Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My ballot which was dropped off on election day has been received and counted. It's amazing how long it takes to process all the votes. We shall see if Adrian Fontes (currently up by 10K votes) speeds things up next time around, or if it's not a Purcell problem, but rather a County / State problem. I know the state didn't certify the machines as early as Purcell would have liked, but, is buying more machines a possibility? Hopefully the winner will keep the public apprised.
Also, I'd just like to say thank you to everyone who voted no on 205. I truly appreciate your vote.
I wonder...weed advocates always say, well, alcohol's worse. And, hey, I agree that alcohol is incredibly dangerous and I'm opposed to it. But do weed advocates support higher taxes and greater restrictions on alcohol? Or do they just want the same laissez-faire treatment that alcohol gets, e.g. for society to just tolerate the negatives because people like doing it?
Instead of passing a weed bill to raise a few million for the state, why can't we just raise alcohol taxes?
There is so much money in booze that the liquor lobby is incredibly powerful...even in the depths of the recession...did anyone raise liquor taxes? Nope...they just started taxing groceries (e.g. City of Phoenix) and taking money from the schools (state government) instead. Our elected officials chose to shortchange families and students, rather than go up against the liquor lobby. That shows you the power that the people are up against in trying to confront the political power of alcohol producers and distributors.
Or, maybe I'm out of touch and alcohol is so popular that higher alcohol taxes would've inspired popular unrest. I'm sure that's what the liquor lobby would tell me.
The marijuana industry, once legalized fully, would become a extremely powerful lobby to contend with, especially if weed was legalized via a 205-esque bill that basically enshrines certain current MMJ industry insiders with a leg up on any competition.
This was a corporate bill all the way and honestly the Marijuana Policy Project -- which has been fighting this fight for literal decades -- should be kind of ashamed at the way they've caved in to these cartelization bills instead of advocating for a more free/open approach to legalization, which I assume is what weed users actually want.
What a straw man. Raising taxes on alcohol does not make marijuana legal. This was about legalizing marijuana.
You may be rejoicing in your self-righteousness, but don't be mistaken - there are just as many people out there smoking weed today as there would have been had this passed. The only difference is that they face prosecution if caught and we tax payers receive none of the revenue share. I don't see any cause for celebration.
What a straw man. Raising taxes on alcohol does not make marijuana legal. This was about legalizing marijuana.
You may be rejoicing in your self-righteousness, but don't be mistaken - there are just as many people out there smoking weed today as there would have been had this passed. The only difference is that they face prosecution if caught and we tax payers receive none of the revenue share. I don't see any cause for celebration.
You may wish to Google "straw man" because I did not make a straw man argument. I asked a number of questions and I discussed my opinions. Feel free to take a minute, or maybe even two minutes, to answer my questions as posed previously.
Beyond that, as we've seen in this thread there are many people who state that they don't currently use weed but wanted this to pass. Many people generally try to obey the laws, even the ones they disagree with.
Therefore, it's only common sense to assume that once it's legal and readily available, that more people will use it. If this was NOT the case, I doubt so much money would be behind the effort to get it passed.
So, YES, you are correct in stating that the same number of people would be smoking dope TODAY regardless of what happened. It's not like the law was written to make it a free-for-all on Nov. 8 -- the law was written with set timelines for what would happen when.
The argument behind 205 was whether we wanted more people to be using marijuana in the years to come once the legalization scheme was ramped up and actually in place.
Furthermore, all of this is only relevant because of the federal government's, and the Supreme Court's, complete unwillingness to jump into this morass and tell Americans what's legal and what's not. Logically speaking it's pretty asinine that the drug is so controlled that you can't even really do much research on it, yet, dozens of states have legalized or abandoned enforcement regarding this drug.
I wonder, does anyone think the new administration might take any different of a tack on federal enforcement or lack thereof regarding marijuana use in states of the union?
You may wish to Google "straw man" because I did not make a straw man argument. I asked a number of questions and I discussed my opinions. Feel free to take a minute, or maybe even two minutes, to answer my questions as posed previously.
Beyond that, as we've seen in this thread there are many people who state that they don't currently use weed but wanted this to pass. Many people generally try to obey the laws, even the ones they disagree with.
Therefore, it's only common sense to assume that once it's legal and readily available, that more people will use it. If this was NOT the case, I doubt so much money would be behind the effort to get it passed.
