Legalization

  • Thread starter swisscheese
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
S

swisscheese

Guest
www.repealtoday.org

What does everybody think? What they're trying to accomplish is pretty straightforward a constitutional amendment on the state level to make it all legal.

I like it.:animbong:
 
ftwendy

ftwendy

1,495
263
I like it, too. But what happens after legalization? Why were the people of CA (including many of the original medical use advocates) resistant to the idea in their state?
 
squiggly

squiggly

3,277
263
I like it, too. But what happens after legalization? Why were the people of CA (including many of the original medical use advocates) resistant to the idea in their state?

Because without regulation there is no money to be made. Dispensaries are un-needed when there is little to no risk or regulation involved.

Frankly this is why weed continues to be illegal. There are multiple lobbies with various motivations to keep it that way. For instance law enforcement/corrections/federal regulators (DEA) have no interest in slowing down the drug war or reducing regulation. Job security is their motivation.

The makers of aspirin/acetaminophen/TUMS/chemotherapy (depending on what you believe) have no interest in you being able to grow a palliative or even curing treatment in your backyard.

Short answer, $$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Same as always.
 
oscar169

oscar169

Farming 🌱
Supporter
2,729
263
This is all over the news around here...:character0035:
 
greenjoe

greenjoe

1,589
163
one thing up here in the north....when you get your card..it is from the federal government.....not the provincial...(state)
 
S

swisscheese

Guest
I like it, too. But what happens after legalization? Why were the people of CA (including many of the original medical use advocates) resistant to the idea in their state?

What they attempted to pass in California was too restrictive for many people's likings.
 
K

kolah

4,829
263
I always look at alcohol prohibiton and what happened there.

The feds didn't legalize booze because they respected our rights. They did it to take over the booze industry. It's all about money.

The burning question still remains though. Do the fed and state crooks make more money keeping weed illegal and jailing people or could they raise more revenues by legalization?

Or can they dance on the edge of both issues? That is kind of what they are doing now aren't they....as they are selling MMJ cards but still busting people.
 
M

MICHIGAN4200

38
0
legal pot or ful jails that employ 1000s of people and add millions of bucks... you know what makes more money
 
squiggly

squiggly

3,277
263
I always look at alcohol prohibiton and what happened there.

The feds didn't legalize booze because they respected our rights. They did it to take over the booze industry. It's all about money.

They did it because Al Capone and his ilk were killing so many that it became a war at home--the government wasn't so much interested in taking over the liquor industry as they were in shutting down the illegal one.

Was making gangsters rich--the shit was ineradicable and unstoppable.

They did the right thing and gave up because the increased danger to others was not justified by the benefit of keeping the few from becoming debaucherous alcoholics (especially when they attended speakeasies ANYWAY and no one was being "helped").

This is the same way it is now. We want to save a guy from ODing in his car on heroin. He does anyway, but now someone like Pablo Escobar (who would've shot a baby in the face to save himself without batting an eye) is rich for it--instead of taxing it and regulating it and allowing all of us to benefit from its economy.

For decades we have been shipping the profits from one of our biggest imports across our borders. Whats worse is our country has dragged the world into this by refusing to do business with any country that isn't a signatory to the US-backed-and-conceived anti-drug treaties.

Prohibition was called The Noble Experiment, because it WAS born of a noble cause--much as this drug war has been. It failed--they found out creating a black market to stop addiction isn't worth it, especially when addiction levels appear to be rising in the face of such a market.

Many begged Nixon to end this craziness shortly after he signed the controlled substances act. A committee of his own creation unanimously recommended this, and he disbanded it and made no further mention (this is on record).

Eventually we'll figure it out. Illegal weed is not the problem, Illegal anything is.

This is and ALWAYS HAS BEEN a public health issue.
 
ftwendy

ftwendy

1,495
263
Excellent points squiqqly.... have you read Drug Crazy? I believe the author is Mike Gray. Anybody on this site would benefit from reading the book, as it lays out the history of, and logical concise arguments against the control of substances in the US. I should dig it up again...

Happy and healthy New Year, all. Ftw
 
D

deadhead88

1
1
Sick of fighting

Finally am legal here in Michigan and will be enjoying my meds safely.
 
S

swisscheese

Guest
You are totally right hindu! I volunteered to help but haven't heard back from them yet :/
 
B

Bluenote

389
43
legal pot or ful jails that employ 1000s of people and add millions of bucks... you know what makes more money

Actually , at least in Calif the possible tax base associated with legalisation so far outstrips the penal industry that it's not even remotely funny.


Do the taxes at 5 percent just on what Calif *claims* to have seized last year , it's a rather staggering amount and that's just out door.

Hell do take my word for it , find the video of the Humboldt county sheriff doing the math on that one...........along with pointing out that it's the BIGGEST factor in the economy in the north end of the Golden State , eliminate it and a lot of folks will be on welfare. And a lot of towns will look like they did when the mills first started closing and the timber companies pulled out.
 
Top Bottom