California voters on Tuesday rejected a ballot measure that would have made their state the first in the union to legalize the personal use and possession of marijuana.
Voters there also considered whether to make it easier for state legislators to pass a budget, to suspend a state-passed global warming bill and to hand over the role of creating legislative districts to a nonpartisan commission.
The measures were among 160 put to voters around the country, on issues ranging from the new health-care law to ideas for balancing state budgets.
California was not the only state dealing with marijuana-related questions. In South Dakota, voters rejected an effort to legalize medical marijuana – which California and 13 other states have done over the past 15 years. Arizona voters were considering a similar measure.
Thankfully, marijuana was not legalized.
There are some legal drugs that have caused more problems than good in many lives and families that should be either removed from the market or more closely supervised… especially the very addictive opioids, like oxycodone (Oxycontin).
[b]THANK GOD![/b]
It appears prohibition is to continue. While disappointed, I am not terribly surprised at the outcome. Last night was a momentum election that very much favored the political right. This subject will be revisited at some point in the future. The bottom line is that there is no argument in favor of criminalizing marijuana that could not be made more strongly if applied to alcohol or tobacco. It’s just a monumental waste of money and resources on trying to regulate peoples’ private lives. It didn’t work in the 20’s and it’s still not working today.
The California initiative was seen as creating a protected class – the pot smoker. Provisions of the initiative could have been used by pot smokers to sue employers who fired them because of job performance. This perhaps had more to do with its failure than a straight up-or-down question on marijuana legality.
#3, election in CA seemed to favor the political left. In fact, there was much discussion about putting this prop on the ballot in order to bring more lefties out to the polls.
I would disagree with you about arguments against mj, as opposed to tobbacco. The former is mind-altering, the latter is not. Both are depressants, but mj is a bigger depressant and saps ambition and drive in a person, when used regularly. It also affects executive function (decision-making capabilities) when in the bloodstream – i.e., for instance can affect judgment while driving a vehicle It also is a gateway drug and it can be addictive. Agreed there is nothing good about tobbacco; but there is REALLY nothing good about mj. Alcohol, on the other hand, apparently does have some redeeming medicinal purposes, when taken in moderation, though obviously can be harmful if abused.
This defeat was funded by weed growers to protect their illegal interests. Absurd.
It’s a shame it didn’t pass, if only to get a Supreme Court challenge on the question of whether the Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate pot grown and consumed in California.
This is a Sacramento question, not a Washington question.
I would have voted yes on this measure if there had been one additional clause – that anyone who partook in their “right” to legally smoke mj would automatically waive their rights to any form of government assistance (welfare, unemployment, disability, obama-care…). Heck, I’d agree to give it to them free of charge in this case.
I don’t have any facts to back it up, but it just seems to me that number of people on these forms of assistance would increase dramatically if it were to be legalized. But I’m sure as with casinos and psychics , welfare cards would work just fine at the pot shops…
#3, another important difference that was not mentioned is that it is possible to get a ‘little drunk’ it is not possible to get a ‘little high.’ Thus it is possible to drink in moderation, it is not possible to smoke pot in moderation. (that is getting the same result between moderation of alcohol and pot)
I’m a little high right now. It’s totally possible, I assure you. I’m more compromised after a single glass of scotch than after a quick visit to my vaporizer.
Actually, there is plenty of evidence that MJ diminishes cancer and is some sort of wonder drug.
The evidence about marijuana’s ill effects are clear enough. There is no point in repeating the eviidence. The stoner’s only listen to the own wish fulfillments. But this has always been the case whenever a patent vice is being defended. The same kids of argument s appear for prostitution and casino gambling. But what of the real world response to the acceptance of mind altering drugs? Here the is a real world answer: See Amsterdam and its shift in direction and its reasons why.
The Cal repudiation is merely a first step. The next one is to go after the illegal pot growers. And other states have to begin to remove their medical pot laws, for this is a scam. All the states that allow it see the same crowds of stoners standing outside the distribution centers, smoking away. And the crimes multiply. See Colorado.
Vices are what they always have been: degenerative and progressive, each calling to the others for company. But this is not a federal issue, at last, it is a test of the national character, whether we can revitalize self discipline and self restraint. Liberals want nothing to do with this, and we can see the evidence even here on this blog.
