Should Marijuana be Legalized in California - Proposition 19
Should Marijuana be Legalized in California - Proposition 19
location: california|
topic: marijuana legalization|
posted september 15th, 2010|
|
nominate an expert
Here is a list of what I see as our top four marijuana policy goals, in order of importance. They are:
1. Reduce the exposure of marijuana to and usage of marijuana by children.
2. Reduce the violence and corruption that accompanies the growing and distribution of marijuana.
3. Reduce the harm to people who use marijuana.
4. Reduce the number of people we must put into our jails and prisons.
If you think about it, you will see that passing Proposition 19, which would treat marijuana like alcohol for adults, will actually accomplish each of these goals, and pursuing our present policy of Marijuana Prohibition will never accomplish any of them.
If we were to allow each city in California the choice to devise a program for the growing and distribution of marijuana to adults, marijuana would soon become less available for children. Why? Ask our young people yourselves, and they will tell you that it is easier for them to get marijuana, if they want to, than it is alcohol, because today’s illegal marijuana dealers don’t ask for i.d.!
It would also seriously reduce crime in the growing and distribution of marijuana, just as the repeal of Alcohol Prohibition put the Al Capones and Frank Nittis of this world out of business. In a similar fashion, the corruption caused by the huge amounts of available cash in today’s illegal distribution of marijuana would virtually disappear. Why? The legal government programs would undercut the illegal market, at the same time that all other people (including juvenile gangs who now use these sales as recruiting tools) would continue to face prosecution if they continued to grow or sell it themselves outside the law.
Most of the health risks of the usage of marijuana today are caused by its unknown strength and unknown purity. For example, illicit marijuana is often laced with pesticides or even methamphetamines, and no one ever monitors its strength. But the FDA resolved virtually all of these problems with other drugs years ago, just as the repeal of Alcohol Prohibition virtually eliminated the “bathtub gin” impurity problems.
Although it is clear that marijuana can have some harmful effects upon users, today the most harmful things about marijuana are criminal convictions and jail. In 2008 there were 60,000 citations and arrests for marijuana possession and sale, which took huge police resources and needlessly ruined many lives. Furthermore, today there are thousands of people in state prison for having smoked marijuana while on parole, which costs taxpayers about $30,000 per inmate per year, and also often puts the inmates’ families back on welfare.
So to achieve these policy goals and more – without even mentioning the large amounts of revenue the cities that opt in to this program will generate by taxing the sales – vote Yes on Proposition 19. And Prop. 19 expressly will not change present laws about driving under the influence or regulations controlling the workplace, and it even strengthens laws to prosecute people who furnish marijuana to children. Read it yourself and you’ll see.
Proposition 19 is not only misleading and confusing, it provides no ability to “regulate, control or tax” marijuana as its very name implies. Instead it delegates unfettered regulatory and enforcement responsibilities to almost 478 local city governments. This local government “figure it out” approach creates confusion and misunderstanding, and actually limits state control over marijuana activities.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
rebuttals
posted october 20th, 2010
posted october 20th, 2010
One of the strengths of Proposition 19 is that each city will be able to learn from the experiences of other cities, and implement the program that best suits its needs. Furthermore, the “one size fits all” approach of the federal government has brought us the worst of all worlds: the money from marijuana sales continues to go to juvenile street gangs, Mexican drug cartels, and other thugs, and it is easier for children to get marijuana than alcohol. Wouldn’t you rather that this money went to the cities and counties, and that people peacefully working in growing and supplying marijuana would pay income taxes to the state? And wouldn’t you rather make marijuana less available for children by having the sellers ask for i.d.?
But the chief is right that today’s marijuana is stronger than that of just a decade ago. But it is stronger expressly because of Prohibition. Why is that? Because while the illegal dealers face the same criminal justice risks in selling stronger marijuana as weaker, they make more money by selling the stronger stuff. Thus the Cardinal Rule of Prohibition is “Always push the stronger stuff.” Illegal dealers follow that law, thus selling our children and others the stronger marijuana – not a good result!