So, YES, you are correct in stating that the same number of people would be smoking dope TODAY regardless of what happened. It's not like the law was written to make it a free-for-all on Nov. 8 -- the law was written with set timelines for what would happen when.
The argument behind 205 was whether we wanted more people to be using marijuana in the years to come once the legalization scheme was ramped up and actually in place.
Furthermore, all of this is only relevant because of the federal government's, and the Supreme Court's, complete unwillingness to jump into this morass and tell Americans what's legal and what's not. Logically speaking it's pretty asinine that the drug is so controlled that you can't even really do much research on it, yet, dozens of states have legalized or abandoned enforcement regarding this drug.
I wonder, does anyone think the new administration might take any different of a tack on federal enforcement or lack thereof regarding marijuana use in states of the union?
It absolutely is a straw man. You misrepresented the goal of this proposition in an attempt to argue something completely irrelevant - alcohol tax.
If we're talking common sense, the common sense argument is that marijuana is already so easily accessible that anyone that wants to smoke presently already does so. Have you heard anyone say, "I can't wait until pot is legal so I can toke up"? Of course not. They already do. The whole premise behind this is that we should regulate, tax and decriminalize something THAT PEOPLE ARE ALREADY DOING anyway.
Religious people tend to live their lives in fear. It's simply the way they were indoctrinated. Fear of rapture, sinning, hell, etc. This simply plays into that pattern. The fear of more people using marijuana once legal is nothing more than that, fear, and this thread has proven that based on the posters that oppose this. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that more people would use if legalized and to suggest otherwise is simply fear-mongering.
I'm not down with people telling me that I live my life in fear, Dee-troi-it. No, I live my life in expectation of coming blessings. And I have a better life now. To live like a thug I will not. I like to think about things in a deeper way, with a good, solid future ahead. Yeah, they laughed at and taunted Noah as he tried to preach to them. Later, Noah, his wife and their sons and their wives survived the great Flood. The rainbows we see today after a rain are God's promise that he'll never flood the earth again in such a devastating way.
I'd rather seek God's approval than step on other people for fun, fail to signal my intention to change lanes, mock religious people, live to fill my belly only - not caring about the dogs and cats being slaughtered finally after they're tortured mercilessly by the people in Asia - a cause that I do think a more caring nation needs to intervene in - I say this because I don't enjoy animals writhing in pain - our own slaughterhouses are not much better, either. I'd rather care about what happens to people. Smoking pot hurts the lungs of people. Pot in brownies? Well, I would look in to the damage long-term that causes, too. Not a smart idea? Is alcohol abused? Yes it is. This thread is about pot.
Living in fear? No, not I. I am living a good, honest life serving the one and only true God. Fearful of a powerful God? In a spiritual manner, yes, I do fear God's power. Oh yes I do. Hence, I want to live my life pleasing him. Pot? Not good for anybody, brownies or smoking.
Fearful of more traffic accidents if pot becomes more popular and legal everywhere, easier ta get? Hard ta say no. Fearful in a smart way. Make sure you signal your intention ta change lanes, now.
^Among that tl;dr diatribe you stated that you don't live in fear and then went on to ramble about how you're fearful of the effects of marijuana use. You justify your fear and meddling by stating your "concern". People will be just fine without you self-righteously looking after them.
It absolutely is a straw man. You misrepresented the goal of this proposition in an attempt to argue something completely irrelevant - alcohol tax.
If we're talking common sense, the common sense argument is that marijuana is already so easily accessible that anyone that wants to smoke presently already does so. Have you heard anyone say, "I can't wait until pot is legal so I can toke up"? Of course not. They already do. The whole premise behind this is that we should regulate, tax and decriminalize something THAT PEOPLE ARE ALREADY DOING anyway.
Religious people tend to live their lives in fear. It's simply the way they were indoctrinated. Fear of rapture, sinning, hell, etc. This simply plays into that pattern. The fear of more people using marijuana once legal is nothing more than that, fear, and this thread has proven that based on the posters that oppose this. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that more people would use if legalized and to suggest otherwise is simply fear-mongering.
I think it's just common sense that if a drug is freely and easily and legally available, more people are going to consider using it than if one has to commit crimes in order to even try it. Those who already use it, may consider using more of it, given the ease and legality, as well. Statistics from legal states bear out this trend, although fortunately not too dramatic a trend line as of yet as many people still choose to abstain from marijuana.