Can you imagine what Christ would say about getting stoned? Stoners for Jessus? Please. Larry
Larry,
Based on your above post, I presume you are in favor of reviving the 18th Amendment and also adding tobacco to the list of prohibited items.
Great, now I have to go make Stoners for Jessus [sic] t-shirts.
!3 Tobacco is already prohibited de facto if not de jure. Yoju fail to see the irony of your psot. Millions and milllions – maybe a whole lot more – have been spent weaning Americans from tobacco because it is an addiction with grave consequences. An notice how it has been handled: It is treated as a cultural problem and the remedy is sought in cultural punishments and rewards. Alcohol is seen as a cultural problem and is treated with AA. Merely regulating alcohol by the government (and taxing it) has not and will not touch binge drinking or alcoholism for example. The jibe about the 18th I think we can all safely ignore.
But marijuana, whose social and physical effects are worse than tobacco’s, is encouraged, tolerated in the TEC sense, quasi-legalized, defended. The irony would be amusing if the hypocrisy were not so obvious and the consequences not so damaging. Again, all you stoners, see Amsterdam’s experience with legalizing drugs and the present reaction thereto. And one should look at China and the Opium Wars.
You CANNOT defend the vices, any of them, – nor use their first letters to spell Christian.
And making Stoners for Jeessus t-shirts is precisely what we would expect an American to do when faced with an indefensible proposition. Not much different from We’re Queer and we’re Here.” If your gonna be wrong, be in-your-face wrong. Larry
Larry
The jibe about the 18th was I think right on target. And your claim that MJ is more dangerous than either tobacco or alcohol is patently false and has been repeatedly demonstrated to be so. Tobacco and alcohol each alone kill FAR more more people every year than MJ. You have not presented a single argument in favor of criminalizing MJ that could not be made more strongly with respect to both tobacco and booze. If you favor prohibition that’s fine. Just be upfront about it.
You are ignoring the evidence. Marijuana not only carries as many toxic elements as tobacco, but it is mind altering as well. Moreover, it carries with it the “toxic ” elements of the subculture of which it is a part that we commonly shorthand as “sex,drugs, and rocknroll.” This is a loose confederation, but what is not loose is the criminal subculture that is quintessential to all drug buying and selling. Moreover marijuana is a primary gateway drug – which has been demonstrated again and again. Accordingly, it is therefore not patently false. I repeat, see Amsterdam’s experience – evidence which you ignore, and Colorado, with its medical marijuana, has found the distribution centers sources of illegal buying (like Cal) and
criminal activity. The evidence is therefore largely on my side of the argument, particularly the evidence of the real world experience with drugs. Of course I think marijuana should be criminalized just as crack has been criminalized.
But let’s look at this from your side and your defense of a patent vice. Shall we therefore legalize prostitution, the other great “gateway” drug. Sex is normal, no? We all use it? Why not tax it and legalize it? We have legalized large scale gambling. Was this well done? Will you defend this too? It turns money in to the state and creates jobs. It must be a really good thing, yes?
But let me ask you a question more appropriate to this blog.
How can you defend a vice and assert your own Christianity (which I am assuming you do.) ? Or are you arguing that mind altering, habituating drugs are not a vice? I must say I await your answer to this question with interest, for I cannot imagine how such a defense can be made. Larry
Larry,
With all due respect I have no idea what sources you are using but exhaustive studies have repeatedly determined that tobacco is far more lethal than MJ and far more addictive. Cigarette smoking is the #1 cause of premature death in the United States. Alcohol directly contributes to more deaths each year in the United States than the number of soldiers we lost during the entire Vietnam War.
You seem to be obsessing about culture. It is not the governments job to regulate culture. Liberals use the government to tell others how to live their lives, not conservatives. For all of your hangups on the Netherlands and their drug policies you might want to compare their per-capita homicide rate to ours. It’s a fraction of ours, a very small fraction. They don’t have kids killing each over who has the commercial rights to sell on which street corner. Are there downsides to ending prohibition? Yep. But they are hugely outweighed by the upsides.
