California Proposition 19: Legalizing Weed

[MadAce]

People choose to smoke weed, they know the consequences, and they don't care, these are the same people that say: "you gotta die some day."

People who use drugs, and especially not those who abuse it often don't fully realize the consequences. If they would, no one would use tobacco, alcohol or any other hard drug.


People are notoriously bad at judging probabilities.

You missed my main point of "they don't care". If it gives them a good time they don't care.

They would care if they had the brains suitable to judge probabilities. Sadly enough none of us does.

Therefore people should be protected against their own faulty brains.

[mcdfatty]

wow this topic became popular real quick...

[Jwilson6]

They would care if they had the brains suitable to judge probabilities. Sadly enough none of us does.

Therefore people should be protected against their own faulty brains.

I usually agree with you on most things madace, but not on this. Yes, people aren't perfect, so they can't make perfect decisions but I don't think thats any reason to let the government take away our freewill. I do agree with some limitations on freewill (as in I don't support the freedom to go kill people you don't like) As I said before, if you aren't harming anyone else, you should have the right to do it. And as for it damaging society on a whole, in my opinion thats just a necessary evil of retaining atleast some freewill.
This isn't just me supporting the legalization of weed so that I can smoke it myself, I've only smoked a handful of times in my life, and probably won't ever do it again because I know there are health consequences and I'm trying to live healthy. I'm not gay but I support gay rights for the same reason, I don't do any other drugs but I support people's rights to do them, I don't smoke cigarettes, but I support people's rights to smoke them (away from non-smokers). I think if someone's makes a conscious decision with their 'faulty brain' to harm their own self, then they have every right to do so, because their body and mind belongs to them, not the government.

[MadAce]

They would care if they had the brains suitable to judge probabilities. Sadly enough none of us does.

Therefore people should be protected against their own faulty brains.

I usually agree with you on most things madace, but not on this. Yes, people aren't perfect, so they can't make perfect decisions but I don't think thats any reason to let the government take away our freewill. I do agree with some limitations on freewill (as in I don't support the freedom to go kill people you don't like) As I said before, if you aren't harming anyone else, you should have the right to do it. And as for it damaging society on a whole, in my opinion thats just a necessary evil of retaining atleast some freewill.
This isn't just me supporting the legalization of weed so that I can smoke it myself, I've only smoked a handful of times in my life, and probably won't ever do it again because I know there are health consequences and I'm trying to live healthy. I'm not gay but I support gay rights for the same reason, I don't do any other drugs but I support people's rights to do them, I don't smoke cigarettes, but I support people's rights to smoke them (away from non-smokers). I think if someone's makes a conscious decision with their 'faulty brain' to harm their own self, then they have every right to do so, because their body and mind belongs to them, not the government.

Well, this particular side of the argument is pretty polarized between us.

I just know that allowing the "freedom" you're talking about will end up costing us a lot more freedom than we'd gain by inaction. People abusing drugs are far less free. They depend on a substance and depend on acquiring the money for this substance. And then this deficiency expands to their direct family and friends. They will lose options in life trough frustrations, depressions, less money and generally wanting to care for someone who has a problem. Ultimately society will have to interfere to minimize the damage, expanding the cost to everyone everywhere not to mention the loss of potential of the addicted/abusing person.

This single flaw in our brains ends up taking away a substantial amount of freedom from a lot of people. I'm sorry, but the freedom to make such a bad decision isn't worth all that freedom.

That's the only reason why I believe the state is needed; to ensure as much freedom to as many people as possible in an as efficient way as possible.

[Catfish]

They would care if they had the brains suitable to judge probabilities. Sadly enough none of us does.

Therefore people should be protected against their own faulty brains.

Seriously? I'm waiting for the punch line here.. but i don't think one is coming.
You're saying that since I don't know what i'm doing by smoking weed, Mr. "I grew up with connections and got a job in the government to make decisions about things that have never personally affected me" should be able to tell me what's best? For that matter, who decides what is "best" for a human? Marijuana is MUCH less likely to cause someone else physical harm than alcohol, or even cigarettes (which, if i may remind you, are both legal and can be bought at just about any corner store in the US). I could see how this would be a problem if someone was considering legalizing something like amphetamines or cocaine, but marijuana? The effects just don't compare.