The chief is also right in saying that what society makes illegal is a statement of what it believes to be inappropriate behavior. But just like we don’t condone the smoking of cigarettes or the drinking of alcohol just because they are legal of those over 18 and 21, respectively, so our children will understand we don’t condone smoking marijuana either.
So let’s begin at long last to manage these problems and reduce the harms caused by the presence of marijuana in our communities by voting “yes” on Prop. 19.
Alaska decriminalized small amounts of marijuana for adults in 1978. That law remained in effect until its repeal in 1990. A major reason for the repeal was that marijuana use among children was DOUBLE WHAT IT WAS FOR CHILDREN IN ANY STATE IN THE NATION.
When the Netherlands legalized so-called marijuana cafes in the 1980’s there were only three organized crime operations in that country. Today there are over 90 organized crime operations as organized crime from throughout Europe descended on the Netherlands to get a piece of the marijuana café action. We can expect the same results in California. Organized crime will not get out of the marijuana business; instead, the organized criminal cartels will thrive as a large segment of marijuana users are under the age of 21 and therefore will still not be able to legally purchase marijuana.
Over 80% of the youth being treated for substance abuse are addicted to marijuana. This is not the dope that Baby Boomers smoked in the 70’s and 80’s. The THC content is 5 times that of the past and has been clinically proven to be addictive. Smoking marijuana has more carcinogens and negative health impacts than smoking tobacco. Studies have also shown that smoking marijuana does impair the development of the teenage brain.
During the period 1978-1990 in Alaska there was a dramatic increase in auto burglaries, robberies and residential burglaries as users committed crimes to get money to buy marijuana. An abstract on fatal crashes in California from 1998-2008 involving marijuana found the following; a total of 1240 persons were killed from 2004-2008, twice the number from 1998-2004. The number doubled right after medical marijuana was approved in California. Increases in drugged drivers and fatal crashes are inevitable if Prop 19 passes.
VOTE NO
comments There are currently 5 comments posted
Wow, 2010, and we still have the Reefer Madness propaganda. Please, anti-legalization camp, can we have some fresh material? Very little on this planet is worse for you than cigarettes; if research tells you otherwise, do your own research on who funded the study. As for tender teenage organs, plastics in the microwave impair brain development, but the most heavily-marketed food products for teenagers involve both. Do we have a well-funded political agenda campaign for that? Can we throw some indignation and third-party fear-mongering at the rampant meth problem?
The "everybody's-gonna-be-high-at-work" fear tactic is hollow as well. The provision disallowing employer marijuana testing has nothing to do with people being high on the job. THC showing up in a urine test doesn't mean the person is high at that moment; it could have been 20 days prior. The same employer safeguards for handling impaired or improper job function hold for marijuana, alcohol and prescription drugs - which is, by the way, the top drug-abuse-related death category for people over 55, many of whom would not be addicted and dying if ingesting marijuana were as easy for them as getting pills.
Decriminalization makes good business and moral sense. The tax money spent on, and the financial and social fallout from, putting people in jail/prison for weed charges or parole violations is unconscionable. We've been splitting up families and therefore destroying communities since Nixon's racist plan to strangle inner-cities with "benign neglect" and a War on Drugs. Marijuana being a Schedule 1 drug is a blatant example. We can go even farther back to Hearst and Dupont securing their fortunes by calling in government favors to make growing hemp illegal (the #1 US cash crop in the 1800s - it was cheap, renewable, restorative to the soil, and you could make paper and fuel and 10,000 other things from it with minimal waste) because they wanted to sell products that were less efficient and caused more pollution. This debate has never been about danger; it has always been about money.
For the pro-legislation side as well: The only reason this measure is viable now is because the cities are broke and the state government is in shambles. And the few property owners who still have their homes can't handle anymore parcel tax. The argument for legalization is not some new face of government or long-awaited common sense & morality.
