cannabisnews.com: Home-Grown Reefer Madness
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('Home-Grown Reefer Madness');
 url=encodeURIComponent('http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/25/thread25930.shtml');
 site = new Array(5);
 site[0]='http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[1]='http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit.php?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[2]='http://digg.com/submit?topic=political_opinion&media=video&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[3]='http://reddit.com/submit?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 site[4]='http://del.icio.us/post?v=4&noui&jump=close&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
 window.open(site[num],'sharer','toolbar=0,status=0,width=620,height=500');
 return false;
}






Home-Grown Reefer Madness
Posted by CN Staff on September 09, 2010 at 12:51:02 PT
Editorial
Source: Newsweek
California -- The argument against Proposition 19, the California ballot initiative that would legalize marijuana, goes something like this: if the initiative were to pass, it would create a world where lackadaisical employees would show up to work with bloodshot eyes and slurred speech. In between responding to e-mails, operating machinery, or planning a classroom lecture, they could take a quick break—poking their heads out the closest door or window to light up, inhaling the sweet smoke of California skunk, without any consequences. Out on the streets, intoxicated drivers would weave in and out of Southern California palm trees, and the smell of cannabis would seep from local apartment complexes, where new dealers would be growing stock. Marijuana would slowly begin showing up in schoolyards where it wasn’t already; at parties, too. Ultimately, it would be a gateway drug to much, much worse.
It’s a haze-ridden portrait that opponents of the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act, which is inching toward a a statewide vote this fall, are doing everything in their power to make sure voters see. Their official argument, to be distributed to polling stations come November, warns that the measure will increase intoxicated driving, that schoolbus operators could arrive to bus stops already high, or that employers who let staffers sell candy bars at work would suddenly have to let them sell dope, too. To convolute things further, the California Chamber of Commerce issued a report last week suggesting that—should the measure pass—local businesses would be required to pay for marijuana-related accidents through workers’ comp, and that employers would have to permit employees to smoke pot in the office. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the co-chair of the opposition campaign, meanwhile, has called Prop 19 a “jumbled, legal nightmare.”The reality, of course, is more complicated than even Feinstein has alluded. And for anyone familiar with California politics—or the current debate over Proposition 8—“jumbled, legal nightmare” in California is a bit like business as usual. There’s no doubt that, if passed, Prop 19 would face interpretive challenges in court. (Indeed, California’s successful medical-marijuana measure, passed in 1996, is still facing such litigation.) But more important than the ultimate legal claims (or whether Prop 19 will ultimately face a “legal nightmare”), say advocates, is separating fact from fiction right now. In their eyes, the opposition’s portrayal of California as a dangerous, drug-hazed haven for lazy workers and intoxicated drivers sounds a lot more like a bad weed trip than anything the proposed law would actually do.At the heart of the marijuana debate, in fact, is not the morals of pot use, or even the technical issues related to consumption on the job (we’ll get to that later). Rather, it’s what you might expect in capitalist (albeit pot-loving) California: the matter of cold, hard cash. Prop 19 would allow anyone older than 21 to cultivate a small amount of marijuana for personal use, and permit adult consumption in private—as long as no minors are present. But it would also permit cities to regulate and tax sales.In a state that’s $19 billion in the red, where 400,000 residents already consume medical marijuana legally—and another 2 million do so illegally—you can imagine how $1.4 billion in annual tax revenue, as the State Board of Equalization has predicted, might sound appealing. Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron has estimated that cannabis prohibition costs the nation $7 billion in potential tax revenue; in Oakland, the one place in California where medical marijuana is already being taxed, city leaders say the funds will help save libraries, parks, and other public services. The bottom line? “People are no longer outraged by the idea of legalization,” former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown told the San Francisco Chronicle last year. “And truth be told, there is just too much money to be made [from it].”That cultural acceptance is already visible at home in California, where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proclaimed recently that it was “time for a debate” on marijuana taxation. It extends, however, all the way to the federal government, which has vowed—despite pot still being illegal on a federal level—to cease raiding medical dispensaries authorized under California law. In a state where the use of medical marijuana has been commonplace for upwards of a decade, recreational consumption is a virtual technicality—effectively legal since California became the first of 13 states to legalize medical cannabis, in 1996. But “medicinal” is something of an open joke in the state, since anyone over 18 with a