Legalized Pot A No Go For California

Legalized Pot A No Go For California

Despite recent media claims of California being one step closer to taxing and regulating marijuana, it appears Assembly Bill 390 has died in the Health committee and will not make it to full assembly vote by deadline, leaving pro-legalization advocates no closer to legalizing the drug.

Watch CBS News Videos Online
Despite recent media claims of California being one step closer to taxing and regulating marijuana, it appears Assembly Bill 390 has died in the Health committee and will not make it to full assembly vote by deadline, leaving pro-legalization advocates no closer to legalizing the drug. 
Taxed pot is not the answer to any state’s economic crisis. Assembly Bill 390 would no doubt have increased societal costs relating to drug treatment and healthcare which would have far outweighed any generated revenue.
 
John Redman, executive director of the non-profit Californians for Drug Free Youth was on the front lines opposing this legislation and feels this is truly a tremendous victory for the people. “For the safety and well-being of California residents, particularly youth, I applaud the overwhelming opposition to AB 390. Plain and simple, pot is bad for the brain, especially young brains, and if our elected officials had continued down this path of destruction, there would have been no turning back,” Redman said.
 

Comments

Legalization of Marijuana

I would like to see President Obama declare a War on Drugs and send the National Guard to California to support the DEA and take back all National Forest Land and sweep out all illegal drug dealers and growers. We can put them in our new federal prison in Illinois and submit them to educational programs, drug intervention, and intense legal interogations. To irradicate illegal drugs in the U.S.A. Prison is not supposed to be a picnic in the park. Why is my step son being offered classes in hybridization and agriculture in the prisons? How about teaching him to milk a #$@!%^&* cow and clean up hog duty. Any job would seem good after that. We need hardened workers in the US not pot smoking couch potatoes with soft little girl hands. If the people in California would stop smoking pot and get off thier duffs and get jobs they would collect more taxes, charge for real college classes, and pay student loans like I do. They may even get out of debt.

Chabot response

The point-by-point response to Paul Chabot's wildly inaccurate interview is spot on. I'd add, from the perspective of a friendly opponent to prohibitionist policy, that you are unlikely to convince most of the population of your position if the spokesman is a dweeb with bad hair and a 9th grade debating style.

No go? Not yet!

