Happy Atheist Forum

I'm sure people have heard of it, the proposition that will be voted on in Cali on November 2nd. It will legalize Mary Jane for all those who are 21 and above. It just got a major boost in the polls today and a lot of cash is being thrown at it.  Analysts were saying that it may not pass due to less youth turnout on midterm elections however there are polls indicating youth turnout should be high this November in California, no doubt due to the proposition itself. It looks like it will pass but then there's a chance it won't, we'll see. So what if it does pass? What do you think will happen? People write it off because it's weed but it's beginning to be taken very seriously because there is a strong chance it will.

This is America, money talks and i'm sure California is going to rake in a lot of cash from this and a legitimate marijuana industry will bloom there. I think it's going to eventually spread across the country if it passes. Other states will see how it performs and want to cash in on the money themselves. It's already evident in other states as candidates have actually debated about it. Seems like the age of prohibition is over or it's end is at least approaching fast. When that does happen, I wonder how legal pot will affect the country, I see it as mostly a good thing, arrests will plummet, more money into the economy, less people getting drunk and smoking tobacco. We'll have a commodity that no other country is taking advantage of, especially considering how versatile cannabis is aside from just smoking it, from food, fuel, paper, clothes and plenty of other things I think it will be beautiful to see it legal. So as I said above, thoughts?

Normally I would like to see something like this get passed. However, since it's not at a federal level this could mean trouble. The alcohol age was lowered in some states and what happened was kids would drive from neighboring states to get a legal buzz. On the drive back, naturally they had accidents and killed people.

So you would rather let hundreds of thousands get locked up every year, Mexico continue to turn into Somalia and waste massive amounts of money on a drug war because some kids MIGHT have accidents driving to California that they would have in their respective hometowns just buying from a dealer on their corner?

In a perfect world the federal government would be handling this law, because I would hate to see interstate death tolls go through the roof. From AMA (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/public-health/promoting-healthy-lifestyles/alcohol-other-drug-abuse/facts-about-youth-alcohol/minimum-legal-drinking-age.shtml):

QuoteAfter Prohibition, nearly all states restricting youth access to alcohol designated 21 as the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA). Between 1970 and 1975, however, 29 states lowered the MLDA to 18, 19, or 20. These changes occurred when the minimum age for other activities, such as voting, also were being lowered (Wechsler & Sands, 1980). Scientists began studying the effects of the lowered MLDA, focusing particularly on the incidence of motor vehicle crashes, the leading cause of death among teenagers. Several studies in the 1970s found that motor vehicle crashes increased significantly among teens when the MLDA was lowered (Cucchiaro et al., 1974; Douglas et al., 1974; Wagenaar, 1983, 1993; Whitehead, 1977; Whitehead et al., 1975; Williams et al, 1974).

With evidence that a lower drinking age resulted in more traffic injuries and fatalities among youth, citizen advocacy groups pressured states to restore the MLDA to 21.

But, let me play Devil's Advocate to this. I believe I've read that cannabis doesn't impair motor skills as bad as alcohol. Whether or not it's enough to make a big difference on a highway, I don't know.

It's polling above 50%. If we keep pushing, keep educating people on the medical benefits and lack of dangers (it takes like 1500 lbs. to OD), we can get this common sense legalization passed and get on with actual serious problems like unnecessary wars or the horrible economy.

Indeed, I hope it goes through, i've been wanting to move to California for years now, this just sweetens the deal.

As for driving while stoned. When you drink alcohol you become careless and do reckless things. You smoke weed, you can get cautious or even paranoid. From my experience, driving stoned equates to actually driving safer, regardless of whether it improves or worsens the situation, people smoke and drive now, I don't get why that would change with prohibition ending, it's not like it's hard to get, weed is as easy as ordering a pizza.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Indeed, I hope it goes through, i've been wanting to move to California for years now, this just sweetens the deal.

As for driving while stoned. When you drink alcohol you become careless and do reckless things. You smoke weed, you can get cautious or even paranoid. From my experience, driving stoned equates to actually driving safer, regardless of whether it improves or worsens the situation, people smoke and drive now, I don't get why that would change with prohibition ending, it's not like it's hard to get, weed is as easy as ordering a pizza.

it really is, and with the right guy it's faster.

and i'd like to ad to the driving thing.

i use reefer to make myself more meticulous and critical.

like, before I do stuff around the house like laundry, sanitizing,  I smoke a joint and it makes me check extra little details from corner to corner and I don't miss a  spot.