doctor’s note—easy to get for ailments like anxiety or cramps, if you’re willing to pay—can get an ID card providing easy access to any of the state’s hundreds of legal marijuana dispensaries. (As one dispensary owner recently told NEWSWEEK: “You can basically get a doctor’s recommendation for anything.”) “This is a new world,” says Robert MacCoun, a professor of law and public policy at University of California, Berkeley, and coauthor of Drug War Heresies. “If you’d have asked me four years ago whether we’d be having this debate today, I can’t say I would have predicted it.”Support for the current proposition, which is funded by Oakland entrepreneur Richard Lee, is roughly split, with the latest poll, by SurveyUSA, showing 47 percent in favor and 43 percent opposed. The pro-pot crowd may be ahead by a pin, but it makes the opposition’s cries that the initiative is “too vaguely worded”—or, worse, that it indeed forces employers to allow workers to smoke on the job—all the more damaging. When it comes down to it, though, much of this is fear-mongering—backed up by speculation that would likely be settled in court. “We’re not saying this is going to happen,” says Jennifer Shaw, a legal consultant for the Chamber of Commerce and the author of the group’s recent report. “But it could.”Except: could it really? Two years ago, in the context of the medical-marijuana law, the state Supreme Court determined that pot use, legal or otherwise, could indeed be grounds for firing. Prop 19 specifically states that the initiative would not override “any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace”—a claim that’s since been backed up by the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office, which provides nonpartisan policy analysis for the legislature. All of this could certainly be challenged in court, but the parallels are simply too similar to ignore. That 2008 Supreme Court ruling even noted specifically that claims that the state’s medical marijuana law would make workplace consumption legal were “disingenuous.” “You can be absolutely certain of at least two things if Prop 19 passes,” says Eric Sterling, the former counsel to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee who now serves as an unpaid legal adviser to the “Yes on 19” campaign. “No employer will be required to allow workers to smoke marijuana on the job, and the California Chamber of Commerce would fight all the way to the Supreme Court anyone who made such a claim.”Still, it’s easy to see how voters might be confused. Which is why proponents say they want to make one thing clear: that nothing about Prop 19 would change the current legislation that bans marijuana on school campuses, and the initiative maintains strict penalties for driving under the influence. (Remember also: those who do smoke it must be over 21.) As for crops sprouting up all over sunny California apartment complexes, á la HBO’s Weeds? Well, think of it this way: pets may not be illegal, but they can certainly be banned from an apartment complex. Landlords have the legal wherewithal to treat marijuana exactly the same way. “A landlord can pretty much do what they want, as long as it’s within reason,” says Tom Bannon, head of the California Apartment Association. “That’s just the way it works.”The laundry list of other possible complications arising from the law certainly doesn’t end there, but proponents say they’ve heard many of the arguments before. “If you went back and looked at opposition arguments running up to the 1996 passage [of Prop 215, which legalized medical cannabis], many of them were the same—the kids, the driving, the lighting up on the job,” says Paul Armentano, the deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and the coauthor of Marijuana Is Safer. “But none of those things happened. Almost to a fault, incidents of intoxicated driving went down; even youth consumption declined. Those claims weren’t true then, and they’re not going to be true this time around.”As California debates the issue, residents say you can be sure about one thing: Where there’s smoke, there will certainly be litigation.Note: The California proposition to legalize recreational pot use may end up a ‘jumbled, legal nightmare,’ as opponents claim. But the main issue may be money.Source: Newsweek (US)Published: September 9, 2010Copyright: 2010 Newsweek, Inc.Contact: letters newsweek.comWebsite: http://www.newsweek.comURL: http://drugsense.org/url/lHElx3fCCannabisNews  -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 
     
     
     
     




Comment #52 posted by Lucas on September 11, 2010 at 06:46:34 PT
diane feinstein heads the opposition
so, explain to me how that works
An elected democrat has the right to lobby against her constituents?and this is a government by the people?right, the people elected Feinstein to oppose the people from having the freedom to decide on an initiative...kind of like the Police Chiefs Association has the right to oppose an initiative..since when do we elect people to tell us how to vote on other matters? Does not seem right, happens all the time..and when the people Do vote on an initiative, do county supervisors have the right to refuse to cooperate with the State Law, because they are worried about the children, and federal law.. Does not seem right, happens all the timeand when the legislature passes a law allowing collective cultivation, city district attorneys have the right to claim such activity is illegal, and wont be allowed.. does not seem right, happens all the time..but when the state has a chance to cash in by taxing marijuana, Then its OKhypocrites
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #51 posted by Hope on September 10, 2010 at 23:05:54 PT
This article...
