PDA

View Full Version : AB390 Marijuania bill.


nicki
04-12-2009, 1:57 PM
AB390 is moving through the assembly, sponsored by Tom Ariamano, a San Fran Liberal Dem who is our enemy. Major mover of Prop H. Tom knows who the Pink Pistols are because the SF chapter was in his face and he knows that even though we were small in number, Prop H got significantly support than prop 15 did in 1982 due to SF Pink Pistol efforts.

I contacted NORML(National organization for the reform of marijuania laws) and initial contact is that they are open to having pro gun speakers speaking in favor of the bill.

In my Pink Pistol chapter, no one supports the drug war at all, I am touching base with other chapters on the issue, but my gut tells me, it is universal.

Generally our chapters attract libertarian minded individuals. We dont have too many social conservatives in our groups.

Which brings me to this post. I know that this board is split on supporting the drug war, my purpose of this post is not to start division amongst ourselves, rather it is to get a poll on this group.

Since this board contains the activist elements of the gun community, the leaders, I would like to get your opinions which is why I have a poll.

If I don't have a response you would like, make a posting.

I don't know how much time I would have to speak, but the following issues would be some of the issues I would address.

1. Close to half the gun related crimes in our country are side effects both directly and indirectly to our drug prohibition. Anything that cuts down on the size of that black market will reduce violence.

2. This bill will open the door for Industrial Hemp production, anything that helps the economy, by default reduces crime.

3. Gun owners get sick too. Medical marijania works, people should not have to give up their guns to take medicine.

4. Mexican Drug cartels have illegal marijaunia farms in remote areas of the state. Hunters should not have to worry about getting into armed combat if they accidently come across these illegal "marijuania operations".

The people of California voted for prop 215 in 1996. Rather than respecting our 9th and 10th amendment rights, the Federal government is saying screw you to the will of the people of California.

This bill will of course be challenged by the Federal government and it will probably result in litigation on the 9th and 10th amendments and possibly a direct challenge of the Federal government's expanded authority by claiming everything we do is "Interstate Commerce".

I am more than a gun rights supporter, I am a rights supporter, I support the whole bill of rights, not just the parts I like.

Now, if the interstate commerce clause is reduced to what I believe was original intent, that is to "create free trade zones" and to facilitate interstate commerce between the states, alot of Fed regulations will have their legal foundations cut out from undeneath them.

Here is the good one for us. Anyone who votes for AB390 is acknowledging that prohibitions don't work.

For those of us who have anti gun politicians, a vote for AB390 undemines any vote they make for more victim disarmanent.

This bill will help set up the term, "selective choice" on rights rather than pro choice.

I view this as a 1 in a 1000 shot, but the payoff will be at least 1 million to 1, so I am going for things.

Thanks for your participation.

Nicki

MrTenX
04-12-2009, 2:18 PM
I support 100%
For a good read on why marijuana is illegal in this country read this (http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/3jcl/3JCL29.htm).
Start around 1/4 of the way down with the Harrison Act.

bwiese
04-12-2009, 2:21 PM
Nicki,

PLEASE FOR GAWDSAKES DON'T DO THIS AND MIX UP THESE ISSUES.

I do agree that the drug war is lost and that the only thing as useless as the French Army With Accordions is a bunch of DEA agents & drug cops.

But we do NOT need gun issues conflated with drug issues. "Druggies for guns" concept will be used against us.

AJAX22
04-12-2009, 2:29 PM
Normally I would agree with you on this bill, but living in the heart of Liberalsville I've come to realize that many of our oponents in this fight are against the NRA and all gun owners because they view them all as white christian ultra conservatives who are against gay marrige, abortion, and the legalization of marjuana.

Many of them don't care one way or the other about firearms, but vote against them because they view 'us' as being inflexible on other issues... (abortion and gay rights are the big ones that get thrown around alot)

It wouldn't hurt to have some libertarian support for these issues (not affiliated with any groups directly) as we would have an opportunity to win a LOT of supporters over to our cause instead of preaching to the choir.

nick
04-12-2009, 2:50 PM
I'm of two minds here. On one hand, I thinkdrug use creates great damage not only to an individual, but to a society, especially so when drugs are affordable and easily available. On the other hand, it's impossible to ban drugs without basically creating a draconian society (which imposes an even greater risk on society), and preventing drug usage should be more on the parents/society itself (and parents/families must be left alone by the government in order to be able todeal with this and other issues without having to constantly look over their shoulders at what the government may do to take their kids away). Also, it's not the government's business to tell one what he can or cannot do to himself. It can (and should) punish him for damaging others, but one should be able to do whatever he wants to himself.

With this specific bill, my problem with it is that it "allows" marijuana rather than declaring that the government has no authority to regulate its use, and thus it will not regulate it. I would gladly support it on that grounds.