I'm going to vote in favor of this prop, but I'm pretty sure it won't matter, because on the Federal level the levers of power will be pulled to negate it.

When the Feds wanted the MLDA raised to 21 by every state, it simply adopted the policy of withholding highway funding until the law was changed.  I think the same thing will happen here, if it does indeed pass.

So far as driving high goes, when I used to smoke I hated driving high.  It made me too paranoid.  Plus, I reckon it's pretty dumb to be driving under the influence of a perception-altering drug.

The Feds wont do anything if the law passes.  We have a President who is very familiar with recreational drugs.

Aside from Obama's experience, it would be political suicide. Think about it, if you were up for re-election, what's the one state you don't want to piss off, that would be California who has the most amount of electoral votes by far. Not to mention Cali is the state that pretty much decided it for Obama. I don't think the fed will do a thing, they will simply remain quiet, if multiple states successfully implement a similar measure then I imagine that the feds will follow suit, as they should. This is exactly how alcohol prohibition ended FDR lifted the ban after several states had already did it at the state level.

My specific curiosity with this is by what margin the testing levels will have to be raised for a legal substance. Obviously companies will still test for it, but with THC staying in the system longer than the other legal substance companies test for- alcohol- I'm curious how high they'll raise the levels. Currently, my understanding is the test levels are 50-100 micrograms per milliliter. The problem is, at that level it could be either a habitual smoker or someone who snooker only two nights ago. That will be interesting.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Aside from Obama's experience, it would be political suicide.

Bush Jr won the presidency twice without carrying California.  Also, the margin even here for legalization is very narrow.  Advocating for legalization won't add any votes for him; those folk are already going to vote for him anyway.  It will only cost him votes from older folk who agree with his platform but disagree with legalization.  

He has little to gain, and, I think, more to lose.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"Aside from Obama's experience, it would be political suicide.

Bush Jr won the presidency twice without carrying California.  Also, the margin even here for legalization is very narrow.  Advocating for legalization won't add any votes for him; those folk are already going to vote for him anyway.  It will only cost him votes from older folk who agree with his platform but disagree with legalization.  

He has little to gain, and, I think, more to lose.

The pro legalization isn't just in California, he stands to lose a massive part of the youth vote across the country which was also instrumental in getting him elected.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"The pro legalization isn't just in California, he stands to lose a massive part of the youth vote across the country which was also instrumental in getting him elected.

Insofar as potheads vote, you have a point.  But I don't see that they've flocked to the polls, at least not around here.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"The pro legalization isn't just in California, he stands to lose a massive part of the youth vote across the country which was also instrumental in getting him elected.

Insofar as potheads vote, you have a point.  But I don't see that they've flocked to the polls, at least not around here.

I think you underestimate how many youths smoke weed or don't have a problem with it, they may not look like pot heads but many of them are and then another portion of them think it's ok. During 2008 elections young people voted in droves, youth votes aren't to be underestimated, the problem is getting them to be enthusiastic about voting, a good way to do that is to come out pro pot. I think that may be the only possible way Palin can get elected as she has stated multiple times she's pro pot.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"The pro legalization isn't just in California, he stands to lose a massive part of the youth vote across the country which was also instrumental in getting him elected.

Insofar as potheads vote, you have a point.  But I don't see that they've flocked to the polls, at least not around here.

I think you underestimate how many youths smoke weed or don't have a problem with it, they may not look like pot heads but many of them are and then another portion of them think it's ok. During 2008 elections young people voted in droves, youth votes aren't to be underestimated, the problem is getting them to be enthusiastic about voting, a good way to do that is to come out pro pot. I think that may be the only possible way Palin can get elected as she has stated multiple times she's pro pot.

You're right that coming out pro-pot can pull the youth vote.  The question is do you alienate more older voters, who typically vote in greater proportions?  That's a calculation that can quickly go awry.  The youth already are fed up with Obama; he cannot deliver fast enough to sate their impatience.  

But if he tries to placate them on this issue, he risks alienating older voters.  He may well fall between two stools if he pursues this strategy.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"you're right that coming out pro-pot can pull the youth vote.  The question is do you alienate more older voters, who typically vote in greater proportions?  That's a calculation that can quickly go awry.  The youth already are fed up with Obama; he cannot deliver fast enough to sate their impatience.  