Finally... made myself finish it.Nice to hear the voice of reason and sanity in it, courtesy of Paul Armentano. "“If you went back and looked at opposition arguments running up to the 1996 passage [of Prop 215, which legalized medical cannabis], many of them were the same—the kids, the driving, the lighting up on the job,” says Paul Armentano, the deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and the coauthor of Marijuana Is Safer. “But none of those things happened. Almost to a fault, incidents of intoxicated driving went down; even youth consumption declined. Those claims weren’t true then, and they’re not going to be true this time around.”"Thank you, Mr. Armentano.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #50 posted by Hope on September 10, 2010 at 22:38:53 PT
Five years in prison...
dragged from his home and relinquished by his own country, for selling birdseed. The best birdseed in the world... but, birdseed.At least they haven't burned him alive.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #49 posted by Hope on September 10, 2010 at 22:31:32 PT
Canada's 'Prince of Pot' sentenced to 5 years
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39109058/ns/us_newsThat's so wrong. It's wrong for them to have done that to that Marc over what he's supposed to be "guilty" of.Yes, I missed the piece you you mentioned about that reefer madness episode in Texas.Prohibitionists are bad. They do bad things to people for so little and sometimes for nothing.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #48 posted by Hope on September 10, 2010 at 21:21:43 PT
Everything, it seems, is set on self destruct
at some point.We have to do the best we can, be good to each other, love each other, take care of each other, forgive each other when we fail, and be thankful for and enjoy the good times.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #47 posted by Hope on September 10, 2010 at 21:14:02 PT
I don't know...
That's the usual thing we tend to think. But I think the earth, the entire universe, has likely been polluted with all kinds of stuff in all sorts of places and ways probably since it came into being. Volcanic ash, tar, acid rain, oil literally bubbling to the surface. Raging, decades long dust storms. I think we didn't invent pollution like we tend to think we did. Creatures eating and stomping other creatures. Tar pits... and God knows what. Fires, lightening, storms.:0(Thankfully, there are good times and bright, clear, clean days, and times of good water,air, food and love to rejoice in.We've got to have eyes for light and good and it makes it better than through the eyes of darkness and accusation.Gotta climb up out of this valley of death whenever we can and celebrate!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #46 posted by FoM on September 10, 2010 at 18:01:12 PT
Hope
I believe because of how polluted our world is becoming cancer is on the rise. I think it's only second to heart disease.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #45 posted by Hope on September 10, 2010 at 17:51:43 PT
Yes... I was talking about the show...
I can understand that.My husband can't watch it, either.It's hard.They said two in three men will have cancer. One in three women will have cancer.That's a lot.They showed so many celebrities that have died of cancer. It's stunning.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #44 posted by FoM on September 10, 2010 at 17:42:20 PT
Hope
Do you mean the cancer special? For me right now I can't watch it. I need to get into other things for a day or two. It shouldn't be overlooked I agree.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #43 posted by Hope on September 10, 2010 at 17:25:15 PT
This is hard...
But we shouldn't ignore it.That's a problem... when we try to ignore these hard things.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #42 posted by FoM on September 10, 2010 at 17:20:47 PT
Hope
Thank you. I think Moose is beautiful too. I feel very lucky to have found him last August. He has a classy broad head and great looking eyes. Nikki is still a string bean. She reminds me of a long legged dachshund right now. LOL! I think she will be a refined and more elegant rottie but she is female and that is what you want to see. You don't want female rotts to look like a male I mean.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #41 posted by Hope on September 10, 2010 at 17:14:25 PT
There's a show on all four main networks
right now.It's called Stand up to Cancer.It's about funding research for a cure.A hundred percent of donations go to research.They're talking a lot about research. I wonder....