And what's the problem with making "legal" money off some behavior-altering substance...as if there are not precedents and mountains of evidence for the benefit of lifting prohibitions. The people up in arms against the legalization of marijuana were fully behind the lottery idea. Now we have parents buying scratch-off tickets to try to win some back-to-school money. (Purportedly) Funding schools with gambling money isn't a problem, but we are to believe that some moral fortitude is behind the blockade of marijuana-sales regulation?
Both sides need to sit down to a meeting and smoke a joint. Maybe then everyone would be inclined to be honest. In the meantime, people are dying, half our young men are rotting in prison, kids are dropping out of school, grandmas are hooked on OxyContin, and nobody can pay their mortgage because nobody has a job. Is there anyone in a decision-making position that can see the bigger picture? What most of us are addicted to is Escape.
One of the tough issues related to this proposition (and numerous other pieces of legislation) is the discrepancy between intention and proposed implementation. As much as I support legalization of marijuana, I'm not sure I support it's planned implementation. As pointed out by Mr. Polisar, if you want to enjoy the benefits of a unified system, say for instance increased tax revenue to the state, you'd think that (as with the ABC), all regulation would flow through a central control.
So, Henry, "inconvenient" might unfortunately turn into a botched implementation, and subsequent repeal, which ultimately defeats the intended purpose.
I guess my point is that the proposed implementation is as important as it's intended purpose.
Some of the arguments for passage of Propostion 19 are certainly persuasive. But proponents often fail to address one of the glaring issues with legalized marijuana - social acceptance and the increased marijuana usage that it necessarily implies.
While marijuana may be no more dangerous (or less so) from a public health perspective than legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco, legalization will most definitely create an aura of social acceptance, leading to wider usage. And for me, the idea that more marijuana is better for society than less is naive at best. I would make the same case against alcohol and tobacco, although the horse is definitely out of the barn on these two substances.
The issue for me comes down to one simple question. Are we ready to encourage the use of marijuana in California? Legalization would act as just such a mechanism.
Sure, having 478 municipalities figure out how to deal with marijuana is confusing, but is "inconvenient" a reasonable justification for "no"?
I agree with James Gray on his stance on Proposition 19. I beg to differ with the statements made by Joseph Polisar.
We need to realize that passing Proposition 19 will create a safer environment for everyone. With crime increasing within the United States-- especially with the economy affecting many facets of society, including regulations, education, and healthcare—officials must protect the community we live in by making stricter laws on abusive substances. These abusive substances include marijuana, which Polisar stated has been found to be “addicting and to have negative health impacts.” Furthermore, Polisar claims Proposition 19 would prohibit marijuana from being smoked in areas of 25 square feet per private residence or parcel, we need to be honest with ourselves. Passing Proposition 19 increase crimes, because after all, people will do whatever they please and break the law if they choose to do so.
Additionally, I agree with Gray when he states young people will have more access to marijuana, because it does not require i.d. Certainly, there are many young people who may not engage with this substance, however, it is the responsibility of the public and the government to set rules and boundaries when possible risking situations may entice our youth to commit crimes in our society.
Yet, Joseph Polisar believes that marijuana is actually deregulatory in nature. However, this is not true. The proposition does set a standard as to how society should deal with the use of marijuana. Polisar cannot simply say that the proposition cannot be enforced. If this were the case, then we should feel this way about ever since people continue to break them all the time.
Still, it is interesting that Polisar notes the health risks of marijuana. Yet, what he fails to realize is that his opinions actually agree with many reasons of why our society should not pass Proposition 19. Although the public is aware that Proposition 19 might cost us more tax dollars, we should not give up on helping those addicted to marijuana, or on protecting our society.
We need to come together and put our foot down and stop making excuses for not making our communities safer. People, like Polisar, only add to the negative perception of the culture of the United Sates. People, like Polisar make it seems as if the United States allows crime and bad situations to continue. Therefore, we have to put our foot down. For one, we need to take a stand on this issue, because it will inevitably cause a ripple effect on other issues that the United States has given up on solving.