As a person who smokes weed everyday (and drinks pretty often), i have to say that while marijuana could possibly have negative effects on your personal health, the effect it would have on non-smokers doesn't even compare to alcohol.

best quote i have seen in this entire thread:

Lol I can't even count the number of times I've woken up after being black-out drunk with cuts and bruises all over me, afraid to walk outside for fear or embarrassment of what i did the night before and who might remember it. The worst thats ever happened when I was high was waking up to find all my food cooked in unique but not entirely disqusting creations.

Final question: How many people have you met that overdosed on THC?

[Catfish]

haha, not really back, just doing my weekly forum check up

add me on facebook dave, im on there a lot more

[Jwilson6]

They would care if they had the brains suitable to judge probabilities. Sadly enough none of us does.

Therefore people should be protected against their own faulty brains.

I usually agree with you on most things madace, but not on this. Yes, people aren't perfect, so they can't make perfect decisions but I don't think thats any reason to let the government take away our freewill. I do agree with some limitations on freewill (as in I don't support the freedom to go kill people you don't like) As I said before, if you aren't harming anyone else, you should have the right to do it. And as for it damaging society on a whole, in my opinion thats just a necessary evil of retaining atleast some freewill.
This isn't just me supporting the legalization of weed so that I can smoke it myself, I've only smoked a handful of times in my life, and probably won't ever do it again because I know there are health consequences and I'm trying to live healthy. I'm not gay but I support gay rights for the same reason, I don't do any other drugs but I support people's rights to do them, I don't smoke cigarettes, but I support people's rights to smoke them (away from non-smokers). I think if someone's makes a conscious decision with their 'faulty brain' to harm their own self, then they have every right to do so, because their body and mind belongs to them, not the government.

Well, this particular side of the argument is pretty polarized between us.

I just know that allowing the "freedom" you're talking about will end up costing us a lot more freedom than we'd gain by inaction. People abusing drugs are far less free. They depend on a substance and depend on acquiring the money for this substance. And then this deficiency expands to their direct family and friends. They will lose options in life trough frustrations, depressions, less money and generally wanting to care for someone who has a problem. Ultimately society will have to interfere to minimize the damage, expanding the cost to everyone everywhere not to mention the loss of potential of the addicted/abusing person.

This single flaw in our brains ends up taking away a substantial amount of freedom from a lot of people. I'm sorry, but the freedom to make such a bad decision isn't worth all that freedom.

That's the only reason why I believe the state is needed; to ensure as much freedom to as many people as possible in an as efficient way as possible.

You might be surpised, but I completely agree with everything you said there, the only difference is that I can't personally accept giving up my rights to my own body, no matter what the costs. I guess you could say that in most cases I believe the rights of an individual outweighs the rights of society as a whole. I know it sounds selfish but I think of myself as an individual who just happens to influence those around me, and not as a cog playing a role in the greater societal machine.
I do think that drugs are bad and that people should endeavor to live a healthy lifestyle and push themselves to their greatest potential, but they should do so at their choice and not by government control. Also Part of this belief system of mine is that family, friends, and society, all have the freedom to choose not to help the people who have been negatively effected by their own choice to use drugs.

[MadAce]

Seriously? I'm waiting for the punch line here.. but i don't think one is coming.
You're saying that since I don't know what i'm doing by smoking weed, Mr. "I grew up with connections and got a job in the government to make decisions about things that have never personally affected me" should be able to tell me what's best? For that matter, who decides what is "best" for a human? Marijuana is MUCH less likely to cause someone else physical harm than alcohol, or even cigarettes (which, if i may remind you, are both legal and can be bought at just about any corner store in the US). I could see how this would be a problem if someone was considering legalizing something like amphetamines or cocaine, but marijuana? The effects just don't compare.

As a person who smokes weed everyday (and drinks pretty often), i have to say that while marijuana could possibly have negative effects on your personal health, the effect it would have on non-smokers doesn't even compare to alcohol.

I agree fully in every way I can that alcohol is a lot, a whole lot more damaging than Marijuana. By a large margin. (which you would know I've said and defended before if you had read the rest of the thread)

However, this does change the fact that people are fairly bad at making certain decisions. One of those is the inability to correctly judge short term pleasure versus long term damage.