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #40 posted by FoM on September 10, 2010 at 17:12:39 PT
Paint with Light
Thank you so much. I will check out all your info. Much of what you said went over the top of my head but some I can try and see if it helps me. I have gotten a few good action shots but when I see professional photography from like an Agility competition with rottweilers those shots are dazzling. Nothing seems out of focus and all the features look so crisp. I have had professional shots done while going over a fence on a horse and they were really good too. That was many years ago. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #39 posted by Hope on September 10, 2010 at 17:11:59 PT
Bacon on the camera....
I'm so laughing about all the things that it's easy to imagine could happen with that.Moose is beautiful. He looks like such a good dog. The pup, too. But Moose is a such a doll. He seems an extraordinarily fine animal. He's maturing beautifully.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #38 posted by Paint with light on September 10, 2010 at 17:04:55 PT
OT action photography hints
One of the places the higher end DSLRs stand out is in action photography.Almost all the hdr in my new web site was done with a point and shoot. www.myfirstandlastname.zenfolio.com is the new site. If you can't remember my full name, e-mail me and I will send you a link.A fast zoom lens, f/2.8 constant through the zoom range; a camera capable of good quality at high ISOs like 3200 are two of the things that make action photography easier. Of course this is the expensive route.Two techniques that will help is panning, and watching for moments of peak action, where the movement is shifting direction or comes to a brief stop before continuing(the top of a jump for instance).Henri Cartier-Bresson was known for the capturing the decisive moment. He was film only but action is action.These work for any camera, even a point and shoot.Keep your elbows close to your body and release the shutter in a smooth motion without jerking either at the beginning or after you release the shutter will help some.You might try raising your ISO over 1000 and try shutter priority with your shutter set at 1/500 or faster. You can do this if you have enough light and also depending on the speed of your lens.At higher ISOs you have more noise and less color saturation, but getting the shot is often more important.Don't ever use digital zoom."Have you ever done action shots of animals?"I photographed over 200 rock concerts, I think that fits the category of animals in action, and yes I've done the four-legged animals also.Trying to anticipate what will happen next, taking lots of pictures, and love of your subject are also key.Plus it never hurts to be lucky.I didn't address focus but that would depend on the camera and lens.It looks like you are doing pretty good already.Here are some web sites you might want to check out.http://www.best-family-photography-tips.com/pet-portraits.html I think you will like this one best.www.digital-photography-school.com is good for general info and inspiration.www.sportsshooter.com is more of a pro sports site but full of info and techniques on action.www.kenrockwell.com is good for plain language explanations of how to use your specific camera and some great general advise. I don't agree with everything he teaches but there is still a lot of good info at his site.Good luck.No place is boring if you have a full night's sleep and an empty memory card (used to be a pocket full of film).
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #37 posted by FoM on September 10, 2010 at 17:04:53 PT
Hope: Keith Olbermann MSNBC
He is going to talk about the story you just posted. Check it out if you read this in time. It's channel 356.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #36 posted by FoM on September 10, 2010 at 16:04:48 PT
Hope
We didn't get that sad story up here. I just don't understand things like that happening. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #35 posted by Hope on September 10, 2010 at 15:54:48 PT
Pictures!
