Why would you be against the Medical Marijuana prop? (to buy, incomes)

[Beaconowner]

Originally Posted by jimj

This brings up the question of states rights. If CA is so dead set in going down this path then they need to force the issue under the commerce clause.
Take one of the people arrested by DEA for selling medical MJ and back 'em with the CA attorney general then push it all the way to the supreme court. MT did it with firearms and the government "blinked" first and so far there's been no arrest.

Google Gonzales vs Raich. This was a California case that was pursued right to the Supreme Court. Raich was growing marijuana for his own use, didn't matter. In a convoluted piece of logic, the Supreme Court sided with the Feds and said, even if you were growing it yourself, for yourself, and did not sell or give any away, the Commerce Clause still applied. This was because you were taking yourself out of the interstate market for marijuana (how can there be an interstate market for an illegal substance?) and therefore affecting that market.

They also said being a medical marijuana patient under state law was no defense in federal court. Not surprising.

[LongIslandEddie]

Originally Posted by rich67

<The never-ending marijuana debate. The people who don't smoke it and don't see a reason to smoke it usually don't want it to be legalized.>

If you think that this thread is moving at a snail's pace, you need to realize that the pot issue has been crawling along for almost 80 years
There are also those who post comments here who care less about the substance, than they do about the issue of personal rights, versus the
governmental intrusion into our lives and their incessant need to take control of us beyond our wishes and our needs.

<It's just another drug (like alcohol and tobacco) that we don't need clogging up our health care system and creating other problems.>

I see that salt and cheeseburgers are the current clog in our health system, kids are seriously damaging their health and diabetes is killing more
people than drugs but I just can't understand why the government isn't stepping up with the same fervor or enthusiasm that they seem to have in regard
to the marijuana issue. Does the word hypocrisy ring a bell? Why aren't the politicians, those great guardians of our welfare applying an equally avaricious
approach to the obesity problem, regulating salt and cheeseburgers in our diet, as enthusiastically and as timely as they are dealing with the current marijuana
decriminalization issue? Aren't you seeing a double standard here?

<The people who smoke it, or have smoked it and/or want to smoke it always want to legalize it...well, because "it'd be cool to toke in public", and it's "natural".>

What a presumptuously foolish statement to make, especially in a day when many cities are banning the use of tobacco in public places. Those who advocate
or legislate for tobacco use, also decry that it is a natural substance and should be kept legal but regulated by the government so, why do you feel that marijuana
shouldn't enjoy or even deserve the same status? Could it be that you have subscribed to the great myth that the government has perpetrated against marijuana
and those who choose to use it?

<Well, the opium poppy is natural too. Let's grab that one while we're at it too. And let cocoa leaves into the market as a snuff alternative too, while
we're at it, cause that's natural too.>

I don't hear too many people today, calling for the legalization of heroin, aren't you just throwing a monkey wrench into this discussion by postulating that
out of topic and off-base, twisted logic? Yes, you are truly grabbing at straws and for you to believe for a second that any intelligent reader or observer wouldn't see it
that way, just points out how bogus your entire platform is. Statements like that do nothing more than underscore your lack of understanding and your inability to
present an intelligent or well thought out, rebuttal. On another of your ill thought out statements, I'd like to point out that cocoa is already legal, it is what chocolate is
all about.

<The truth of the matter is, alcohol and tobacco are bad...mmmkay? And they cause a lot of problems (health and otherwise) in society.>

Perhaps, if you feel as though you have a mission, a cause, a platform or a statement to make in society, you'd be smarter, even wiser to confine your
misdirected and misplaced zeal, by fighting the widespread use of tobacco and alcohol or for that matter, maybe just cheeseburgers and salted foods!

Marijuana would cause issues as well if it were legalized along the lines as those other two. I am opposed to legalization of it because I see no need to let every
bonehead freely destroy their brain cells when I see every other bonehead out there doing it already with booze and killing their lungs and lips with tobacco.

I thank God that you are a political nobody and will never be in a position to do more than show up on the internet and espouse your bent opinion.
As for me, I am opposed to the unrealistic oppression by my government in their overstepped boundaries, their pressing need to interfere in my life and to "protect me"
from myself.I'm opposed to seeing American citizens being taxed in order to keep the wars going, opposed to seeing illegals drift across our borders and suck away on
our withering economy. I'm opposed to sending money off to Pakistan for their welfare while so many others here in this country, have to do without. I'm opposed to
watching a political system that allows candidates to "buy" their way in, tired of having to choose the lesser of the evils by continually being presented with second rate,
self serving candidates who have no true interest in changing this country by making it a better place in which to live.

