Legalize marijuana? Not so fast Though an Assembly panel has taken a step in that direction, it's too soon for such a dramatic action. Marijuana advocates are cheering the Assembly's Public Safety Committee for voting out a measure Tuesday designed to legalize, tax and regulate the sale of the drug to adults 21 and over. The bill is being marketed as a revenue raiser; the Board of Equalization estimates that the state could reap up to $1.3 billion in sorely needed tax revenue, and proponents have skillfully wielded the budget crisis to boost support for the measure. Polls show that 56% of Californians back legalizing marijuana. Across the country, the numbers are somewhat lower, but nevertheless momentum is building for a reconsideration of marijuana laws covering both medicinal and recreational use. Many states now treat marijuana offenses as mere infractions, not subject to jail time. The American Medical Assn. recently reversed its long-held position and urged more research into the drug's properties. Still, for California to purport to legalize marijuana unilaterally raises several serious concerns. For one thing, to do so simply because the state faces a budget crisis would be a rash and reckless way to make public policy. More important, California does not have the authority to take such a step. Cannabis may be the nation's largest cash crop, but marijuana remains a Schedule I drug, deemed by the federal government to have a high potential for abuse, no accepted medical value and illegal to use under all circumstances. Perhaps Californians have been emboldened by their pioneering role in legalizing medicinal marijuana, but in truth, the conflict between state and federal law has had serious consequences for users and distributors caught in the federal web. Yes, the Obama administration now has a formal policy of ignoring medical marijuana activity in states that have passed laws permitting its use, and the Justice Department has halted raids on dispensaries and prosecutions of sick patients. But that is merely a truce. Widespread legalization for recreational purposes is almost guaranteed to upset the delicate detente with Washington. AB 390, sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), would not be an appropriate first step for California. It's true that a $50-per-ounce fee is included in the bill that would go to anti-drug programs. But that's not enough. The state needs a thorough airing of the pros and cons of legalization and the pitfalls related to abuse of the drug before taking such dramatic action. We welcome a debate over legalizing marijuana, but we do not support this bill. Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times Legalize marijuana? Not so fast - latimes.com
it seems they are still stuck under the un-educated ignorance branch of what cannabis really does hold for us, fuck the media we; will see this through the bill.
he does make a good point that california does not have the athourity to straight up break a federal law, but its good that people actually have the balls to stand up to those pinstripe douchers over in DC those fuckbags will be doing whatever they want until people start saying fuck you and telling them to shove it where the sun don't shine
...but marijuana remains a Schedule I drug, deemed by the federal government to have a high potential for abuse, no accepted medical value and illegal to use under all circumstances. That don't make a lick of difference because if it did there would be no MMP's in effect.
What a worthless article, their only reason for not supporting legalization is because of federal law, which obviously they don't understand is unconstitutional.
True, but hopefully the fact that a state as influential and powerful as California is willing to challenge the Federal Government over the legal status of marijuana will be enough of a wake up call for the Feds to at least re-assess it's Schedule I status. It's not like the Federal Gov. can arrest the entire state of California if this goes through. I'd like to think that once the Fed makes one small change to its marijuana policy, it opens it up to more changes through the snowball effect. Plus, once the official tax revenues from California become documented, I would bet that most of our government officials will let their lust for tax dollars overcome their (feigned) morality. Once the California numbers become public, I believe that you won't have to convince the rest of America that marijuana isn't immoral or harmful, you just have to convince them that getting a billion dollars from taxing it is more helpful to our country than spending a billion dollars prosecuting it. The people of this country have a very wide spectrum of beliefs on the marijuana issue, but I'm almost everyone believes that getting money is better than spending money.
People are so fucking stupid. I don't give a fuck if it helps the fucking budget crisis or not, the point is its my god damn right to smoke whatever the fuck I want and no fucking 60 year old who is fucking 19 year old dudes in Congress should be able to tell me otherwise....and that's that. Sigh...people need to stop being god damn stupid and just legalize it, its a fucking crime that its been illegal this long because of propaganda and no truths or facts.
Kudos to both Monkeybiz and redchrons Actually there are some projected numbers out there that shows there would cause a substantial revenue, which I totally believe is WAY lower then they actually predict. I mean come on these numbers are probably based on a revenue generated only from the people that have been CAUGHT with possession, and if it becomes legal and regulated with no fear of prosecution I believe the acceptance factor would shoot through the roof. Also I wish it wasn't only last year that I found out about all this propaganda and lies. Had I not made the resolution for '09 for my green a day under the stipulation that while I consume I would study the facts and see for myself once and for all why the government thinks they should hold prohibition on Marijuana. Which I might add I am glad I did. To be quite sincere, I wish I picked up a joint way before I ever touched a cigarette, I would pick Mary Jane over a pack of smokes any day. I would be even willing to go as far as to say, if I haven't quit smoking tobacco before hand, I would easily give it up for Mary Jane the day I can goto the store and buy it.
If you would like to comment on the article title a better one would be "Legalization of Marijuana - To Damn Slow!"
Here's my take. If CA "legalizes" cannabis, all that really means it they are basically telling law enforcement under state (and lower) jurisdictions that cannabis is no longer contraband under State statue. If the Federal Government wants to police and make arrests under Federal statutes, they still have the legal right to do so? I might be wrong on this.
not so fast? This substance has been used for thousands of years for recreational use, medical use, industrial use. The prohibition of marijuana is merely a blink of the eye in time. This plant will always be used as long as humans populate this planet.
The fact that he even brings up those Draconic drug laws discredits any merit he may have had. The people will show our policiticians what we want in november. Plain and simple. Cali will speak for us all.
Make no mistake, the "No On MJ" campaigns are going to be harsh and numerous. This is NOT a done deal. It needs a fight.
I wish I was there to help your cause over there, but I'm all the way on the other side of the US, the most I can do is post angry letter's to editors that use False "Facts" in their reports.
I agree, I think the passing of the bill the other day was a bad thing because of how it wasn't finished and even though there is still november 2010 there is going to be a FUCKTON of anti marijuana campaigning up to that vote, tuesday would have avoided the whole mess.