Montanans: Will we amend our state's consitution in 2014 to allow the recreational use of marijuana in our state? (condo)

[Montguy]

If CI-110 makes the ballot in 2014 as an initiative to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, will we vote more intelligently on the issue of marijuana legitimacy than we did last November?

Our state is no stranger to legislative/voter nullifaction efforts in rejection of federal law--will we continue this fine tradition and assert ourselves against the failed drug war if we have the opportunity 2014?

[Redraven]

I will vote for anything that will stop the silly, failed, "War On Drugs".
Especially considering the minimal research I did on the Congressional hearings that took place before Marijuana was demonized. It would appear that the stuff was declared illegal based on a LIE that was told to the Committee!
The "War On Drugs" has cost unknown billions of dollars, an unknown number of lives, enriched criminals worldwide, and accomplished nothing! It is time to act intelligently and logically.
No, I do not, and never have, used the stuff. Any of it. Well, OK, except tobacco, and I kicked that habit several years ago.
Yes, I will vote FOR it!

[MTSilvertip]

After the way the voters that voted for legalization were slapped in the face by the marajuana users, and after the last debacle we just went through, I would say no.

The opportunity for the users to show that the substance could be used responsibly in a "medical" scenario was given, and failed miserably. That was proven by the acceptance of the voters of basically recinding the authority to use the drug.
If marijuana could not be handled under a monitored, licensed and watched situation, why would widespread acceptance of it in a basically unregulated situation be condoned?

Visions of guys like crist toking on the capital lawn showed the distain for the citizens of the state that left a very bad taste for a lot of people.

The militant manner where the users stormed the capital during the last session, the "in your face" attitude of most users that refuse to acknowledge that a lot of people have no use for their drug of choice, demeaning and inflamitory retoric such as "will we vote more intelligently on the issue of marijuana legitimacy than we did last November?" does not convert people to your point of view.

People will vote based on their perceptions, and quite honestly, I have seen nothing to make me believe that making pot legal would in any way benifit the people of Montana.

I don't care what your poison of choice is, no matter if it is booze, coke, heroin, angel dust or weed. I don't care what someone uses to remove themselves from the gene pool, as long as they don't take innocent people with them.

If pot users want people to accept their drug of choice, then they have to have a massive PR campaign to remove the images of decades of pot users and the virilent rhetoric.

It has nothing to do with fighting the federal government, it is the perception that users driving while impared could just be another version of drunk drivers, that people operating heavy equipment, or dangerous tools while under the influance, it is the perception true or not, that increased use could be dangerous to the population in general.

It doesn't take too many train wrecks to promote that impression.

The war on drugs was handled poorly, as are most government programs like the war on poverty for instance. The only thing the fed seems to do well is waste money and resources. The basic premise wasn't flawed to keep dangerous drugs out of the hands of people too dumb to know better, but the execution was a chinese fire drill of mismanagement, disorganization and poor judgement.

I don't care if someone wants to smoke their brains into mush, I do care when someone is wasted and causes an accident or harms someone else, no matter what drug they are using.

I will vote intelligently in the unlikely event that legalization makes it to the voting booth, and so will a lot of other people on both sides for their own reasons.

I will vote no.

[DontLookPhoto]

I believe that full legalization will be on the ballot. Will it pass ? Nobody has a crystal ball and it certainly would depend on the wording of the proposed legislation.

I also believe that if it is legalized it would be highly regulated, the potency regulated and monitored and it would be heavily taxed.
The underground market for cheaper, untaxed and more potent strains would remain.

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by Redraven

I will vote for anything that will stop the silly, failed, "War On Drugs".
Especially considering the minimal research I did on the Congressional hearings that took place before Marijuana was demonized. It would appear that the stuff was declared illegal based on a LIE that was told to the Committee!
The "War On Drugs" has cost unknown billions of dollars, an unknown number of lives, enriched criminals worldwide, and accomplished nothing! It is time to act intelligently and logically.
No, I do not, and never have, used the stuff. Any of it. Well, OK, except tobacco, and I kicked that habit several years ago.
Yes, I will vote FOR it!

Same here, except I never used tobacco either. **

Nothing has eroded our rights, especially our 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, like the failed "War on Drugs". And it is being extended into other areas too, like the recent "war on small farms" as someone put it.

And if some of the people who use/promote pot are idiots (per what Silvertip says) ... well, some of the people who use/promote alcohol are idiots too. But we still should learn from what alcohol prohibition did to us. We have sufficient laws already about public intoxication (DUI, open containers, etc.) If people want to get stoned at home, how does that harm anyone else? If they're stoned in public, and causing a problem akin to being drunk in public, treat it the same way under the law; problem solved.

** [Tho I laugh every time I go by a local tobacconist's store called "When You Gotta Habit"!!]

[ElkHunter]

You are absolutely correct Rez. I haven't looked at Montana's law but most states, years ago, did away with Drunk Driving because "Drunk" was a judgement call, and at the time, "other drugs" were becoming a factor. They rewrote their laws to read "Driving while under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicating drugs". So, for the most part, the laws are in place to cover it. The only problem I forsee is, once again, the judgement call. With Alcohol, the LOE's have a device to measure the degree of intoxication, but I don't think they have a device to determine the degree of how high you are.

The last thing you need in Montana, is LOE making a judgement call that is not measurable.

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by ElkHunter

The only problem I forsee is, once again, the judgement call. With Alcohol, the LOE's have a device to measure the degree of intoxication, but I don't think they have a device to determine the degree of how high you are.

There is one now, it was developed a couple years ago and can ID the several most common intoxicants.

The side problem is that the existing "breath meters" are proving not terribly accurate; they can be off by a large enough margin to call anyone "intoxicated". So if it looks like you're about to take a fall and you're not guilty, it might be best to insist on the blood test instead, which is probably more accurate.