<That's like swimming in a shark tank with 2 great whites and adding an extra one in there for good measure.>

Like Harry Truman once said: "If you can't swim with the big fish, stay out of the shark tank"...

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by rich67

The never-ending marijuana debate. The people who don't smoke it and don't see a reason to smoke it usually don't want it to be legalized. It's just another drug (like alcohol and tobacco) that we don't need clogging up our health care system and creating other problems. The people who smoke it, or have smoked it and/or want to smoke it always want to legalize it...well, because "it'd be cool to toke in public", and it's "natural". Well, the opium poppy is natural too. Let's grab that one while we're at it too. And let cocoa leaves into the market as a snuff alternative too, while we're at it, cause that's natural too.

Strongly disagree with this ASSumption that those who don't smoke weed (or don't use any of the other substances you mention) are usually against legalization. I happen to be one who doesn't smoke marijuana (although I tried it once in college and hated it) ... yet, I'm in favor of legalizing it for medicinal purposes. I also don't smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, but those things should also remain legal.

Originally Posted by rich67

The truth of the matter is, alcohol and tobacco are bad...mmmkay? And they cause a lot of problems (health and otherwise) in society. Marijuana would cause issues as well if it were legalized along the lines as those other two. I am opposed to legalization of it because I see no need to let every bonehead freely destroy their brain cells when I see every other bonehead out there doing it already with booze and killing their lungs and lips with tobacco. That's like swimming in a shark tank with 2 great whites and adding an extra one in there for good measure.

So in other words, you favor a nanny state where the government is free to control or ban something just because it's bad?! Sure, let's attempt to control what everybody does with their own bodies because it's "better" for society, or because it offends a certain segment. That kind of attitiude is what helped create Prohibition in the 1920s/1930s ... and history has proven that banning alcohol didn't work. Ever hear of bootleggers and moonshiners? Those things were rampant in the days of Prohibition ... and they are still around in the form of smuggling because things like pot are illegal.

Hey, here's an idea: instead of calling on Big Brother to save us from ourselves, how about calling on everybody to exercise some self control on their own? I'm personally fed up with the gov't trying to be our babysitters, and I'm even more fed up with all the do gooders who want to keep using our tax money to control everyone's lives. The way I see it, if people are stupid enough to excessively engage in these vices, it becomes abuse, and they will suffer the consequences.

Originally Posted by Howard Roark

For decades I have wanted America to become a libertarian society where things we take for granted as government-owned are privatized (Highway Aggravation: The Case For Privatizing The Highways). I have never been convinced that government can do anything more efficiently than private industry. There is always initiation of force involved in government action.

Very good points once again, Howard ... and I usually agree with your philosophy.

[jimj]

Originally Posted by Beaconowner

Google Gonzales vs Raich. This was a California case that was pursued right to the Supreme Court. Raich was growing marijuana for his own use, didn't matter. In a convoluted piece of logic, the Supreme Court sided with the Feds and said, even if you were growing it yourself, for yourself, and did not sell or give any away, the Commerce Clause still applied. This was because you were taking yourself out of the interstate market for marijuana (how can there be an interstate market for an illegal substance?) and therefore affecting that market.

They also said being a medical marijuana patient under state law was no defense in federal court. Not surprising.

Right but did the state throw in behind him? I'd guess probably not. Montana made it clear they'd throw in behind the first person arrested and fight it to the end.
If the state of CA said "we're legalizing pot for medicinal use within our borders and growing it on state land by state employees sold at state stores and backed by the full power of the AG of California" I'd wonder if the government would prosecute? If they did CA has deeper pockets and can afford real heavy hitters to send it to the supremes.

[azriverfan.]

This thread demonstrates the libertarian nature of Arizona. We are often incorrectly labeled a conservative state but this thread demonstrates this disctinction. In most polls, this proposition is favored by overwhelming numbers by as much as 80% in many polls. If Arizona were truly conservative, then this law would not be endorsed so heavily here. The truth is the libertarian nature of Arizona shows that people want the option of having medicinal marijuana

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

This thread demonstrates the libertarian nature of Arizona. We are often incorrectly labeled a conservative state but this thread demonstrates this disctinction. In most polls, this proposition is favored by overwhelming numbers by as much as 80% in many polls. If Arizona were truly conservative, then this law would not be endorsed so heavily here. The truth is the libertarian nature of Arizona shows that people want the option of having medicinal marijuana

But Libertarians generally ARE conservatives. Remember, the traditional conservative viewpoints that old school Republicans like Barry Goldwater, Milton Friedman, and William F. Buckley made public were considered to be pretty far right back in their day, but are considered Libertarian these days.