Therefore laws have to be in place to protect people against themselves and to protect society against individual mistakes.

Although I don't see a point in outlawing Marijuana. (perhaps just outlawing smoking it)

I usually agree with you on most things madace, but not on this. Yes, people aren't perfect, so they can't make perfect decisions but I don't think thats any reason to let the government take away our freewill. I do agree with some limitations on freewill (as in I don't support the freedom to go kill people you don't like) As I said before, if you aren't harming anyone else, you should have the right to do it. And as for it damaging society on a whole, in my opinion thats just a necessary evil of retaining atleast some freewill.
This isn't just me supporting the legalization of weed so that I can smoke it myself, I've only smoked a handful of times in my life, and probably won't ever do it again because I know there are health consequences and I'm trying to live healthy. I'm not gay but I support gay rights for the same reason, I don't do any other drugs but I support people's rights to do them, I don't smoke cigarettes, but I support people's rights to smoke them (away from non-smokers). I think if someone's makes a conscious decision with their 'faulty brain' to harm their own self, then they have every right to do so, because their body and mind belongs to them, not the government.

Well, this particular side of the argument is pretty polarized between us.

I just know that allowing the "freedom" you're talking about will end up costing us a lot more freedom than we'd gain by inaction. People abusing drugs are far less free. They depend on a substance and depend on acquiring the money for this substance. And then this deficiency expands to their direct family and friends. They will lose options in life trough frustrations, depressions, less money and generally wanting to care for someone who has a problem. Ultimately society will have to interfere to minimize the damage, expanding the cost to everyone everywhere not to mention the loss of potential of the addicted/abusing person.

This single flaw in our brains ends up taking away a substantial amount of freedom from a lot of people. I'm sorry, but the freedom to make such a bad decision isn't worth all that freedom.

That's the only reason why I believe the state is needed; to ensure as much freedom to as many people as possible in an as efficient way as possible.

You might be surpised, but I completely agree with everything you said there, the only difference is that I can't personally accept giving up my rights to my own body, no matter what the costs. I guess you could say that in most cases I believe the rights of an individual outweighs the rights of society as a whole. I know it sounds selfish but I think of myself as an individual who just happens to influence those around me, and not as a cog playing a role in the greater societal machine.
I do think that drugs are bad and that people should endeavor to live a healthy lifestyle and push themselves to their greatest potential, but they should do so at their choice and not by government control. Also Part of this belief system of mine is that family, friends, and society, all have the freedom to choose not to help the people who have been negatively effected by their own choice to use drugs.

If you value your rights then you should allow a moderate amount of objective, constructive and efficient intrusion by society. In the end this will give you a lot more freedom as an individual. Which do you value more? The illusion of freedom, lying to yourself? Or actual freedom?

It doesn't really matter how you see yourself. It is a fact that your actions influence all 6.8 billion people. You are an integral part of society and you have been all your life.
You can not prefer the rights of the individual over those of society as society consists entirely of individuals. Harming society is harming an individual (many of them actually). And you as an individual would not want to be harmed, now would you?

Also, inaction and not helping someone will STILL harm society. Not only will it most certainly ensure the creation of a desperate and destructive individual forced to be a parasite upon society, it will also deprive society of the potential of this person. For all we know this could've been the person to find a cure for HIV. Or just be a very good parent. Who are we to steal this potential from society simply because we don't feel like helping someone?


It's not only a matter of realizing what true freedom is, but also a matter of accepting your responsibility.

[-PLAGUE-]

I wonder if rights even matter, I mean really all the laws we have, and the only reason people don't bother breaking them is because their scared of jail, but then you get those people who really don't care, or just don't get caught.

I wonder also if perhaps the governments laws cause some of that, making some people want to rebel and do stupid things to make a statement to "The Man". Happened before I bet.

You guys think that it would be a horrible thing to just say screw all of the countries and laws and etc. and just let people live where they want and do what they need to to survive? It's a bit of a rogue thought, and can go wrong in a great many ways. But don't the only problems with that idea boil down to like three things? One being too many people that are nuts and like to kill each other or steal etc. 2 being the human instinct of greed causing them to try to monopolize an area for no good reason, and 3 people have too much sex and there isn't enough room on the earth for it.