I have love and concern for all people, and I believe that things like drugs and alcohol are not the solution to life's problems. I respect your right to disagree with me on that. All I can do is try to do what I think is best for our county/state/country.
Also, if I may speak to you personally, I certainly hope I have not come across as fearful. It is a natural human temptation to give in to fear, to worry, to anxiety, and believe me I struggle with it sometimes. But I also know the solution to it, and I can vouch for you that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ can tremendously reduce an individual's fear and uncertainty. That's been my experience, and that of many other Christians whom I know. I find that my happiness and peace are in direct correlation to how closely I am walking with God. We all have seasons of struggle or doubt or change, but the answers are eternal.
I don't know what God's plans are for you, or me, or the legal status of marijuana in the state of Arizona, but I know that He is in control and that we should not worry, regardless of our disagreements. To be pithy, here is some Biblical advice that I think believers and non-believers alike could get behind: "And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?"
I think it's just common sense that if a drug is freely and easily and legally available, more people are going to consider using it than if one has to commit crimes in order to even try it. Those who already use it, may consider using more of it, given the ease and legality, as well. Statistics from legal states bear out this trend, although fortunately not too dramatic a trend line as of yet as many people still choose to abstain from marijuana.
I have love and concern for all people, and I believe that things like drugs and alcohol are not the solution to life's problems. I respect your right to disagree with me on that. All I can do is try to do what I think is best for our county/state/country.
Also, if I may speak to you personally, I certainly hope I have not come across as fearful. It is a natural human temptation to give in to fear, to worry, to anxiety, and believe me I struggle with it sometimes. But I also know the solution to it, and I can vouch for you that a personal relationship with Jesus Christ can tremendously reduce an individual's fear and uncertainty. That's been my experience, and that of many other Christians whom I know. I find that my happiness and peace are in direct correlation to how closely I am walking with God. We all have seasons of struggle or doubt or change, but the answers are eternal.
I don't know what God's plans are for you, or me, or the legal status of marijuana in the state of Arizona, but I know that He is in control and that we should not worry, regardless of our disagreements. To be pithy, here is some Biblical advice that I think believers and non-believers alike could get behind: "And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?"
We'll have to agree to disagree on many things, but I would like to thank you for your civility in your response. That alone, speaks volumes and it wasn't lost on me.
It failed for good reason. I voted for it but I can understand the opposition. The primary reason it failed was due to drivers and safety. I don't think people have an issue with people smoking pot but they are concerned about people driving while high. There is no real way to diagnose if someone had smoked recently or last week because it stays in your system for a long time. I think the technology to assess whether someone smoked recently is still in development. But I think once they come up with that solution, it will likely pass.
I also think there should be legislation to outlaw certain edibles and anything that could look appealing to children within reason like lolilops.
I also voted for it, but had some reluctance due to certain parts of the initiative ... mainly the government control board which would have been created. Marijuana definitely should be legalized, but there were some problems with 205. I still think the presence of an older active voting population played a part in defeating this measure as well. Seniors tend to be against legalization compared to many of the younger voters.
And for the record, I don't give a crap about children, but you probably already knew that. If the breeding parents are too lazy to keep them away from the many dangerous temptations out there, that's not my problem, nor should it be society's problem. I'm sick of all this "our children" garbage. We hear it all the time during election campaigns, and I make sure to vote against any candidate or initiative that puts an emphasis on protecting kids.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitem3
There are more than 672,000 ballots left to be added to the count from Tuesday's election in Arizona, with more than 75 percent of them in Maricopa County, state officials said Wednesday. There are about 48,000 uncounted early and provisional ballots in Pima County, with 470,000 uncounted in the Phoenix area.
Good grief, why don't they speed up the process and get these ballots counted when the election results are coming in? These paper ballots and the method used for counting them are so obsolete. When are we going to finally implement 21st Century technology in this process?!
My ballot which was dropped off on election day has been received and counted. It's amazing how long it takes to process all the votes. We shall see if Adrian Fontes (currently up by 10K votes) speeds things up next time around, or if it's not a Purcell problem, but rather a County / State problem. I know the state didn't certify the machines as early as Purcell would have liked, but, is buying more machines a possibility? Hopefully the winner will keep the public apprised.