But if he tries to placate them on this issue, he risks alienating older voters.  He may well fall between two stools if he pursues this strategy.

I think some of the older folks would no doubt feel alienated but only a portion of them, Each generation, more younger people are voting, alot of the folks who were in their 60s and 70s are replaced by folks in their 50s and 40s, the baby  boomer generation is getting up there and adult isn't quite what it was a few years ago. There is a reason the trend shows the population growing in favor of pot. By the time Obama would care to come out pro pot it may be the most intelligent move if the trend continues. If Obama is going to survive as a president he will realize this, stop pissing off youth and kicking the left when it's down due to his actions.

Quote from: "Ultima22689"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"you're right that coming out pro-pot can pull the youth vote.  The question is do you alienate more older voters, who typically vote in greater proportions?  That's a calculation that can quickly go awry.  The youth already are fed up with Obama; he cannot deliver fast enough to sate their impatience.  

But if he tries to placate them on this issue, he risks alienating older voters.  He may well fall between two stools if he pursues this strategy.

I think some of the older folks would no doubt feel alienated but only a portion of them, Each generation, more younger people are voting, alot of the folks who were in their 60s and 70s are replaced by folks in their 50s and 40s, the baby  boomer generation is getting up there and adult isn't quite what it was a few years ago. There is a reason the trend shows the population growing in favor of pot. By the time Obama would care to come out pro pot it may be the most intelligent move if the trend continues. If Obama is going to survive as a president he will realize this, stop pissing off youth and kicking the left when it's down due to his actions.

Old folks smoked pot when they were young and many still do.  Several of my friends smoke pot regularly.  It is only those who want to rule this country through religion that will vote against pot.  Of course the fundamentalists are more likely to actually vote than stoners are.  

My dad is a boomer, and we smoke together.
He is also a staunch Protestant Christian.
Makes for interesting conversations.

I'm aware that there are old folk who smoke out.  I don't think they are near a majority of pot-smokers, nor do I think they number more than anti-pot folk in their age group.

The essence of my point is that apathetic people aren't likely to vote.

I also think that the youth turnout won't happen as dramatically for Obama in '12 anyway, because he's having to move slower than they care to see.

I hope I'm wrong, but obviously I don't think I am.

They may well sit this one out.  Obama ran on change but he retained the Bush financial advisers who tanked the economy and gave the bail out funds to friends.  Obama ignored the Clinton financial advisers who helped bring prosperity to this country.  The unemployment rate for those under 25 is about 20%.  The underemployment of college graduates is about 50%.  It always was and always will be about the economy.

I'm a member of a forum that while not political (or religious) very much leans to the right. Mostly consevatives and republicans, many very religious ect. I omit most of my more liberal leaning (I don't wish to have arguements for somthing I didn't join to discuss). On this forum there was a rather large topic on MJ its uses and it's legality, although personal stories and encouragement to use are strictly forbidden as they are against forum rules about speaking of or promoting ileagal activity. I was increadably surprised to see that the VAST majority of posters on this thread were very pro legalisation. I was frankly shocked to see such support in such a right heavy community. I think the majority of U.S. citizens are ready for or even seeking this change.

People in thier 20s and teens often see people thier parents age as old fogies and against everything fun. Forgeting that everybody was young once and that many of the more mature in the world grew up in the 60s and 70s. Sterotypes aside that era was a time of expirmentation and saw the first widespread acceptance and use of Weed.

Oh and Im for legalisation.

Quote from: "Tanker"I think the majority of U.S. citizens are ready for or even seeking this change.

I'd like to think you're right, but here in California, one of the more liberal states in the Union, legalization is carrying only about half of the electorate.

I bet we'd get it passed in Washington.  Also, both of my parents smoked pot and my mom still does, but you neeeeever suspect it.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Tanker"I think the majority of U.S. citizens are ready for or even seeking this change.

I'd like to think you're right, but here in California, one of the more liberal states in the Union, legalization is carrying only about half of the electorate.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/201 ... _californi (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/sep/30/prop_19_52_latest_poll_californi)

Looks like things are going in favor of it passing.