A lot of our problems could be solved if someone would just make the effort to build a bio-dome eh. hehehe.

I don't know maybe I'm just being stupid but I'd like to go off topic, something new to talk about. Also I feel it's not important enough to waste a topic on

[mcdfatty]

I wonder if rights even matter, I mean really all the laws we have, and the only reason people don't bother breaking them is because their scared of jail, but then you get those people who really don't care, or just don't get caught.

I wonder also if perhaps the governments laws cause some of that, making some people want to rebel and do stupid things to make a statement to "The Man". Happened before I bet.

You guys think that it would be a horrible thing to just say screw all of the countries and laws and etc. and just let people live where they want and do what they need to to survive? It's a bit of a rogue thought, and can go wrong in a great many ways. But don't the only problems with that idea boil down to like three things? One being too many people that are nuts and like to kill each other or steal etc. 2 being the human instinct of greed causing them to try to monopolize an area for no good reason, and 3 people have too much sex and there isn't enough room on the earth for it.

A lot of our problems could be solved if someone would just make the effort to build a bio-dome eh. hehehe.

I don't know maybe I'm just being stupid but I'd like to go off topic, something new to talk about. Also I feel it's not important enough to waste a topic on

[mcdfatty]

When a person is born he doesn't choose to be evil or good, he is good naturally because the baby does not have a choice.

It's when the baby is grown in difficult times or bad parents they do bad things.

this is where Religion comes in, when a bad parent or when difficlut times are in the childs life usually they convert to a religion to be saved from suffering etc.

If society didn't have bad parents and have happy times we wouldn't need jails. 80% of all crimes are dealt with money. Drugs are included with money.

This is why I choosed to be a Utopian Socialist. No I don't value stalin/hitler ideals because they just wanted the easy way of implementing socialism by killing everyone who disagreed, mentally unstable, or a race. I value the ideals of men and woman being equal no matter the race or nation.

but a socialist government is 90% impossible unless you kill the people who don't want it.

yep how true. Did you know Stalin killed more people than hitler?

[MadAce]

I wonder if rights even matter, I mean really all the laws we have, and the only reason people don't bother breaking them is because their scared of jail, but then you get those people who really don't care, or just don't get caught.

I wonder also if perhaps the governments laws cause some of that, making some people want to rebel and do stupid things to make a statement to "The Man". Happened before I bet.

You guys think that it would be a horrible thing to just say screw all of the countries and laws and etc. and just let people live where they want and do what they need to to survive? It's a bit of a rogue thought, and can go wrong in a great many ways. But don't the only problems with that idea boil down to like three things? One being too many people that are nuts and like to kill each other or steal etc. 2 being the human instinct of greed causing them to try to monopolize an area for no good reason, and 3 people have too much sex and there isn't enough room on the earth for it.

A lot of our problems could be solved if someone would just make the effort to build a bio-dome eh. hehehe.

I don't know maybe I'm just being stupid but I'd like to go off topic, something new to talk about. Also I feel it's not important enough to waste a topic on

You're wrong if you think people only obey rules because they would face punishment if they didn't.

There's an objective, rational basis for altruism. I suggest you look it up.

You have a very simplistic view on humanity.

"Hey, everyone and everyone is BBQ anyways, so why bother doing anything?" It's just another excuse to absolve you of your responsibility.

This is why I choosed to be a Utopian Socialist. No I don't value stalin/hitler ideals because they just wanted the easy way of implementing socialism by killing everyone who disagreed, mentally unstable, or a race. I value the ideals of men and woman being equal no matter the race or nation.

Neither Stalin nor Hitler were socialists. (I'm not saying you think they were)

I think there are some fairly interesting ideas in socialism, but not adaptive enough for my taste.

[-PLAGUE-]

I wonder if rights even matter, I mean really all the laws we have, and the only reason people don't bother breaking them is because their scared of jail, but then you get those people who really don't care, or just don't get caught.

I wonder also if perhaps the governments laws cause some of that, making some people want to rebel and do stupid things to make a statement to "The Man". Happened before I bet.

