used as an argument for legalization but how would that work in actuality given that pot can be grown relatively easily beyond the prying eyes of gov't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Does anyone really think enforcement expenditures would weaken with new tax revenues at stake? The 'drug war' would continue on in earnest, albeit under a new banner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyHarry Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 I doubt moonshining is as popular these days as it was during Prohibition. Which is good because the moonshine I've had tastes like shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 25, 2009 Author Share Posted February 25, 2009 Legalization is not very likely given that it would take something along the lines of a constitutional amendment to get around the powers granted to the Federal gov't as a consequence of the Commerce Clause. See Gonzales v. Raich. Regulation and taxation have been used as an argument for legalization but how would that work in actuality given that pot can be grown relatively easily beyond the prying eyes of gov't? The few hobbyists who grow their own tobacco and brew their own beer don't put much of dent in tax revenues. And so it will be with pot; the sophisticated growers (it's not that easy to grow modern quality stuff) will sell to legal outlets, a few amatuers will grow their own (and pay sales taxes for all the fancy gear they buy to do so), but most people will just hop on down to the local space cafe and lay the plastic down. As elsewhere, pot cafes will become destinations in themselves rather than simply pot distribution points. A pastime, and industry to support it, will be born. You can bet on one thing: all jackets will come with arm pockets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted February 25, 2009 Author Share Posted February 25, 2009 Legalization is not very likely given that it would take something along the lines of a constitutional amendment to get around the powers granted to the Federal gov't as a consequence of the Commerce Clause. See Gonzales v. Raich. Regulation and taxation have been used as an argument for legalization but how would that work in actuality given that pot can be grown relatively easily beyond the prying eyes of gov't? Not necessarily a sound prediction. Many states have already legalized pot for medicinal use, in direct conflict with federal law. The feds have had little choice but to back down in the face of these extremely popular (70 of WA voters favor medicinal marijuana) measures. The feds will likely drop their anti pot statutes and stance due to the same financial drivers that states are responding to as well as a wave of strong public opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.