As for your question of decriminalizing prostitution the answer is, of course it should be legalized! Laws attempting to regulate the consensual behavior of adults are among the most idiotic ever invented by mankind. (A friend of mine in the Navy once observed that all men pay for sex, one way or another.) I am curious, where do you draw the line in your apparently breathtaking willingness to cede to the government the right to dictate our lives? Should they tell us what music we can listen to? What about censorship of trashy novels or movies? How about violent games?
You seem to be confusing my defense of individual liberty with defense of vice. The two are radically different things. I vehemently condemn drug use, just as I condemn drunkenness, smoking, and sex outside of marriage (including sodomy). But I also understand that my rights end at the tip of my neighbor’s nose, or the edge of his property, a point apparently lost on you. I have no more right to impose my moral and religious beliefs on my neighbor than Osama Bin Laden has a right to impose his on me. From whence do you derive your authority to tell me or anyone else what to do provided it does not harm you or someone else?
If you want to preach against vice in church you will get an enthusiastic AMEN! from me. If you plan to preach that in the halls of Congress that’s whole different story.
In closing I note you have been dodging the question of the 18th Amendment. Based on everything you have written I find it impossible to see how you could be anything other than a prohibitionist. Do you support the reintroduction of prohibition and if not, why?
Larry, most of the information you have is based on lies, propagated by the likes of Harry Anslinger. In the end, the evidence is that medicalization of drug use is less expensive, and more humane than our current system.
Marijuana is less addictive, and probably less harmful, than Fructose.
Ad Orientem. you only need to read John Wilkins entry to see the nature scope of this problem.
I am sorry this thread is being buried. There is still much to say here.
In any case, your rights do not end at the tip of your neighbor’s nose, whether you do him harm or not.Can you impose your moral beliefs on others? Read your entry: This is precisely what YOU are doing. This is why the matter is a cultural matter, for culture does indeed impose moral standards and impose them on all those who participate in the culture. This is what any identity does. You cannot exist in a solipsistic universe – for this is your argument, and a common one – because the world does not run this way and never has. Where do I get my authority? But it is not MINE; it should be the culture’s if the US still had an identity. Instead, it has multiculturalism and diversity, so that all may do as they please; this is TEC’s territory.
Ad Orientem, America lays its moral standards on you all the time and you obey them presumably: Adultery is just cause for divorce, abortion is legal, and Christianity lays is moral burdens on us all (who are Christians.) Christ did NOT say that this is the first and great commandment except for those who don’t agree, which is ok too since I am unwilling to impose my judgments on everyone.
Prohibition is in fact a moral judgment. This is not the state’s business. Making cigarette’s illegal (e.g.) is not the same as prohibiting smoking. Cigarettes may be made illegal because of the burdens it puts upon the state, loss of productivity, medicare costs and the like. Marijuana is made illegal for the same reasons. But prohibition renders a moral judgment. It has the authority because WE GRANT IT; this is the social contract.
Once again I refer you to Amsterdam and its experience.
Welladay, there is a lot more to be said about the harm marijuana does – ask any teacher who has watched students go to hell in a handbag because they spend their days stoned, for example.
And stay away from the fructose. Whoa, talk about evil! Larry
I’m just not getting where the occasional social bong hit, using dried leaves cultivated by one’s friends, makes one unable to follow Christ. What exactly about that act is not compatible with the gospel, given that a glass of wine under similar circumstances presumably is? Maybe wine is a bad example, since it’s right there in the Bible – how about a glass of really excellent whiskey? Can I be a Christian and still enjoy that once in a while?
I’m fine with you saying that some parts of our society frown on this particular intoxicant, but when you start saying that Jesus is on your side, I need more explanation.
Larry,
Just finished reading your post (several times). I did not find a single substantive response to any of the points I made or to the questions I asked. The only thing you wrote that I think warrants a a very brief response is
[blockquote] Can you impose your moral beliefs on others? Read your entry: This is precisely what YOU are doing.[/blockquote]
Do what? Could you please give some citation for where I am imposing my beliefs on others? As for the rest it seems just the usual drivel from statist liberals who believe they have the right to dictate other people’s lives. The only difference between you and Peolosi / Obama is in which aspects of people’s lives you favor regulating. Two sides of the same coin.
I will pass thank you very much.