You guys think that it would be a horrible thing to just say screw all of the countries and laws and etc. and just let people live where they want and do what they need to to survive? It's a bit of a rogue thought, and can go wrong in a great many ways. But don't the only problems with that idea boil down to like three things? One being too many people that are nuts and like to kill each other or steal etc. 2 being the human instinct of greed causing them to try to monopolize an area for no good reason, and 3 people have too much sex and there isn't enough room on the earth for it.

A lot of our problems could be solved if someone would just make the effort to build a bio-dome eh. hehehe.

I don't know maybe I'm just being stupid but I'd like to go off topic, something new to talk about. Also I feel it's not important enough to waste a topic on

You're wrong if you think people only obey rules because they would face punishment if they didn't.

There's an objective, rational basis for altruism. I suggest you look it up.

You have a very simplistic view on humanity.

"Hey, everyone and everyone is BBQ anyways, so why bother doing anything?" It's just another excuse to absolve you of your responsibility.

This is why I choosed to be a Utopian Socialist. No I don't value stalin/hitler ideals because they just wanted the easy way of implementing socialism by killing everyone who disagreed, mentally unstable, or a race. I value the ideals of men and woman being equal no matter the race or nation.

Neither Stalin nor Hitler were socialists. (I'm not saying you think they were)

I think there are some fairly interesting ideas in socialism, but not adaptive enough for my taste.

Well ghee Mad I never went as far as to say I believed any of those things, I was just wondering, hence the

I wonder if rights even matter
I wonder also if perhaps the governments laws cause some of that

And then I asked for opinions. Hence-

You guys think that it would be a horrible thing

I never said I believed any of the bbq I just wanted to see what other people thought on the subject so I could maybe add to my knowledge on the subject, or reply in a negative way. No harm honest hehehe.

[MadAce]

Well ghee Mad I never went as far as to say I believed any of those things, I was just wondering, hence the

I wonder if rights even matter
I wonder also if perhaps the governments laws cause some of that

And then I asked for opinions. Hence-

You guys think that it would be a horrible thing

I never said I believed any of the bbq I just wanted to see what other people thought on the subject so I could maybe add to my knowledge on the subject, or reply in a negative way. No harm honest hehehe.

My bad. I just get annoyed when people seem to go all "Humanity sucks anyways" just because they're too lazy to get off their asses.

[mcdfatty]

back to the weed topic... any other ideas?

[MastrIan]

My bad. I just get annoyed when people seem to go all "Humanity sucks anyways" just because they're too lazy to get off their asses.

That's lazy?! Seems like way to much work, nihilism is the way to go xD.

_______________________
Thorin | Save The Rebangs

[mcdfatty]

My bad. I just get annoyed when people seem to go all "Humanity sucks anyways" just because they're too lazy to get off their asses.

That's lazy?! Seems like way to much work, nihilism is the way to go xD.

_______________________
Thorin | Save The Rebangs

what is nihilism? and how do you get your signature to automatically go on every post you make?

[GRAWRG.]

CA needs to make up their minds on gay marriage and weed, and go back to contributing the majority of their news to TMZ 0.o
im sitting here thinking that maybe im just in a bad mood for wanting to do nothing but insult CA and fatty (who i believe started this topic) in this post. but i really think it needed to be said. why on earth is there another topic on weed?! phrase it however you'd like, incorporate it into ongoing discussions all you'd like, the community's stance on weed is not changing. how is no one getting bored with this? it's like, the same discussion weekly. im just surprised no one else finds this annoying.

[Catfish]

Actually.. seeing as this is the first vote of its kind (recreational use), which if passed would be a crucial step towards legalization, i think this topic is valid. Cali was the first state to legalize medical marijuana, and 14 other states have followed suit since then (1996). I think recreational usage will pretty much follow the same trend, especially when other states look at the effects that taxing marijuana has on Cali's economy. The community's stance on weed is definitely changing, something like this would never have had a chance 10 years ago (or even less).

[LordSturm]

My personal belief is marijuana should of never even been legal for medical use, and I truly fear what will happen if it becomes legal for recreational use. The claims that it is completely safe are untrue. Any substance that alters your ability to rationaly make decisions is unsafe. I cant wait to see how many weed related auto accidents we are going to get to read about in the papers now.

on that note i also believe regular cigarettes, cigars and chew should be banned as well but thats just me.