1. It’s not “a few million here and there”, unless you count one-thousand, four-hundred millions as “a few millions”. The California Board of equalization has estimated that $1.4 billion dollars would be raised by regulating marijuana.
2. Also, you’re absolutely right that every $1 in tobacco taxes is subsumed by $8.50 in health costs… because smoking tobacco is really, really bad for you! 400,000 Americans die annually from tobacco-related illness, compared to how many for cannabis? Oh, right, ZERO! I can walk into any hospital and find you a dozen people there solely because of tobacco smoking; I dare you to find me just one in the hospital solely for cannabis smoking.
3. If there is any social cost from cannabis use, it is going to be far less than that of alcohol, tobacco, or even caffeine in our society, and we’re already paying those costs now and taking in ZERO tax dollars to mitigate those tiny costs. 22 million Americans smoke pot now, and an estimated 4 million Californians smoke pot now. In order for the social costs argument to make sense, $1.4 billion worth of new pot smokers would have to take up the habit following legalization. Even if pot smokng went up by 20% (a stretch to imagine), each of the 1 million new California tokers would have to cost California $1,400 annually to just break even on the tax revenue. For comparison’s sake, a recent study in Canada found the health costs of every smoker to be $800 annually, for drinkers it’s $165 annually, and for tokers it’s just $20 a year.
4. Any burning vegetable matter – tobacco, cannabis, and a campfire – share some of the same carcinogenic hydrocarbons. That’s why so many patients now prefer to vaporize or eat their cannabis medicine. However, what tobacco and campfires don’t have are THC and CBD, both of which are non-toxic and have been shown to have anti-tumoral properties.
5. A recent study in the journal Cancer Prevention Research concluded that “10 to 20 years of marijuana use was associated with a significantly reduced risk of [head and neck cancers].“
6. Dr. Donald Tashkin studied marijuana smokers for 30 years, seeking to find a link between cannabis use and lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and in 2006 told the Washington Post: “We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use,” he said. “What we found instead was no association [between cannabis use and lung cancer and COPD] at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect.“
7. Dr. Tashkin later told McClatchy news: “Early on, when our research appeared as if there would be a negative impact on lung health, I was opposed to legalization because I thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects,” Tashkin says. “But at this point, I’d be in favor of legalization. I wouldn’t encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don’t think it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm.”
8. Furthermore, nobody on our side suggests we should be selling marijuana to kids! That’s your side that insists on maintaining a prohibition on cannabis that continues to feature one million teenagers dealing marijuana to other kids with nobody checking IDs. When’s the last time you heard of a high school tequila dealer?
9. Prop-215 was passed with the following very easy-to-understand wording for all the voters to read: “Seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person’s health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.”
10. The 1996 California Ballot Pamphlet on Prop-215 read, in part: “Exempts patients and defined caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for medical treatment recommended by a physician from criminal laws which otherwise prohibit possession or cultivation of marijuana.”
11. The 1996 write-up by the Legislative Analyst stated: “The measure provides for the use of marijuana when a physician has determined that the person’s health would benefit from its use in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or ”any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.” The physician’s recommendation may be oral or written. No prescriptions or other record-keeping is required by the measure.”
12. The 1996 Argument in Favor of Prop-215 read: “MARIJUANA DOESN’T JUST HELP CANCER PATIENTS — University doctors and researchers have found that marijuana is also effective in: lowering internal eye pressure associated with glaucoma, slowing the onset of blindness; reducing the pain of AIDS patients, and stimulating the appetites of those suffering malnutrition because of AIDS ‘wasting syndrome’; and alleviating muscle spasticity and chronic pain due to multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and spinal cord injuries.
13. The 1996 Argument Against Prop-215 even warned: “Proposition 215 DOES NOT restrict the use of marijuana to AIDS, cancer, glaucoma and other serious illnesses. READ THE FINE PRINT. Proposition 215 legalizes marijuana use for ”any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.” This could include stress, headaches, upset stomach, insomnia, a stiff neck . . . or just about anything.” And yet, 56% of Californians supported it anyway!
14. The 2% of San Diegans Chabot refers to are those using medical marijuana for cancer and AIDS. Paul doesn’t consider people suffering the pain and spasticity of multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis to have “significant illnesses”. People going blind from glaucoma or wracked with the pain of migraine don’t have “significant illnesses”.
15. So, how is it that within our community, we allow our school bus drivers and airplane pilots the choice of using alcohol and impairment-producing prescription medications? It’s not a “Pandora’s Box” we’re opening – marijuana is already here! If someone is going to be irresponsible and drive a school bus high, they are doing so now; prohibition isn’t stopping them.
16. How do we bust people for driving high now? Chabot is referring to the use of urinalysis to determine whether someone has inactive THC-COOH metabolites in their system, which do not prove impairment and can remain in the system for weeks. However, there are blood tests which can fairly reasonably determine recent marijuana use, and new technologies are arriving that analyze saliva or armpit sweat (really) to determine recent use. Finally, there’s always the good old fashioned roadside sobriety test… you know, actually testing someone to see if they are impaired, not what they may have ingested.
17. Who are you to tell anybody – terminally ill or not — how to feel or how not to feel? If someone is dying and smoking a non-toxic herb, you’re okay with it, but if they’re healthy, you’re going to have to lock them up in a cage to keep us all safe?
18. “Pro-drug lobbyists?” We are not pro-drug lobbyists; we’re pro-marijuana. Johnson & Johnson Pfizer GlaxoSmithKline Roche Sanofi-Aventis Novartis AstraZeneca Abbott Laboratories Merck Wyeth Bristol-Myers Squibb Eli Lilly, with a combined $392 billion in annual revenues and 2.3 lobbyists for every lawmaker on Capitol Hill – that’s your pro-drug lobby.
19. By the way, I’m still waiting for the first medical marijuana patient to beg me to stop fighting for medical marijuana laws because she felt he was being used.
20. Marijuana doesn’t have “400 carcinogens”, it has 400 or so constituent chemicals, 64 of which are cannabinoids, and which don’t even become carcinogenic compounds until the marijuana is burned (but not eaten or vaporized).
21. Marinol is 100% pure synthetic THC (people like you constantly complain about the new super-potent pot, some of which registers 20% THC) and is eaten. The delta-9 THC when ingested coverts to 11-hydroxy-THC which is far more psychoactive than smoked cannabis, and unlike smoked cannabis, lacks the cannabidiol that acts as an anti-psychoactive and mitigates the psychoactivity of delta-9 THC. In other words, Marinol will get far higher than smoked cannabis and it is a paranoid, anxious, terrible high.
22. Sativex is a whole-plant extract sprayed under the tongue, and is superior to Marinol, but only because it is more like the natural plant cannabis that is superior to them both.
23. As for the “sip of whiskey” comment, let me just quote the American Medical Association: “short term controlled trials indicate that smoked cannabis reduces neuropathic pain, improves appetite and caloric intake especially in patients with reduced muscle mass, and may relieve spasticity and pain in patients with multiple sclerosis.” Furthermore, the report urges that “the Schedule I status of marijuana be reviewed with the goal of facilitating clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines, and alternate delivery methods.”

That's the prohibitionist M.O

That's the prohibitionist M.O right there. They will rattle off mistruths left and right, but when they are responded to they just ignore it entirely, wait a few days and then make the same comments like these fictional charges were never addressed. And that's exactly what most of the reasons they level as excuses for why prohibition must continue are; fiction. 400 carcinogens?? Give me a break. Where's the science behind that fantasy? How come the legalization side of this debate can cite actual peer-reviewed scientific studies and prohibitionists can't even make a 3 and a half minute public statement without over exaggeration and flat out lies. They insult the intelligence of those that choose to educate themselves on this issue. Lucky the people of California (and the people of America) are smarter than that.