They're beautiful!It looks like your teaching them to gather firewood!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #34 posted by Hope on September 10, 2010 at 15:44:10 PT
The mother of the boy, the widow,
was on TV last night. The interview was yesterday. He was accused yesterday. The visitation was last night.The mother fell to her knees when she got the news of the accusation and what it meant.They said the insane, irrational school official gotcha freak school person accused him of smelling like marijuana as well as having red eyes. Oh yeah... and he was late and had to go in the office to get a pass into class. He had gotcha written all over him. Poor kid. Looking for solace in all the wrong places, I guess.I know. Lots of name calling. But well... it's what they are and they aren't releasing their name and the spokeswoman for the school was having a hard time not looking snide...and I don't know their real name. As my dear brother in law would say, "It's a free country. Everybody is entitled to my opinion."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #33 posted by FoM on September 10, 2010 at 15:41:13 PT
Paint with Light
Since you are an expert in this field I really appreciate your compliment. How can I get better action shots without blur. It drives me a little crazy. I don't have the best cameras so that probably is the problem. Have you ever done action shots of animals? If I used bacon on the camera to get their attention they would probably knock me down to get it! LOL! My dogs love food!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #32 posted by Paint with light on September 10, 2010 at 15:29:40 PT
picture comments
Great shots FoM.#2 looks like it ought to be in a rottweiler pin up calender.#4 is a great moment.#7 and #8 reveal a lot of personality.#10, that is a big piece of wood.#17 I have heard that a technique some photographers use is to put a piece of bacon on top of the lens to keep the dogs attention.I would be afraid if I tried that with a dog that size, me, my camera, and the bacon would end up in the next day's fertilizer.Beautiful dogs.Thanks for sharing.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #31 posted by Hope on September 10, 2010 at 15:21:28 PT
Freaking Busybody Gotcha Wanna Be Cop Freaks
Red-eyed teen accused of drug use after father's murderhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39101961/ns/local_news-ft_myers_fl/School Tells Mom Bloodshot Eyes = Drug Usehttp://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local-beat/School-Tells-Mom-Bloodshot-Eyes-Equals-Drug-Use-102594164.htmlThose school officials had no sense at all. No sense of real right or wrong or human empathy. They just want to serve the State. To be the State. They are the State. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #30 posted by FoM on September 10, 2010 at 15:10:26 PT
Hope and Paint with Light
Hope, I ain't too good with book learning! LOL! Paint with Light, thank you. I took a picture of my adult rottie today. The dogs always need to be fed, loved and exercised. They have been dolls having to stay in their crates as much as they did over this last week. I got them out to exercise more today since the weather is so pleasant.http://ourrott.webs.com/apps/photos/photo?photoid=98297709
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by Hope on September 10, 2010 at 15:10:16 PT
This article
is hard to read... because it's so damned insulting from the very first.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by Hope on September 10, 2010 at 14:56:31 PT
This article...
Haven't managed to read it yet... but it's heavily laced with the word "Legalize", too.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by Hope on September 10, 2010 at 14:54:30 PT
You're kind, too, Paint with light.
While the "belt of truth" and the "sword of the Spirit" is what's in this scripture... my thoughts on the sword of truth are naturally born of these words in Paul's letter to the Ephesians. Truth is what we have used to fight against the prohibitionists. We keep it sharp and well honed on the whetstone that is C-News.The Armor of GodEphesians 6:10....Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by Hope on September 10, 2010 at 14:26:32 PT
FoM Comment 23
Chuckling...You're kind.Thank you, FoM. I'm glad to be included in your book.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by Paint with light on September 10, 2010 at 14:08:20 PT
Hope
If the nod came from someone outside our usual suspects, then it feels even better.I do believe that the language we have developed here has had a positive effect.You get a vote for genius in my book any day.After I posted last night I realized words is most of the letters in s..words..man.Genius.Legal like alcohol and reclassified like aspirin.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by Paint with light on September 10, 2010 at 13:55:41 PT
comment 17
Thanks FoM, you have really made it feel like home.You are a great host.Now take Storm Crow's advise and get some rest.Granny knows best.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by FoM on September 10, 2010 at 13:35:48 PT
Hope
You are a genius in my book.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by Hope on September 10, 2010 at 13:01:06 PT
Geniuses 
I didn't say I was one. I just hang out with you guys.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by Hope on September 10, 2010 at 12:54:50 PT
Lol! Oh my.
Gaaallie!I need to have FoM remove that one!I'm a bit foggy... even if I do hang out with geniuses... I'm too tired to see if that's a word even.sigh...Some days I should just stay away from the keyboard.Gaaaaa... sorry.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by runruff on September 10, 2010 at 10:07:33 PT
Uh...gee....