Also, I'd just like to say thank you to everyone who voted no on 205. I truly appreciate your vote.
I wonder...weed advocates always say, well, alcohol's worse. And, hey, I agree that alcohol is incredibly dangerous and I'm opposed to it. But do weed advocates support higher taxes and greater restrictions on alcohol? Or do they just want the same laissez-faire treatment that alcohol gets, e.g. for society to just tolerate the negatives because people like doing it?
Instead of passing a weed bill to raise a few million for the state, why can't we just raise alcohol taxes?
There is so much money in booze that the liquor lobby is incredibly powerful...even in the depths of the recession...did anyone raise liquor taxes? Nope...they just started taxing groceries (e.g. City of Phoenix) and taking money from the schools (state government) instead. Our elected officials chose to shortchange families and students, rather than go up against the liquor lobby. That shows you the power that the people are up against in trying to confront the political power of alcohol producers and distributors.
Or, maybe I'm out of touch and alcohol is so popular that higher alcohol taxes would've inspired popular unrest. I'm sure that's what the liquor lobby would tell me.
The marijuana industry, once legalized fully, would become a extremely powerful lobby to contend with, especially if weed was legalized via a 205-esque bill that basically enshrines certain current MMJ industry insiders with a leg up on any competition.
This was a corporate bill all the way and honestly the Marijuana Policy Project -- which has been fighting this fight for literal decades -- should be kind of ashamed at the way they've caved in to these cartelization bills instead of advocating for a more free/open approach to legalization, which I assume is what weed users actually want.
How would you have voted if this were a more clear and less expansive measure? My hang up was how the bill was drafted, but my fear is that the legislature will be feel emboldened to take indirect steps to prevent his from coming up again. They've been trying that for decades back when we legalized MMJ in the 90s the first time.
You have a, IMO, reasonable opinion compared to a lot of the NO on 205ers on here.
How would you have voted if this were a more clear and less expansive measure? My hang up was how the bill was drafted, but my fear is that the legislature will be feel emboldened to take indirect steps to prevent his from coming up again. They've been trying that for decades back when we legalized MMJ in the 90s the first time.
You have a, IMO, reasonable opinion compared to a lot of the NO on 205ers on here.
So, short answer, I'd vote no on probably all legalization measures, but I felt compelled to take a much stronger reaction to 205 this year because of just how bad I thought the law would have been, than I would have to a more modest proposition.
When I was a kid and saw things more rosily, the libertarian "make everything legal" personal liberty argument was something that I thought made a lot of sense, so I truly do "get it" when people make that argument about personal liberty. I understand the viewpoint.
The problem I wrestle with is just all the collateral damage I have seen from all sorts of substances, and no marijuana isn't first on the list of problem drugs, but it isn't a positive force in the world, either, in my opinion, as a recreational drug.
Medicinally, if it helps someone, I don't have much of a problem with that. I do know that it really does help some people and that's a positive.
If it was to be legalized, I'd like to see it regulated by an independent government agency rather than an industry-stacked board; I'd like to see more restrictions on where they can set up shop; I'd like to see edibles banned because if you take that stuff out of the equation then the whole "children accidentally eating it" aspect is no longer a problem; stuff like that.
If you can't make tobacco products or liquor products that even tangentially appeal to children or teens -- e.g. recently-banned things like Camel Krush cigarettes or those Four Loko, Sparks, etc. Energy Drink Malt Beverages that got banned a few years ago -- then I think it is more than reasonable to say that there's no way you should be able to make any marijuana product that could meet the same definition, e.g. pot-infused gummy bears or candy bars or what have you.
But, again, this is where the federal government's ignoring this ballooning issue is doing none of us any favors. There is no federal body to set standards and govern advertising and whatever else -- it's a free for all and every state is on its own -- and at any time the federal government still could come in and shut it all down as illegal anyway. It's kind of ridiculous when you think about it.
Like I said many pages ago, this was a first-pitch, home-run hack by the MPP. Now the count is 0-1 and maybe they'll take a pitch or two and shorten up on their stroke. I assume they'll be back at some point with a more selective measure that removes some of the most egregious concerns. Time will tell.
Last edited by ScottsdaleMark; 11-10-2016 at 12:09 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