This is FAR from a prohibitionist victory. Despite those on the prohibitionist side violating the rules of testimony that the legalization advocates were able to abide by (3 speakers 3 minutes each), AB 390 PASSED the public safety committee. The first ever governmental body to vote in favor of ending prohibition. In the end your saving grace was the inaction of the health committee. These politicians chose not to act because they knew this issue will be on the November ballot. They were unwilling to stick their neck out for an issue when the voters will be deciding it. The public safety committee approved it and the health committee didn't vote it down. I don't see how this is a victory for prohibition. Medical organizations are now advocating a change in our laws and public opinion is swinging hard against prohibition. In fact organizers for the ballot initiative turned in close to double the amount of signatures needed to get the issue on the ballot. People know all about the social costs of tobacco. People also know that tobacco is legal. People know no one gets ticketed or loses a job or custody of a child over mere tobacco or alcohol possession. People know that marijuana is not near as harmful as tobacco and alcohol, plain and simple. There is no logic in wasting taxpayer resources enforcing an unregulated prohibition against the safer of the 3 substances.

Marijuana not harmful ?

I lost my nephew a talented musician and athlete on December 16th,2010. He was a great Kid 21 years old. He worked. He tried pot at 12yrs. And while using pot was convinced to try heroine at 18. Since you smoke pot and have a short attention span I will make this story short for you. Since 1970 the pot produced is hybridized and 20 times stronger. Much of it is grown under carcinogenic producing conditions, as pesticides are found at growing sites and drug busts. Hybridized pot contains more tar and nicotine thus the more poisenes ingrediants the greater high. The greater the highs the deeper anxiety and depression it causes. Thus the need for more drugs to get high again. How many times have you called into work this year?
DUI's and drug related deaths are on the rise. I see people trying to smoke weed and drive 70 to 80 mph every day. Not to mention thier children in the back seat being subjected to 10X the carbon monoxide in the back seat. They won't grow up to be rocket scientists, surgeons,or attorneys if they live through the car accident.
Teachers can only work with the little healthy brains the children have. Education requires memory if you can't remember how can you learn?
If pot is legalized I Know you will sue the state or county county for your lung or other cancer be cause they legalized its use. No thanks to raising my taxes for that.
People with alzheimers cannot remember, they do not need pot therapy to forget they have alzhiemers. And while they are at home any person living there could use their medication or sell it because they can't remember from one minute to the next. It's pretty much common sense that pot does not help are society to grow and thrive. And medicating your depression with out consulting a doctor could leave you in a mental institution or prison thus raising our taxes even more.
Maybe if you had heath insurance you could treat your problems correctly and get back to life. If you were healthy you could get a date and you wouldn't have trick someone into loving you.
If marijauana where so great the drug companies would manufacture it, sell it in pill form, and it would be taxed and regulated already.
Stop assisting drug cartels in taking over our country, abusing our women and children or you might as well sign over the mortgage on California, Texas, Arizona, and Florida to your local drug dealers who just defaulted on their grow house mortgage. Grow UP societies problems raise your taxes. Start saving at Home.
Peace, Life, Love, Self Satisfation,and Good health to You. -L

someones on legal drugs

My mind is numbed by this ignorance. First off, you're not going to make the pot smokers feel stupid if the pot smoker is able to demonstrate a better grasp on grammar and develop a more coherent response. You see people smoking weed and driving recklessly every day? Sure buddy. Whatever you say. Do you have any research to back up any of these fictional claims you make? Of course not. I couldn't sue the state over cancer if I got it from tobacco (which is legal and actually causes cancer), what makes you think I could sue the state over cannabis? Obviously you have never done any actual research into the effects of cannabis have you? Cannabis is non-toxic and (according to Dr. Donald Tashkin's 30 year long study) does NOT increase an individuals risk of developing cancer. And say we do live in your fantasy world where marijuana really does make the sky fall. Here's the kicker. It's here and causing all this imaginary harm NOW. It's not like we're talking about inventing cannabis. It's been here longer than we have. We're talking about regulating what already exists.

Drug companies DO have marijuana in pill form. It's far more intoxicating, far more addictive, and far less effective than natural cannabis. It has been marketed and regulated for over a decade now. Again, a little research would be nice.

I like your assumption that pot smokers don't have health insurance. Because you know all of us. Oh yeah, that's right. You watch us every day drive around at 70 or 80mph smoking weed with kids in the car.

Here's the reality: Pot's stronger because it's illegal. Pot funds drug cartels because it's illegal. Pot is available to 12 year olds because it's illegal. Heroine is available from the same sources of pot because it's illegal. You lay out the conditions that exist under our current policy and somehow insist that it is a reason to continue the same policy. If you think deeper than this kindergarten mentality you will see that making cannabis illegal hasn't made anyone safer. It has only made cannabis use more dangerous.

Finally, if you are going to invent a date that your "nephew" was killed, at least avoid making it a date 8 months in the future.

PS-
I use cannabis every night and haven't missed a day of work in 7 years. 5 days a week. 11 hours a day.

Support!

I support both of these messeges!!

You are a fool!

You are an ignorate Fool!