....uh golly..,genieuses huh? I'm gonna have to look that one up?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by Hope on September 10, 2010 at 08:01:54 PT
Actually
hanging out with geniuses does make me smarter!Thanks, people!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by Hope on September 10, 2010 at 08:00:55 PT
"Their ages"
Lol!That's funny.Observer isn't Chris Roberts, although Chris Roberts sees the word play stuff, like Observer does. Observer did write a book, years ago now... which I said I was going to buy and haven't after all these years. I'm a procrastinator.His book was about recognizing propaganda word tricks and "leading" used by the fans of prohibition in the drug war to keep it going and stirred up... even subconsciously. And this article brings some of that to light.Observer is a genius. I love hanging out with geniuses. Makes me feel smarter.:0)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by FoM on September 10, 2010 at 05:44:27 PT
Paint with light
I'm glad you are here. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by Paint with light on September 10, 2010 at 01:02:03 PT
swordsman
Good word play hope.He's the sinsemilla samurai.I have been trying to use the term re-legalize for some of the reasons he gives in his article.I had not considered just how much the term legalize might scare some fence sitters or prohibitionists.I think the way cannabis was legal back during colonial times is my idea of how it should eventually be again.If the founding fathers were alive today, do you know what they would be most famous for?Drum roll.................Their ages.Re-legal like alcohol.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Paint with light on September 10, 2010 at 00:43:07 PT
Hope
I had read the article and thought it was very "observant".I did not make the connection.Observer has always written clearly, concisely and to the point.He was one of the ones I was thinking about when I wrote about the die hards being able to write a page to each sentence.Of course you were included in that thought also."He has my admiration.Did you read where the author, Chris Roberts, said, "Does Proposition 19 make cannabis legal -- like alcohol, like cigarettes, like tomatoes, candy, or baseball cards?""I did think it was a pretty interesting coincidence."Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but I'm taking that as a possible hat tip to C-News, and of course, you, Paint with light... and I like it."It seems like it was FoM who first used tomatoes.Any credit I might receive I would owe to you, FoM, and the rest of the C-News crew.Without the two of you making me feel at home, I wouldn't be here now.Without the knowledge I have gained from everyone here, I would have a lot more difficulty trying to say what I say.Without the internet it would be easy to feel "marooned" on an island in a vast sea.If anything I have ever said has helped anybody see things from a different perspective, inspired them to search farther, or get inspired to fight on, I would consider it a "high" honor.Legal like alcohol, cigarettes, tomatoes, and baseball cards......agreed.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by Hope on September 09, 2010 at 22:38:02 PT
Observer...
A most excellent swordsman with the Sword of Truth.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Hope on September 09, 2010 at 22:33:50 PT
Maybe I'm overly imaginative...
Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but I'm taking that as a possible hat tip to C-News, and of course, you, Paint with light... and I like it.And by the way, I don't know for sure, but as I recall, it was Observer that first began encouraging us to start calling the war on drugs, the new "Prohibition", and urged us all to use the term "Prohibitionist" when referring to the purveyors of and the supporters of the drug war, whenever we could, and he did that many years ago right here on these pages. That was a very, very good idea, too.Straight, strong, true, and with a very sharp point.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Hope on September 09, 2010 at 22:20:54 PT
Paint with light
Did you read the blog post in San Francisco Weekly that Observer posted?Thank you by the way, Observer.It's a very interesting piece and is well written. It points out what the media is doing and the prohibitionists and it's even written in the voter's guide that this is a "legalizing" proposition when it's not got the word "Legalize" anywhere in the actual proposition. The word legalize was purposely avoided... very carefully, in crafting the proposition. As we all know many people feel very strongly about avoiding the word "Legalize" if they can.... the "L" word... so as not to scare or spook the people, the craziest prohibitionists, the punishers, the killers, the cagers, out there, that we are trying to ease into seeing this all from a saner, less dangerous for everyone, point of view. We all know, of course, that we have to tread lightly and be careful with dangerous scary, people given to fits and points of view that qualify as insanity, or lunacy... or really, really unsound thinking.Did you read where the author, Chris Roberts, said, "Does Proposition 19 make cannabis legal -- like alcohol, like cigarettes, like tomatoes, candy, or baseball cards?":0)I liked that. Seems like I've heard that somewhere before.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Paint with light on September 09, 2010 at 21:26:07 PT