How many people will really turn up to vote against it though? I bet it passes just because it will draw a lot of votes from the youth (and pot smokers). For some reason I can't picture too many anti-marijuana soccer moms actually going through the trouble of voting on this.

I agree, people have been assuming in a lot of discussions about this that for some odd reason, every single opposition is going to vote when odds are that won't be the case at all and the youth are in fact very energized right now, in California anyway, the rest of the country, we might as well be dead.

Cannabis is vilified for no reason other than in the past it meant jailtime.  If that stigma was removed...I bet it wouldn't be such a closet case.  Caffeine is worse for you ...

Quote from: "Ultima22689"http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/sep/30/prop_19_52_latest_poll_californi

Looks like things are going in favor of it passing.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'd like to think you're right, but here in California, one of the more liberal states in the Union, legalization is carrying only about half of the electorate.

Also, defeat is within the margin of error on that poll.  52% is not solid support.

I'm not saying it won't pass.  I just think it's complacent to assume it will simply because about half the electorate support it.  The numbers in that poll aren't very different from the numbers against Prop 8 at this stage of the 08 campaign, and we all know how that worked out.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/sep/30/prop_19_52_latest_poll_californi

Looks like things are going in favor of it passing.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'd like to think you're right, but here in California, one of the more liberal states in the Union, legalization is carrying only about half of the electorate.

Also, defeat is within the margin of error on that poll.  52% is not solid support.

I'm not saying it won't pass.  I just think it's complacent to assume it will simply because about half the electorate support it.  The numbers in that poll aren't very different from the numbers against Prop 8 at this stage of the 08 campaign, and we all know how that worked out.

Yes, but the cannabis issue does not have racial/religious proclivities the way the gay marriage issue did.

Did anyone else catch this amusing editorial on Prop 19 (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/reefer-gladness/) in the New York Times?

Quote from: "Sophus"Did anyone else catch this amusing editorial on Prop 19 (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/reefer-gladness/) in the New York Times?

" Big Alcohol does not want marijuana to get a piece of that large pie of legal money spent to distract ourselves from ourselves."
Brilliant.

Perhaps not, but there are many preconceived notions and prejudices about it.  Look at what's going on in LA with the clinics.

I have to reply to those who think marijuana doesn't impair driving safety, think again.  Don't get me wrong, I'm pro legalization, but marijuana is a mind-altering substance.  If used in large amounts, marijuana can leave a person stoned off his or her ass and unable to figure out why he or she has a half-eaten, unwrapped egg salad sandwich in his or her pants pocket.

So the question on my mind is how to determine if a person is too stoned to be able to drive safely?

You're right Kylyssa, smoking weed isn't the same as having a beer, you drink a few beers you're going to start getting drunk, weed all depends on your tolerance and quality of weed you're smoking. I remember when I first smoked a blunt of white widow which is one of the strongest strains you can smoke, before hand I hadn't smoked in over 3 years, I was insanely high, I couldn't even really walk without each step feeling like I was walking with springs on my feet, listening to Pink Floyd filled me with intense ecstasy that was almost orgasmic on the other hand the last time I had been smoking which was some time ago, I could smoke several blunts worth of kush and get fairly high but even then you wouldn't be able to tell I had smoked unless you could smell it on me and that's because  I had been smoking every day for months.

There's no real way to measure a person's tolerance I don't think so as far as law is concerned don't smoke and drive, plain and simple. If you give a cop a reason to pull you over and you reek of weed and you are high it's going to be obvious, if you have a strong tolerance and are driving, the cop won't even have a reason to pull you over.

The rule on safe BAC is pretty much a joke.  In Ohio I can drink 4 sips of a beer, and blow over the legal limit.  I'm not sure how they would measure your THC level on the fly, unless you train cops how to take blood... I think they'll probably end up doing something like estimation.  In Ohio, cops can now estimate if you're speeding or not just by eyeballing your car.  They can pull you over and write you a ticket for the speed they thought you were going.  So, the general rule should be the same as aclohol...if you're too drunk/high to walk...don't get in a car.

Just take the bus!  Hobo bus fights are WAY more entertaining/less frightening when you're baked anyway.

I think it would be exceedingly difficult to accurately test for THC in a reckless driving or DUI situation since the stuff stays in your fat cells for quite some time and I don't know of any method of testing for specifically recent use.  That's an interesting question.  Anyway, did I miss where someone was saying that weed never impairs a person's ability to drive?  Those people must be stuck in the south smoking seedy brick weed.  Ugh.