We also need to realize that Prop 19 gives us the ability to stop crime from increasing. Prop 19 gives us the opportunity to stop people from making excuses from their actions that are not only hurting them, but also the community. Finally, Prop 19 sets precedence for future generations to come in how to deal with situations that are negatively impacting communities now and possibly, in the community in the future.
Wow, 2010, and we still have the Reefer Madness propaganda. Please, anti-legalization camp, can we have some fresh material? Very little on this planet is worse for you than cigarettes; if research tells you otherwise, do your own research on who funded the study. As for tender teenage organs, plastics in the microwave impair brain development, but the most heavily-marketed food products for teenagers involve both. Do we have a well-funded political agenda campaign for that? Can we throw some indignation and third-party fear-mongering at the rampant meth problem?
The "everybody's-gonna-be-high-at-work" fear tactic is hollow as well. The provision disallowing employer marijuana testing has nothing to do with people being high on the job. THC showing up in a urine test doesn't mean the person is high at that moment; it could have been 20 days prior. The same employer safeguards for handling impaired or improper job function hold for marijuana, alcohol and prescription drugs - which is, by the way, the top drug-abuse-related death category for people over 55, many of whom would not be addicted and dying if ingesting marijuana were as easy for them as getting pills.
Decriminalization makes good business and moral sense. The tax money spent on, and the financial and social fallout from, putting people in jail/prison for weed charges or parole violations is unconscionable. We've been splitting up families and therefore destroying communities since Nixon's racist plan to strangle inner-cities with "benign neglect" and a War on Drugs. Marijuana being a Schedule 1 drug is a blatant example. We can go even farther back to Hearst and Dupont securing their fortunes by calling in government favors to make growing hemp illegal (the #1 US cash crop in the 1800s - it was cheap, renewable, restorative to the soil, and you could make paper and fuel and 10,000 other things from it with minimal waste) because they wanted to sell products that were less efficient and caused more pollution. This debate has never been about danger; it has always been about money.
For the pro-legislation side as well: The only reason this measure is viable now is because the cities are broke and the state government is in shambles. And the few property owners who still have their homes can't handle anymore parcel tax. The argument for legalization is not some new face of government or long-awaited common sense & morality.
And what's the problem with making "legal" money off some behavior-altering substance...as if there are not precedents and mountains of evidence for the benefit of lifting prohibitions. The people up in arms against the legalization of marijuana were fully behind the lottery idea. Now we have parents buying scratch-off tickets to try to win some back-to-school money. (Purportedly) Funding schools with gambling money isn't a problem, but we are to believe that some moral fortitude is behind the blockade of marijuana-sales regulation?
Both sides need to sit down to a meeting and smoke a joint. Maybe then everyone would be inclined to be honest. In the meantime, people are dying, half our young men are rotting in prison, kids are dropping out of school, grandmas are hooked on OxyContin, and nobody can pay their mortgage because nobody has a job. Is there anyone in a decision-making position that can see the bigger picture? What most of us are addicted to is Escape.
One of the tough issues related to this proposition (and numerous other pieces of legislation) is the discrepancy between intention and proposed implementation. As much as I support legalization of marijuana, I'm not sure I support it's planned implementation. As pointed out by Mr. Polisar, if you want to enjoy the benefits of a unified system, say for instance increased tax revenue to the state, you'd think that (as with the ABC), all regulation would flow through a central control.
So, Henry, "inconvenient" might unfortunately turn into a botched implementation, and subsequent repeal, which ultimately defeats the intended purpose.
I guess my point is that the proposed implementation is as important as it's intended purpose.
Some of the arguments for passage of Propostion 19 are certainly persuasive. But proponents often fail to address one of the glaring issues with legalized marijuana - social acceptance and the increased marijuana usage that it necessarily implies.
While marijuana may be no more dangerous (or less so) from a public health perspective than legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco, legalization will most definitely create an aura of social acceptance, leading to wider usage. And for me, the idea that more marijuana is better for society than less is naive at best. I would make the same case against alcohol and tobacco, although the horse is definitely out of the barn on these two substances.