Larry: Amsterdam? Are you kidding me? Have you ever been to Holland? I have family in Holland. Conservative Christians. Who think that prohibition is simply silly. Much less violent crime in Holland, and a lot less spent on prisons.
Make your criteria clear, and we can begin a rational discussion.
Everything John has said is in fact false. Go to
Wikipedia, Amsterdam/holland,drugs and Amsterdam/holland/prostitution. Here you can read how wide open holland has been. Here you can read the kind of problems that open drug use has caused, that Holland is Europe’s major distribution center, and that it is gradually backing off and closing down the drug centers, even the coffee shops. The reasons, the debates, the sheer social stress is identified.
Put this with its experience with legal prostitution, its becoming a center for sex tourism and its history of human trafficking – and note that the revenues make the state dependent on continuing these problems.
Then go to a description and history of Needle Park. Then tell me that this is a good course for the US to follow.
Can I give an example of Ad Orientam imposing his beliefs on others. What could be easier? He declares prostitution should be legalized,e.g. If it should be, then he has declared that his judgment should be adopted by others. Again, “It is not the governments job to regulate culture.” I quite agree, but the simple fact is that he believes other should agree with him, and so he is spreading his moral judgments to others. The are plenty other examples in his other comments.
AS to Clayton, he has misunderstood my intention. No one is worried about one joint, one cigarette, one potato chop. Humanity will indulge itself sometimes. I am speaking about the large scale production and distribution of psychotropic drugs – or which marijuana is one – especially since intensive breeding has made stronger and stronger mj. Clayton do you really want the US to become another Holland?
As to Christ and drugs – well he didn’t mention them did he, just the way he didn’t mention homosexuality. Shall we conclude what the homophiles conclude, that if it isn’t specifically excluded then it is included? Ok. Then what does Paul say about extreme immorality? Is THAT clear enough? Do you suppose that, since he doesn’t mention cocaine, he would tolerate its use? I didn’t say Jesus was on my side – that’s just silly. But explain to me why Jesus WOULD have tolerated the use of psychotropic drugs? Please call to mind the temptations put before him and his refusal to be tempted by delights far greater than a toke.
I realize there is no common ground here, so no discussion if possible, but I am discouraged buy the rationalizing that justifies its own wishes with such ease and determination. i call to your attention that none of you has responded to mj’s unquestionable culpability as, e.g., the great gateway drug or the damage its use has done to adolescents who have spend four high school years stoned. Larry
Larry the difference is this: do we expect to live in a perfect world or an imperfect one? Yes, Holland has problems. But they minimize them. Drug users are not thrown in jail for their lifetimes; they are given opportunities to give them up. There’s plenty of pickpocketing in Holland; but I’d prefer that to the everyday violence in the US. And I’m surprised you casually underestimate the stress of those communities who are victims of the drug war.
I also want to affirm that there are a lot of ways to legalize. There’s hard paternalism and soft paternalism. There’s medicalization and legalization. I’m all for restricting drugs and giving doctors authority over them. I think that big government makes a mess of it, and I’m always amused when conservatives trust big government over local communities. Local judges used to be able to make decisions about penalties. Now many of the laws are mandated.
This is the philosophy: if you can’t solve the problem – minimize the harm and expense. Throwing a drug user in jail doesn’t help them, but teaches them to fear the law and incentivizes violence to stay out of prison. Regulating the user also diminishes the impact upon non-users by being a lot less cheaper than prisons, and delineating boundaries of proper behavior.
I’m not sure what your criteria is, but certainly if perfection is what you’re looking for, Holland falls short. But our policy has been an dismal failure since it started. Time to try something else.
No John, they maximized them. That’s why they are backing off from the wide open vice tolerance and support. Needle Park isn’t a tolerable imperfection. And being a center for human trafficking? And a major distribution point for the whole range of drugs? What Holland is learned is that the letting the whole camel in means that you cannot return to just the nose: Learn to live with a camel in your tent. You better like camels and call them an acceptable imperfection. The US is much better off limiting the camel to its nose.
the are other ways to punish drug use that prison. Public humiliation, the old stocks, works much better because it relies on cultural control and enforcement of cultural standards. But or left wing culture is probably too corrupt already to make this work until a new identity, rooted in self discipline and substantive standards makes its rebirth. Larry