Some bad news for California (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/15/eric-holder-to-prosecute-_n_764153.html).

QuoteAttorney General Eric Holder is warning that the federal government will not look the other way, as it has with medical marijuana, if voters next month make California the first state to legalize pot.

Marijuana is illegal under federal law, which drug agents will "vigorously enforce" against anyone carrying, growing or selling it, Holder said.

Federal law can't touch them for possession or sale as long as they don't cross state lines with it.  Bad news for the growers, scare tactics for everyone else.  Even that's not really a big deal, considering that the feds will be too busy in the forests sinffing out cartel patches to worry about personal usage patches in various towns.

Yeah, it's just scare tactics, they know they can't really do much about it. If it passes I doubt the feds will do any worse than what they were doing during the bush era.

Between this and this decision to defend "don't ask don't tell" after avowing opposition to it, I'm asking myself, how many constituencies is Obama trying to piss of?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"The pro legalization isn't just in California, he stands to lose a massive part of the youth vote across the country which was also instrumental in getting him elected.

Insofar as potheads vote, you have a point.  But I don't see that they've flocked to the polls, at least not around here.

it's not like we have Pot Head stamped on our foreheads.  A lot lot lot of people smoke, it just isn't something we brag about all over town because it isn't exactly legal.

the only people that know I chief are you dudes on the internet and my reefer dude.

I don't even have smoking buddies, I blaze alone.

everybody else thinks i might as well be a christian.

Quote from: "TheWilliam"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Ultima22689"The pro legalization isn't just in California, he stands to lose a massive part of the youth vote across the country which was also instrumental in getting him elected.

Insofar as potheads vote, you have a point.  But I don't see that they've flocked to the polls, at least not around here.

it's not like we have Pot Head stamped on our foreheads.  A lot lot lot of people smoke, it just isn't something we brag about all over town because it isn't exactly legal.

the only people that know I chief are you dudes on the internet and my reefer dude.

I don't even have smoking buddies, I blaze alone.

everybody else thinks i might as well be a christian.

Out here, it's a pretty open thing.  I'm sure there are still closet 'heads, but the large majority of weedies aren't shy about saying it, and the large majority of open blazers I know are thoroughly uninvolved in politics; thus my qualifier, "at least not around here".  I can only speak from my own perspective; I don't think Gallup has polled blazers on their voting habits, and so my point is admittedly anecdotal.

When I started voting EVERY weedhead I knew was a voter.  That's how the med law got through.

Well, there's maybe eight people in Washington that don't get high, right?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Well, there's maybe eight people in Washington that don't get high, right?

Maybe, but I lived in Sacramento when I started voting.

Heh, do tweakers vote?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Heh, do tweakers vote?

I said Sacramento, not Rio Linda.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Heh, do tweakers vote?

I said Sacramento, not Rio Linda.

It's all Central Valley to me.

Would legalisation make any of the paranoia go away?

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Would legalisation make any of the paranoia go away?

Probably.  When the med law was passed a LOT of people (including a friend's mom) got immediately arrested and had their shit seized for growing, but the feds backed down.  I don't think people will be so careless in round 2.  As for carrying it and whatnot, I don't think anyone will make a big deal about it.  Obviously large sales that count as trafficking will still be hush-hush and a lot of growers will still keep it indoors, but I think that a lot of the tension of getting caught will dissipate immediately.

Let me ask my lord and savior what he thinks about the issue...

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Findisputablelogictime.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F10%2Flegalize.png%3Fw%3D370%26amp%3Bh%3D370&hash=bd9cf0f2b7165df653b457e71092d8f4d22795bd)

Okay that settles it.  Legalize!!

Up until about a year ago, I smoked all the time. I've smoked with a doctor, a lawyer, and even one time with an off duty cop. The thing alot of people seem to forget is that there are alot of us who are very responsible about it and only do it at home when not going out driving around. Personally, I think it would be better if more people chose to smoke than drink.

That being said, I rarely do it anymore because I'm happier with my life these days and I just don't feel the need to self medicate like I used to. Just like most drugs, it was an escape from reality for me. On the rare occasion that I do it now, it's just to get high and laugh extra hard at a stupid movie before I fall asleep.

I'm all for legalizing it.