The issue for me comes down to one simple question. Are we ready to encourage the use of marijuana in California? Legalization would act as just such a mechanism.
Sure, having 478 municipalities figure out how to deal with marijuana is confusing, but is "inconvenient" a reasonable justification for "no"?
post a comment
You must be a registered user to place a comment on this debate. register now
If you are already registered, please sign in. login now
nominate a debate
We’re interested in what interests you.
We’ve created the Nominate a Debate form so that you can help us create the kind of content that makes a difference. This includes issues not getting a lot of coverage in the press, issues getting a lot of coverage, just not the kind you want to see, and emerging topics that you feel strongly about.
Part of the DebateThis mission is engagement of communities on local, state, and national levels. Your suggestions for debate topics play a large role in how we interact with our various communities of readers.
Click through to the Nominate a debate form and submit your suggested topics. We can’t promise all your suggestions will turn into debates in a few days, but we will make a commitment to pursuing your nominations for upcoming topics.
news / announcements
There are currently no announcements...
upcoming debates
There are currently no upcoming debates...
-
@DT_Online
Joel Hay v. Chris Conrad marijuana legalization rebuttals are up at DT - what do you think? #prop19 http://bit.ly/9OJnCD
11:34 am Oct 28, 2010 from web
-
@DT_Online
RT @evelinaweary: Obama. Obama. Obama. There's thousands of people here! So exciting! #uscobama
11:30 am Oct 22, 2010 from web
-
@DT_Online
RT @stevebuttry: Outcry over Williams’ firing underscores why we don’t need more government subsidies for journalism http://bit.ly/buKlaX
9:42 am Oct 22, 2010 from web
1 year ago
I agree with James Gray on his stance on Proposition 19. I beg to differ with the statements made by Joseph Polisar.
We need to realize that passing Proposition 19 will create a safer environment for everyone. With crime increasing within the United States-- especially with the economy affecting many facets of society, including regulations, education, and healthcare—officials must protect the community we live in by making stricter laws on abusive substances. These abusive substances include marijuana, which Polisar stated has been found to be “addicting and to have negative health impacts.” Furthermore, Polisar claims Proposition 19 would prohibit marijuana from being smoked in areas of 25 square feet per private residence or parcel, we need to be honest with ourselves. Passing Proposition 19 increase crimes, because after all, people will do whatever they please and break the law if they choose to do so.
Additionally, I agree with Gray when he states young people will have more access to marijuana, because it does not require i.d. Certainly, there are many young people who may not engage with this substance, however, it is the responsibility of the public and the government to set rules and boundaries when possible risking situations may entice our youth to commit crimes in our society.
Yet, Joseph Polisar believes that marijuana is actually deregulatory in nature. However, this is not true. The proposition does set a standard as to how society should deal with the use of marijuana. Polisar cannot simply say that the proposition cannot be enforced. If this were the case, then we should feel this way about ever since people continue to break them all the time.
Still, it is interesting that Polisar notes the health risks of marijuana. Yet, what he fails to realize is that his opinions actually agree with many reasons of why our society should not pass Proposition 19. Although the public is aware that Proposition 19 might cost us more tax dollars, we should not give up on helping those addicted to marijuana, or on protecting our society.
We need to come together and put our foot down and stop making excuses for not making our communities safer. People, like Polisar, only add to the negative perception of the culture of the United Sates. People, like Polisar make it seems as if the United States allows crime and bad situations to continue. Therefore, we have to put our foot down. For one, we need to take a stand on this issue, because it will inevitably cause a ripple effect on other issues that the United States has given up on solving.
We also need to realize that Prop 19 gives us the ability to stop crime from increasing. Prop 19 gives us the opportunity to stop people from making excuses from their actions that are not only hurting them, but also the community. Finally, Prop 19 sets precedence for future generations to come in how to deal with situations that are negatively impacting communities now and possibly, in the community in the future.