marijuana, revisited

Donna Tam/The Times-Standard
Posted: 10/20/2010 01:23:51 AM PDT

http://www.times-standard.com/news/ci_16384789

Humboldt County supervisors decide to support Prop. 19 (65%)
10/20/2010 - The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors decided Tuesday to support Proposition 19, despite some members' hesitation over the measure to legalize marijuana.



Donna Tam/The Times-Standard

http://www.times-standard.com/ci_16070531?IADID=Search-www.times-standard.com-www.times-standard.com

Quite a LEAP for state of California: Humboldt County law enforcement officials sign on to group's support for Proposition 19 (48%)
09/14/2010 - Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos said he supports marijuana legalization, but is not endorsing Proposition 19. Gallegos' name was among a list of more than 30 former and current law enforcement officials across the state to sign [...]

I read some article earlier that detailed difficulties of working out regulations and the "infrastructure" for legal marijuana, but haven't found the source for that yet.

The main source is osso that they have worked out that it will make enough money to pay off a chunk of the debts. Presumably so long as all the other states don't legalise it.

Which does mean, I'm afraid, that all the stuff they have said about weed in the past was a load of cobblers and just needed a financial inducement to be set aside. Many places in the world have seen their fortune rise by legalising something people want that is illegal elsewhere. You could probably name a few. It isn't as if it hasn't been thought of before.

In reply to the last of your posts, I will address the previous ones also. Your point is very apt and valid. Where do we draw the line? Why should we ban tobacco? At some stage banning becomes the easiest option. Medical expenses are carried by all of society so they should have a say on who it is spent on...within reason. We currently spend most of our medical budget on people in their last year of life....that money would make a huge difference into research for preventative childhood diseases.

Tobacco is a case where people are addicted because it is legal. If it were illegal, it would be easier to prevent people from affecting others with it. The whole basis of society is to provide a common friendly environment. Drugs such as alcohol and tobacco should be banned but it requires one step at a time. Half the battle is to prevent more drugs from arising whilst moving to roll back accepted ones.

If maryJ is legal, where does that leave tobacco ?

you mean valid for an addict, right?

if we keep banning people from their own stupidity, soon nothing will be legal.

except TV, of course...

Many people are addicts. Some are addicted to adrenalin, some to risk behaviour (cars), some to exercise, some to sex. Denying addiction is never helpful.

The Roman Empire had the same problem. As people became more comfortable, their stupidity increased. The Government tried to counter for their stupidity by making laws. In the end, it was a return to a uncomfortable way of life that returned common sense to people....though far fewer people with a higher death rate.

"Denying addiction is never helpful."

nor is labeling everyone who partakes as an addict...

between this thread and the other one, you've been a humongous sized dick head.

I bet you are a hoot at parties...

if people persist when the behaviour becomes destructive and they say things like I could give up if I wanted to...they are addicts. Morphine used for pain relief produces addicts. MaryJ, alcohol and tobacco produces addicts.....denial is never helpful.

I'm sure self righteous arrogance works much better.

at least for you.

I think Ima let you **** off now...

So you dont like the truth....if I had said what great people addicts are, you would be singing my praises as being correct. Rightness is above your personal choices.
I bet you arent. I bet you are slumped on the couch with drool coming out of your mouth.

I wouldnt have phrased your problem that way....I would have said self leftist arrogance.

"I bet you arent. I bet you are slumped on the couch with drool coming out of your mouth. "

no, usually I'm bouncing loud mouth jack-asses like you out the door, so the nice people can have fun.

g'nite Myanus...

Wouldnt try that with me sweet heart...I have a lot of experience in that area.
That was from a druggie in case no-one could guess. Of course the only nice people are druggies.

If the criteria for banning a product is that in excess quantities it can be harmful, virtually everything will have to be banned. Even water ingested in excess quantity is harmful.

So what's the next cut?

It has to be something a fairly significant number of consumers will abuse?

If so, and we define "abuse" as consumption levels resulting in physical and mental health problems, we have to ban:

Tobacco
Sugar
Fast food
Salt
Alcohol - again
Pornography
Televison
Video Games
Prescription pain killers (because clearly regulation alone hasn't stopped the abuse)
Plastic surgery
Etc, etc, etc

Pot is illegal because it came late to the Euro-American culture. The sailors on the three ships of Columbus were not given rations of pot. Colonists were familar and quite fond of John Barleycorn but not Mary Jane, and for immigrants from Germany, Ireland, Italy, Poland et al, alcohol, not weed was a taste of the Old Country.

Substance abuse is not something which should be ignored, but there is no evidence that prohibition is an effective solution for it.

Ignore very valid libertarian arguments, prohibition does more harm than good.

Yes, where to draw the line is of considerable concern. I just do not see how we can roll back tobacco and make MaryJ legal.

One professor of medicine here has stated that about 10% of people have a gene that can result in severe mental illness. Taking any sort of hallucinogenic drug for those people would be dangerous. The connection of hallucinogens and mental illness has been well connected but the reason has not been fully understood.

Finn-you missed out women. They are pretty bloody dangerous in my opinion.

In Humboldt County, deputies' jobs can get hazy
The region is a paradise for pot growers and an exasperating limbo for almost everyone else. 'I wish they would totally ban it … or just make it totally legal,' says one rural deputy.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pot-deputy-20101026,0,5131274.story
The articles I fly by from news sources in my old area tend to speak of these complications.


Meantime, I read another chiller article from William Finnegan in the New Yorker, geez, that's a brave guy, this one on the situation in Tijuana.
Alas, not available except by subscription, and there's no point in my quoting part of a complicated article.

Letter from Tijuana - William Finnegan. Oct. 18th issue, naturally now not the one on any possible local newstand.

His two articles, both complex, found either by subscription or a visit to a library -

OCT 18, 2010
LETTER FROM TIJUANA
IN THE NAME OF THE LAW
LETTER FROM TIJUANA about cleaning up Tijuana’s corrupt police force. In the drug wars that rack Mexico, Tijuana is an anomaly. It’s a place where public security has actually improved. In 2007 and 2008, the city was a killing field. There were daylight shoot-outs between gangs using automatic weapons…
by William Finnegan

MAY 31, 2010
LETTER FROM MEXICO
SILVER OR LEAD [ABSTRACT]
LETTER FROM MEXICO about La Familia Michoacana and the pervasive power of drug traffickers in the country. Writer visits the hill town of Zitácuaro in the Mexican state of Michoacán. On the morning before his arrival, the dismembered body of a young man was left in the middle of the…
by William Finnegan

Most likely USA made weapons. The flow of drug money out of the country has to be recuperated somehow.

Highly doubtful.