Places that we often think of as "conservative" (e.g. Bible Belt regions like the southern states) were actually traditionally Democrat regions until about the last half of the 20th Century. It's pretty well known that Democrats in general want more control over business and personal issues. That's why they favor the nanny state, and want government to either ban or control things that they think are "bad for society". Unfortunately, many of today's Republicans also favor more gov't intervention than they used to ... but they're not true conservatives in my book.

We can only hope this initiative passes, but I see a lot of sentiment growing against it. Both major candidates for Governor (Brewer and Goddard) have come out against this proposition. I'm afraid that alone might influence people to vote against it. Plus, Arizona has a high senior citizen population who tend to be against measures like this. At this point, I think it could go either way.

[azriverfan.]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

But Libertarians generally ARE conservatives. Remember, the traditional conservative viewpoints that old school Republicans like Barry Goldwater, Milton Friedman, and William F. Buckley made public were considered to be pretty far right back in their day, but are considered Libertarian these days.

Places that we often think of as "conservative" (e.g. Bible Belt regions like the southern states) were actually traditionally Democrat regions until about the last half of the 20th Century. It's pretty well known that Democrats in general want more control over business and personal issues. That's why they favor the nanny state, and want government to either ban or control things that they think are "bad for society". Unfortunately, many of today's Republicans also favor more gov't intervention than they used to ... but they're not true conservatives in my book.

We can only hope this initiative passes, but I see a lot of sentiment growing against it. Both major candidates for Governor (Brewer and Goddard) have come out against this proposition. I'm afraid that alone might influence people to vote against it. Plus, Arizona has a high senior citizen population who tend to be against measures like this. At this point, I think it could go either way.

It will pass. All the polls show strong support for it. The reality is the federal law still bans its use even in medicinal terms and if the Federal government wants to prosecute, they can and no state law can protect anyone against so the status quo won't change for all intents and purposes.

[Beaconowner]

Originally Posted by jimj

Right but did the state throw in behind him? I'd guess probably not. Montana made it clear they'd throw in behind the first person arrested and fight it to the end.
If the state of CA said "we're legalizing pot for medicinal use within our borders and growing it on state land by state employees sold at state stores and backed by the full power of the AG of California" I'd wonder if the government would prosecute? If they did CA has deeper pockets and can afford real heavy hitters to send it to the supremes.

THe US AG has said he will vigorously prosecute, so I think he would. CA is broke, the best they could do is refuse to send the 50 Billion in tax money they collect to Washington. Since the Supreme Court has already spoken on this issue I doubt CA or AZ would want to expend the money and time to get the same result. The Court hasn't changed enough since the original decision to expect any different outcome.

NJ is trying to have more state involvement in production and distribution than any other state, but they've run into problems with that idea. First they wanted Rutgers (a state school with an argriculture program) to grow it, but Rutgers declined citing possible loss of federal funds. Then they wanted the state teaching hospitals to distribute it, but the state hospitols declined for the same reason, possible loss of federal funds. Now NJ wants the ATC's to have a DR on their board of directors, but few DRs are expected to want to take the risk or liability because the state is trying to restrict the medical marijuana law with so many hoops to jump thru, and with a product so inferior to what's on the street, that patients are saying they will continue to get their medication illegally.

So it doesn't seem like state involvement in growing and distribution is a winning stategy, at least in what's been proposed so far, if you want a viable program.

States should stay with what they do best taxation and regulation, and leave the other details to the DRs, patients, and the private grower/distributors.

[Lee021362]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

It will pass. All the polls show strong support for it. The reality is the federal law still bans its use even in medicinal terms and if the Federal government wants to prosecute, they can and no state law can protect anyone against so the status quo won't change for all intents and purposes.

The Fed's don't want the small guy, they want the big boys who make thousands a year and pay no taxes, thats what its all about, the tax cash.

[stars99]

Should pot be allowed to be sold at Walgreen, or 711 (w/ id of course)? What do you think?