Better the second time
When I watched this a few months ago I did not appreciate the way ASP stayed on point.Before, I saw lots of places where ASP could have contradicted the other guy's statements.I realized this time, there simply isn't enough time, to do that.It is probably better to focus on a few points and hope the average viewer comes away with a better understanding as a result.Some of us hard core re-legalizers would love to write a page on every sentence.I would like to see a fact check box with sources in the corner.....similar to what they do at election time.The dialog and comments from our side in every forum and media outlet I read is getting more focused and reasoned.Has the insane drug war against cannabis finally jumped the shark?It is about time.Legal like alcohol is a start.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by John Tyler on September 09, 2010 at 20:53:45 PT
California money and jobs 
Things are going to get interesting in California. The prohibitionists will be at the height of their fear-mongering. I hope the public will see them for the lunatics that they are. And Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, what is her problem? Doesn’t she like being a Senator anymore? In the end though, it is going to be about money and jobs. California needs both very badly. The multibillion dollar cannabis industry needs to be made legal to provide money and jobs. Prohibitions is just too expensive and it can no longer be justified or sustained, frantic prohibitionist wailings notwithstanding. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by DrDunkleosteus on September 09, 2010 at 20:30:07 PT:
ABC Debate
I remember watching this debate when it first aired. Although I felt that Allen went a little over the top in dumping all over his opponent, I thought he was brilliant in the debate and his zeal was insipring. Given the short time frame of the debate, Allen did a great job of debunking all of his opponents' outlandish claims and false points. I love how the host of the show backs Allen and even criticizes his opponent right along with Allen at times.Brian. Brian! Brian, Brian! Hahaha. Ah, great debate. More like this please.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by MikeEEEEE on September 09, 2010 at 18:28:30 PT
ALL ABOUT MMMONEY$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$
Once other states realize they can pay down lots of debt by taxing it, watch the prohibitionist dominios fall.One concern: corporations might not like the idea. Since the latest ruling, big businesses can spend anything on campaigns. In the land of the sheepie, the great US propaganda machine could be on full alert.But it is all about the money, they tax the sh.. out of everything else.
Think about, a new economy, a cannabis economy. Of course, we already know one exists.Hello FoM, and everyone else.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by FoM on September 09, 2010 at 18:13:41 PT
MikeEEEEE
When I see how some people are acting about politics these days I know we have our work cut out for us. I don't live in a mindset like some of the off the wall people that are on the opposite side of being a liberal. They make my head spin in confusion. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Hope on September 09, 2010 at 17:49:27 PT
Comment 1
I'm in to part four. It's a debate. A real debate, I think.It's a kind of show I'm not familiar with. Maybe a new kind of show. It's called a "Twitter Cast". It's Nightline on Twitter. There's commercials... but it's worth watching.Unless you're on Hughes net of course.It's pretty amazing. The prohibitionist may really be on our side. Sometimes it's difficult to tell.Allan St. Pierre is talking our side. I like him. I'd not seen that much of him before.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by MikeEEEEE on September 09, 2010 at 17:43:23 PT
Questionable
I would like to see what the proganda machine does closer to the initiative.
Some of us thought common sense would rule in the late 70s to early 80s, but we all know what happened.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Hope on September 09, 2010 at 17:39:59 PT
Konagold.... Thank you!
That is very good. Very interesting. I'm really enjoying watching that.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by observer on September 09, 2010 at 16:43:12 PT
The L-word, Discussed
The L-word, Discussedhttp://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2010/09/marijuana_legalization.php
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on September 09, 2010 at 13:36:41 PT
konagold
I have not been keeping up very well on the news this last week. Is there something happening tonight on the news that I should watch or at least record?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by konagold on September 09, 2010 at 13:20:19 PT
FoM
ABC is highlighting this previously aired four part Allen St. Pierre on Nightline debate todayhttp://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/nightline-twittercast-legalize-10669238&tab=9482930§ion=1206872&playlist=7578045
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment