Prop 19

[I LUV MY S13]

For it:

1) Helps the state out alot as far as budget, and we really need it.
2) There are criminals doing more time for trafficking than those who commit violent crimes.
3) In a way crime will go down as far as Cartels, gang wars, deals gone wrong etc etc

Against it:

1) It truely is a gateway drug and addictive.
2) I think we'll see a rise in automobile/machine work accidents therefore resulting in more deaths. Innocent and guilty.
3) I think kids will have a higher probability of trying it because it will seem "ok" to them because the law says you can use at a certain age.
4) Possibility of having a decrease in productivity as far as school, work etc. because everyone is gonna be stoned off their ass.

Im just not gonna vote..

[kingkilburn]

If you aren't voting why are you wasting your time talking about it?

I don't really see a rise in motor accidents. It will have the same restrictions as driving drunk or on certain meds.

[I LUV MY S13]

Uhm cuz i want to. Why are you wasting your time caring?

Of course it will have restrictions, but whos to stop people from driving anyways?

[Jason913]

Marijuana isn't addictive...

[I LUV MY S13]

Says who?..

[kingkilburn]

Originally Posted by I LUV MY S13

Uhm cuz i want to. Why are you wasting your time caring?

Then vote. Your belly aching is pointless if you have no intention of voting.

Originally Posted by I LUV MY S13

Of course it will have restrictions, but whos to stop people from driving anyways?

Who's to stop them from driving now? You can't prevent people breaking the law only punish those who do.

Originally Posted by Jason913

Marijuana isn't addictive...

Oh wait. Were you serious?

[I LUV MY S13]

My belly feels fine.

Availability. Those who smoke and drive get it from medical dispensaries or dealers. When its legal access to it will be much easier, therefore resulting in more DUIs and possibly more accidents. Use your noggin.

[kingkilburn]

That's like saying every one who has a gun WILL shoot some one or ever person who ever drinks is going to dive right after.

[Jason913]

Originally Posted by I LUV MY S13

Says who?..

I'm a criminology major at FSU... I'm a senior and I'm in a class right now about drugs- Drugs in the criminal justice system. Every study ever done on addictive properties of drugs shows that marijuana is not addictive. If you want to make it illegal because it's "addictive"... then you must think caffeine should be illegal too, since it's WAY more addictive than cannabis.

[I LUV MY S13]

If everyone had a gun dont you think there would be an increase in gun violence?

[unlegendary]

So correct me if I am wrong... BECAUSE LOL I have never been taxed in my life

Hypothetically a marijuana grower/seller that plants 5x5 space indoors, yields 5oz a plant and has 5 plants (making it dumb simple). Since every strain is now dirt cheap, he sells his best stuff for $15/gram and pulls in $126000 annually. He gets taxed $15,000 for having the crop, he gets taxed for breaking six figures 25-28%, he gets taxed for being self employed, and I haven't even adjusted for living expenses! We're talking maybe what 30-40k?

Does it make money? I wouldn't know because $15/g is debatable and the tax laws would also be a big variable, who knows? will the government have its own local crops to supply local dispensaries? lot of variables still

On a better note, even if it only brings you 30-40k... that's good side money. haven't even accounted for the initial costs of premiums and new regulations yet and whatnot.

does the government benefit? yes but to what extent? is this temporary money?

[I LUV MY S13]

Originally Posted by Jason913

I'm a criminology major at FSU... I'm a senior and I'm in a class right now about drugs- Drugs in the criminal justice system. Every study ever done on addictive properties of drugs shows that marijuana is not addictive. If you want to make it illegal because it's "addictive"... then you must think caffeine should be illegal too, since it's WAY more addictive than cannabis.

I have a cousin who i think is definitely addicted. Whenever he goes a few hours without smoking he begins to get a bit shakey and experiencing anxiety. Heres a lil article you can read..


Research increasingly shows that intensive marijuana use often meets the technical requirements for addiction (or dependence). Analysts use this as evidence of the need to maintain the drug’s illegal status. But the fact of addictiveness is irrelevant to legality – addictive drugs (e.g., cigarettes, alcohol) are legal and nonaddictive drugs (e.g., LSD, Ecstasy) are not. Indeed, the fastest growing category of illicit use is of legal, but controlled, pharmaceuticals – both addictive and not. Addiction is a sideline in outlawing drugs, a label applied conveniently by authorities and cooperating scientists in support of prior policy biases.

One of the interesting redefinitions of a drug as addictive has occurred with marijuana. That is, marijuana was grouped (legally and in the public mind) with heroin and other powerful illicit drugs in the first half of the twentieth century. This image of marijuana continued through the 1950s and 1960s. In the mid-1960s and the 1970s, however, marijuana became a popular social drug among college and other youth populations. In the process, it became hard for people to take seriously the idea that marijuana was dangerous, and especially that it might be addictive. After all, people thought, they used it without damaging their lives (although, certainly, many people used it heavily, some perhaps even virtually constantly – cf. the term “pothead”).
So, does this widespread cultural experience of largely innocuous marijuana use mean that the drug is not addictive? In Love and Addiction, I described Malcolm X’s addiction to marijuana – in his autobiography he reported he was constantly and irresistibly intoxicated on marijuana – as typical of the 1940s. I then detailed the changing cultural mood which decided by the 1970s that such experiences were not possible:

Another instructive example is marijuana. As long as this drug was novel and threatening and was associated with deviant minorities, it was defined as "addictive" and classed as a narcotic. That definition was accepted not only by the authorities, but by those who used the drug, as in the Harlem of the 1940s evoked in Malcolm X's autobiography. In recent years, however, middle-class whites have discovered that marijuana is a relatively safe experience. Although we still get sporadic, alarmist reports on one or another harmful aspect of marijuana, respected organs of society are now calling for the decriminalization of the drug. We are near the end of a process of cultural acceptance of marijuana. Students and young professionals, many of whom lead very staid lives, have become comfortable with it, while still feeling sure that people who take heroin become addicted. They do not realize they are engaging in the cultural stereotyping which currently is removing marijuana from the locked "dope" cabinet and placing it on an open shelf alongside alcohol, tranquilizers, nicotine, and caffeine.

[Jason913]

You really want to start pulling things from the internet? lol

You won't find any scholarly studies to back that up... because there are none. However there are a whole bunch of people with computers... but without doctorates and without a credible study that can say oh em gee marijuana is addictive because I read that people magazine says so.

[I LUV MY S13]

Originally Posted by Jason913

You really want to start pulling things from the internet? lol

You won't find any scholarly studies to back that up... because there are none. However there are a whole bunch of people with computers... but without doctorates and without a credible study that can say oh em gee marijuana is addictive because I read that people magazine says so.

haha bro....

That was written by Stanton Peele who got his PH.D at the University of Michigan in Social Psychology and has years of experience in this.

[Jason913]

His study results? Oh wait...

[upsdude]

i will never understand how it's ok to buy alcohol and get drunk, yet lighting up a joint to get high is illegal. impaired is impaired is impaired. whoever wants to say drinking isn't as dangerous or "morally" wrong as smoking weed needs to look at some accidents caused by drunk drivers.

[20 til 3]

herb is very addictive... BUT it doesn't leave you with physical withdrawal unlike pharmy's, mdma, and so on....

also, marijuana smoke inhilation only accounds for 3% loss of lung compasity loss but i'm sure resin KILLS your lungs(have you ever blown hits through a towel ? discusting), thats why i would suggest using a vaporisor or a multi-filtered pipe

but when it comes down to it... we breathe in things 10x worse every day that we dont notice... who the hell says it causes cancer?... havn't you read a medical journal in your life about cannabis?... its proven to kill cancer cells


i've watched people ruin there lives over what doctors have given them to cope with pain weather it be mental or physical... but if there would have been a better option they wouldnt be stuck where they are now. I watch my grandpa sit in pain because he has alergies to most pain medication and for some reason the government says that something that works is bad for you because they cannot profit off of it enough



and not to mention... hemp fuel would be the shit

[J3123MY]

Kingkilburn......we were talking about cancer. Wheres the cancer at? Fail to find any results with your supply of links of blogs. lol.

[kingkilburn]

Originally Posted by I LUV MY S13

If everyone had a gun dont you think there would be an increase in gun violence?

Actually it is quite the opposite.

LOL indeed. Credible blogs linking directly to credible studies as well as news reports linked to credible studies.

Marijuana Damages DNA And May Cause Cancer, New Test Reveals

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

purple sticky high horses

oh, don't get me wrong, inhaling smoke is bad for your health, you'd have to be pretty blinded by bias to say otherwise.

[murda-c]

hey everybody.

buy a vaporizer.

combustion is for people with iron lungs.

[95KA-Turbo]

I think a few people in this thread have habit forming and addictive mixed up.

Here are two hypothetical situations:

I really like cake, if I get to eat a lot of it for a long period of time - say three slices a day for a week - when I run out of cake I can become irritable and have an 'empty' feeling inside and have cravings for cake that subside after not having cake for a while (the course of a few days to a week).

That is an example of cake being habit forming.



I need cake for my body to function properly. Without it my body cannot physically behave normally. As time passes without having regular doses of cake my body goes through withdrawal and reacts violently with seizures and erratic changes in blood pressure and heart rate. Some of my side effects could be life threatening and hospitalization may occur. Eventually, even that will pass and I will have relieved my body from its physical addiction to cake.


That would be an example of a typical addiction to cake.

[mau5trap]

Originally Posted by I LUV MY S13

For it:

1) Helps the state out alot as far as budget, and we really need it.
mite help, mite not. supposedly weeds gonna be cheaper and ppl could just grow it in the comfort of there home. how's that gonna help the budget?
2) There are criminals doing more time for trafficking than those who commit violent crimes.
3) In a way crime will go down as far as Cartels, gang wars, deals gone wrong etc etc
Cartels are probably already losing business by medical marijuana. if this passed, IMO it'll boost more business for gangs. how are PPL under 21 gonna get weed? I know alot of bangers hit up Highschool kids for business.

Against it:

1) It truely is a gateway drug and addictive.
nah, you're trippen. I know alot of ppl who smoked weed and never messed with any other drugs. and I don't think it's that addictive, maybe for few ppl.
2) I think we'll see a rise in automobile/machine work accidents therefore resulting in more deaths. Innocent and guilty.
I think people drive more cautious when they're high.
3) I think kids will have a higher probability of trying it because it will seem "ok" to them because the law says you can use at a certain age.
true true, its seems like prop 19 is putting soo much attention on weed, everyone's gonna start doing it. it's gonna be the next hip thing to do.
4) Possibility of having a decrease in productivity as far as school, work etc. because everyone is gonna be stoned off their ass.
Not everyone is gonna be stoned off their ass, just those few who can't hang.

Im just not gonna vote..

just vote no on prop 19..
they'll be better ballots for legalizing marijuana in 2012.
why fuck with something that's not broken?

prop 215 FTW


Please vote YES ON PROP 23.
http://zilvia.net/f/south-western-st...prop-23-a.html

[TheWolf]

Early onset cannabis use and psychosocial adjustment in young adults - FERGUSSON - 2006 - Addiction - Wiley Online Library

This is a great article from the Journal of Addiction. It attempts to break out the "were gonna smoke it anyway" crowd from the real data. Studies psycological effects, gateway effects, and crime instances. If you have a college library they should be able to access it for free and pull up this issue. The link is just the abstract.

Needless. In a strange move, US Attorny General Eric Holder wrote that the Federal Government would continue to enforce the law and that this would be a stumbling block to cali - washington relations.

I will note the reason the drinking age is 21 and not 18 in all states is because the federal government. They recommended 21 but couldn't enforce it as a matter of states rights. So they just cut off all DOT roadwork funding for all states that didn't agree with this recommendation. It would not surprise me if Prop 19 passes then some aspect of this give and take will be applied. I don't think the federal legislature is ready to legalize yet.

[Jason913]

Originally Posted by 95KA-Turbo

I think a few people in this thread have habit forming and addictive mixed up.

Here are two hypothetical situations:

I really like cake, if I get to eat a lot of it for a long period of time - say three slices a day for a week - when I run out of cake I can become irritable and have an 'empty' feeling inside and have cravings for cake that subside after not having cake for a while (the course of a few days to a week).

That is an example of cake being habit forming.



I need cake for my body to function properly. Without it my body cannot physically behave normally. As time passes without having regular doses of cake my body goes through withdrawal and reacts violently with seizures and erratic changes in blood pressure and heart rate. Some of my side effects could be life threatening and hospitalization may occur. Eventually, even that will pass and I will have relieved my body from its physical addiction to cake.


That would be an example of a typical addiction to cake.

I'm not mistaking it... lol I know the difference. It was taught the second class meeting of the semester. Some people think that being mentally addicted to something (due to addictive personality traits) means that the body is addicted.

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by mau5trap

just vote no on prop 19..
they'll be better ballots for legalizing marijuana in 2012.
why fuck with something that's not broken?

are you fucking serious?

[mau5trap]

that's on them. were they allowed to carry or have weed on them legally?

[ronmcdon]

that graph looks at Marijuana arrests in the US overall, not CA specifically.
In that regard mau5trap's point that you shouldn't 'fix something that's not broken', isn't entirely unvalid.
It's just a matter of whether you like prop 19 or not.

Even then, arrests alone don't mean much.
You also have to look at actual convictions,
and convictions in CA for it to be valid for this discussion imo.

it's not impossible to obtain a prescription in CA, but it's not exactly a 'free for all' either.
even if prop 19 does pass, that in no way guarantees the increase/decrease in mj related arrests/convictions in CA.

the graph is really too general to draw any specific correlations.

[bb4_96]

I feel like all the timeand effort going into the fight for/use of this substance could be doing something great.

[Walperstyle]

I like how random graphs are considered truthful sources of information.

Truth is, nobody really knows the stats on arrests. There is a difference between arrests, and being charged too.