[MadAce]

My personal belief is marijuana should of never even been legal for medical use, and I truly fear what will happen if it becomes legal for recreational use. The claims that it is completely safe are untrue. Any substance that alters your ability to rationaly make decisions is unsafe. I cant wait to see how many weed related auto accidents we are going to get to read about in the papers now.

on that note i also believe regular cigarettes, cigars and chew should be banned as well but thats just me.

Substances that alter rational decision making?

This kinda stops us from eating and drinking altogether. If you would apply only a little more scrutiny then people shouldn't use most medication, should be affected by a lot of their own hormones and things like dopamine, serotonin, endorphins, adrenalin, ... Sugar and coffee should be banned.

You ever seen the movie Equilibrium?


As for Marijuana and driving...

meh: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5450

Surprising isn't it?

[LordSturm]

first off your article is from a website that wants pot to be legal so of course every "fact" they provide will praise it and state how it mildly affects motor skills. that article is biased and therefore not usable as evidence.

however it still states it does not dramatically affect motor control. They do not state it has no affect whatsoever.

Many medications warning lables specifically state not to drive, or operate any heavy machinery for the very reason it affects your cognitive abilities. the difference is these medications provide provide a medicinal benifit, and some people cannot function without medications. Marijuana provides no benifit to the casual user.

so i believe no, i do not need to scrutinize my responce. there is no logical reason to allow the legal use of marijuana for recreation other than that you use it, you cant have it legally, so now youd like to use it legally.

[MadAce]

first off your article is from a website that wants pot to be legal so of course every "fact" they provide will praise it and state how it mildly affects motor skills. that article is biased and therefore not usable as evidence.

Then it shouldn't be too hard for you to find scientific evidence contradicting what I found.

I'll just ignore the fact that you initial claim was unproven and that the link I gave you was a summary of various reputable scientific studies.

however it still states it does not dramatically affect motor control. They do not state it has no affect whatsoever.

They sometimes even say it makes someone even more careful.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/mis ... t78_1g.htm

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

DOT HS 808 078 NOVEMBER 1993

MARIJUANA AND ACTUAL DRIVING PERFORMANCE

CONCLUSIONS

The major conclusions from the present program are summarized as follows:

* Current users of marijuana prefer THC doses of about 300 ug/kg to achieve their desired "high".

* It is possible to safely study the effects of marijuana on driving on highways or city streets in the presence of other traffic.

* Marijuana smoking impairs fundamental road tracking ability with the degree if impairment increasing as a function of the consumed THC dose.

* Marijuana smoking which delivers THC up to a 300 ug/kg dose slightly impairs the ability to maintain a constant headway while following another car.

* A low THC dose (100 ug/kg) does not impair driving ability in urban traffic to the same extent as a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.04g%.

* Drivers under the influence of marijuana tend to over-estimate the adverse effects of the drug on their driving quality and compensate when they can; e.g. by increasing effort to accomplish the task, increasing headway or slowing down, or a combination of these.

* Drivers under the influence of alcohol tend to under-estimate the adverse effects of the drug on their driving quality and do not invest compensatory effort.

* The maximum road tracking impairment after the highest THC dose (300 ug/kg) was within a range of effects produced by many commonly used medicinal drugs and less than that associated with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08g% in previous studies employing the same test.

Many medications warning lables specifically state not to drive, or operate any heavy machinery for the very reason it affects your cognitive abilities. the difference is these medications provide provide a medicinal benifit, and some people cannot function without medications. Marijuana provides no benifit to the casual user.

People who know about Marijuana will not try to drive and not try to operate any heavy machinery. When the substance would be made to be legal then sufficient warnings would have to be provided on the package. Warnings like "Warning, may cause increased appetite. Warning, may induce laughter. Warning, when attempting to overdose severe depression may be the result of failure".

Whether or not Marijuana is a benefit is not for you to determine. People should be free to use whatever doesn't harm them or society.

so i believe no, i do not need to scrutinize my responce. there is no logical reason to allow the legal use of marijuana for recreation other than that you use it, you cant have it legally, so now youd like to use it legally.

You have to scrutinize yourself whenever you claim something without backing it up with facts.

[GRAWRG.]

