Marijuana Legalization Groups- Helping the cause?

Discussion in 'General' started by skatealex2, Sep 27, 2009.

  1. #1 skatealex2, Sep 27, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 27, 2009
    Have they accomplished much? Are groups like NORML responsible for helping medical marijuana pass in the states that it did and decriminalization ?


    I'm wondering if these groups largely about the money or if they are sincerely trying to get marijuana legalized to the best that they can?

    this article got me thinking:


    War breaks out within the marijuana legalization movement (part 1)


    I imagine they have had some positive effects, but you would think more would be accomplished by now. I don't understand why they don't try tp make some sort of world wide protest/collaboration to get things rolling.......................


    there are obviously real marijuana advocates in the organizations but if marijuana were legalized there would be no need for MPP or NORML anymore.


    what do you think?:smoking:
     
  2. I don't think it's an issue of a civil war, I think it's an issue of realists taking over from the idealists. In every movement that is both ideological and political there is always a passing on of batons. This usually occurs, in part, because the old leaders are no longer effective and are unable to cope with the changing times.

    I've mentioned elsewhere that I've worked in political campaigns. And successful political campaigns require, above all else, MONEY. California is a slight exception in that Californians in general are pro-pot. But let's be honest, if we want to discuss essentially legalization of marijuana in the United States, we're talking having 50 different states change their laws.

    That requires the following:
    1) Ad Campaigns
    2) Extensive campaign donations
    3) Extensive lobbying campaigns

    Those are all exceptionally expensive.

    Further, changing the status quo is always difficult. That means there must be an incentive to the states in question for changing the status quo. That incentive is tax revenue. In return for the tax revenue, the state provides law enforcement and quality control.

    Pushing for regulation now is merely good sense. Even IF there were some vast re-legalization (and I fail to see how that could even be achieved), even IF that occurred, it would eventually devolve into a regulated and taxed system among the 50 states. Some states allow for personal brewing of alcohol in one's own home, but beyond that there are SERIOUS SERIOUS restrictions on alcohol and how it can be produced and sold.

    And that's a good thing, because it ensures quality, public safety, and money for the state government.

    I'm very libertarian in my views of how the government should be run. I'm a strict originalist in terms of the Constitution. BUT I am also a realist and I recognize the realities of the situation are very different from what I want them to be.

    As I previously stated: even if there were some form of re-legalization, within a few short years it would become heavily regulated anyways. As a tactical choice the superior course of action is to push for regulation now, which is both a compromise with our opponents, a benefit to the common good, and give us a greater hand in forming how the regulation regime will look.

    Instead of a bunch of legislators sitting around and deciding how to fleece the people the most, we can have a real hand in creating an optimal regulation regime in California that can then be pushed to be replicated as model legislation in other states.

    The Marijuana Policy Project and NORML do a lot of good work, they do excellent fund raising and run good commercials. But they don't have the type of coffers needed to implenet regulation schemas even in a state like California. But who does? Business men and women who have made money from MMJ thus far in California and who can go to war with that money.

    Earlier I discussed how this is a compromise. The truth is that the people want marijuana regulated like alcohol is regulated. They want standards. As a veteran of the public relations side of a political campaigns I can say this with 100% cerittude: if you try to fight the popular sentiment, you will lose.

    Oaksterdam and a few others were setting up for a political battle by raising their profile over the last 2 years and partnering with other businesses to show how taxation can benefit the cities and states. In our Ameircan capitalist system free enterprise is the driver of the economy and the driver of the political process. Once marijuana businesses have been shown to be successful, they become inevitable.

    The future of legalization rests in regulated canni-business. You might try to fight it from the prohibition side, you might try to fight it from the re-legalization side. Either way you'll be on the wrong side of history, and you'll lose. Join the fight on the side that the demographics have already given victory to ('demographics are destiny'), and try to influence the outcome ever so marginally toward your preferred position.

    Since we're talking politics we'll conclude with a quote from the Reese Witherspoon classic, "Election."

    "He should have just accepted things as they are instead of trying to interfere with destiny. You see, you can't interfere with destiny. That's why it's destiny. And if you try to interfere, the same thing's going to happen anyway, and you'll just suffer"
     
  3. I'm bumping this because I was pretty impressed with my own reply. LOL.

    +reps self.

    Seriously though, would like to hear other people's thoughts on this.
     
  4. Im bumping this too. gonna read your reply when I have more time- that looks well thought out

    [​IMG]
     

Share This Page