Actually.. seeing as this is the first vote of its kind (recreational use), which if passed would be a crucial step towards legalization, i think this topic is valid. Cali was the first state to legalize medical marijuana, and 14 other states have followed suit since then (1996). I think recreational usage will pretty much follow the same trend, especially when other states look at the effects that taxing marijuana has on Cali's economy. The community's stance on weed is definitely changing, something like this would never have had a chance 10 years ago (or even less).

fair enough, on all the stuff except the last sentence. by the community i meant the sge community, because we're the only people posting here.. and i didnt mean that opinions arent changing over a period of years or even several months, i meant since the last time weed was talked about on forums... probably under 2 months ago?

yes, its a vote. but i know we've talked about weed for non-medicinal purposes, even if there wasnt a vote... wouldn't most people have read the responses and gotten the idea? but i'll drop it now.

[MadAce]

Mr.Checkov has a valid argument, no matter how many "facts" he doesn't support with "viable" links from this thing we call the "internet".

He does not have a valid argument. He's making a scientific claim and should thus be able to back it up with research.

[Catfish]

Actually.. seeing as this is the first vote of its kind (recreational use), which if passed would be a crucial step towards legalization, i think this topic is valid. Cali was the first state to legalize medical marijuana, and 14 other states have followed suit since then (1996). I think recreational usage will pretty much follow the same trend, especially when other states look at the effects that taxing marijuana has on Cali's economy. The community's stance on weed is definitely changing, something like this would never have had a chance 10 years ago (or even less).

fair enough, on all the stuff except the last sentence. by the community i meant the sge community, because we're the only people posting here.. and i didnt mean that opinions arent changing over a period of years or even several months, i meant since the last time weed was talked about on forums... probably under 2 months ago?

yes, its a vote. but i know we've talked about weed for non-medicinal purposes, even if there wasnt a vote... wouldn't most people have read the responses and gotten the idea? but i'll drop it now.

oh, misunderstood what you meant by community, i get what you meant now.

When the substance would be made to be legal then sufficient warnings would have to be provided on the package. Warnings like "Warning, may cause increased appetite. Warning, may induce laughter. Warning, when attempting to overdose severe depression may be the result of failure".

+2 for MadAce, this made me laugh

[mcdfatty]

Here is a fact to consider: When ever a major bill is proposed in california ( such as Proposition 8 legalizing gay marriage), at least 4 states propose it right after: Arizona Washington Oregon and Nevada. If the major bill passes in cali, then the 4 states follow suit. If it loses in cali, it will lose in those states. So maybe 1 state with legal weed is ok, but this will be highly unlikely if cali passes the bill. We may actually have 5 states with legal weed, which will lead other states to do similar. So do you actually want legalized weed in all of america? I wouldnt like that, but what about you guys? what do you think about this?

zed55

[Catfish]

Here is a fact to consider: When ever a major bill is proposed in california ( such as Proposition 8 legalizing gay marriage), at least 4 states propose it right after: Arizona Washington Oregon and Nevada. If the major bill passes in cali, then the 4 states follow suit. If it loses in cali, it will lose in those states. So maybe 1 state with legal weed is ok, but this will be highly unlikely if cali passes the bill. We may actually have 5 states with legal weed, which will lead other states to do similar. So do you actually want legalized weed in all of america? I wouldnt like that, but what about you guys? what do you think about this?

zed55

thats generally the point of one state passing a bill like this.. just gotta wait 20 years for ohio to follow their lead now xD

[mcdfatty]

Here is a fact to consider: When ever a major bill is proposed in california ( such as Proposition 8 legalizing gay marriage), at least 4 states propose it right after: Arizona Washington Oregon and Nevada. If the major bill passes in cali, then the 4 states follow suit. If it loses in cali, it will lose in those states. So maybe 1 state with legal weed is ok, but this will be highly unlikely if cali passes the bill. We may actually have 5 states with legal weed, which will lead other states to do similar. So do you actually want legalized weed in all of america? I wouldnt like that, but what about you guys? what do you think about this?

zed55

thats generally the point of one state passing a bill like this.. just gotta wait 20 years for ohio to follow their lead now xD

I love how this is one of the most popular new topic in the garbage chute,

[mcdfatty]

Less than a month away is when it will be voted on.