AJAX22
04-12-2009, 3:00 PM
drugs that are readily available (legally) have significantly less social impact than those which are illegal...

with prohibition comes higher proffit margins.... with higher proffit margins comes increased crime....

what you get is the difference between moonshine guys avoiding taxation, and organized crime running the liquor racket...

nick
04-12-2009, 3:02 PM
drugs that are readily available (legally) have significantly less social impact than those which are illegal...

with prohibition comes higher proffit margins.... with higher proffit margins comes increased crime....

what you get is the difference between moonshine guys avoiding taxation, and organized crime running the liquor racket...

Yup.

mike100
04-12-2009, 3:06 PM
I'm pretty sure legal Mary-Jane would put you in a gun prohibited category.

I'm pretty sure hidden illegal cultivation will still exist because 'the man' still wants his taxes. It will probably be more illegal to grow a stalk in your closet than it is now due to revenue issues.

there are plenty of other people to speak in support of this- I wouldn't go near it.

7x57
04-12-2009, 3:20 PM
I have too many nuances about this subject to vote in a poll.

I have no sympathy for MJ use, even for medical purposes. I don't care much about the hemphead's theories that all the world's problems can be solved with hemp.

That said, the War on Drugs is unquestionably a failure, both for us and elsewhere. I place a pretty high value on getting the money out of the hands of the worst people in the world.

But finally it comes down to the Constitution first. I think the Prohibitionists were correct in seeking a Constitutional amendment, however futile their policy proposal, and so without a similar one for other substances I don't believe the Feds have the Constitutional power to regulate drugs. This is just another head of the commerce-clause hydra. I think Prohibition shows pretty well that this is one of those powers reserved to the states or the people.

The states may well have this power, but one would have to check each state Constitution separately to see if the people of each state had in fact delegated that power. If the state Constitution doesn't permit it, it's not a policy option however desirable.

Finally, in those states where the power was delegated (let's assume this is a non-empty set), we could discuss policy: should we attempt to ban or not? There is little experimental evidence that this is a good policy, but within their Constitutions states have the power to choose poorly, just as free individuals have the right to choose poorly in many ways. It might be even more questionable if there are a substantial number of states that cannot restrict drug use or choose not to do so, as you raise the spectre of interstate drug-running (which the feds may have the power to regulate or forbid, as that may be an actual legitimate use of the commerce clause, but it will happen anyway). Sounds like running moonshine during Prohibition.

I'm more interested in ensuring that we are within the Constitution than I am with determining the best policy, but I only see discussions about practicality. It's useful to talk about whether any good at all comes of the Drug War (and recall I haven't the slightest bit of sympathy for drug use whatsoever, I'd be happy if drug use made you ineligible to vote for example), but not as important as discussing what the inherent limitations of the government actually are. People don't think it has any, that's a worse problem than drugs.

7x57

nicki
04-12-2009, 3:33 PM
But we do NOT need gun issues conflated with drug issues. "Druggies for guns" concept will be used against us.
__________________


Like it or not, Drugs and Guns are being mixed together. The Mexican government is saying that the drug war and their internal problems are our fault.

We have an actual bill AB390 that will be voted on in the legislature and the outcome of this bill will effect gun rights.

We have a opportunity to possibly actually some of our opponents and maybe, just maybe, reach them indirectly.

We are at WAR to protect our rights and in order to win a WAR, we have to engage in BATTLES and we will have to risk some CASUALTIES.

Being against the DRUG WAR does not equate to supporting DRUG ABUSE.

The gun community is painted by the media as a bunch of narrow minded, redneck, uncaring, self centered, clinging to their bibles who want to turn back all the progress of minorities and that is the way the many of the Dems in the legislature see US.

The above description does not describe the gun community, but it is how we are percieved.

Sure, we have some gun owners who are self centered, narrow minded and uncaring, but that is not the majority of us.

I have found "Rednecks and Bible Clingers" actually to be good decent people.

I think few of us want to undo equal rights for women and minorities.

The media pretty much has thrown everything bad at us already and if they are going to do it, they would have done it already.

It is no secret that Libertarians oppose the drug war and are pro gun, but I have yet to see a large media hit piece campaign on a ongoing basis attacking libertarians as druggie gunnies.

If I go up and the media does a "hatchet job", they do so at the risk of alienating the whole LBGT community against them.

The LBGT community may be against me because I'm pro gun, but if I'm atttacked, they are attacked.

After attending a few SAF GRPC conferences, what I have discovered is a libertarian shift among the leadership of many other gun groups across the country.

I am disposable. If I crash and burn, you guys can distance yourselves from me.

You can say, we tried to be open minded, tolerant and look what it got us.

On the flip side, if I make some headway, you get a free ride.

I made this poll so rather than make assumptions about you guys, I would actually have numbers.

If the people on this board overwhelmingly support the Drug War, that is fine, I could care less, I dont use drugs myself, it doesn't matter to me.

They could bring back alcohol prohbition, they could ban tobacco, all those are things that I don't do in my life because I don't want to poison myself.

What does matter to me is the right to make choices, even bad ones.

Taking a POLL, talking to a rep for NORML, and maybe even talking for two minutes at a Assembly hearing is a small risk.

I doubt it will even make the evening news. But in the highly unlikely event that the story goes viral and I become infamous, I won't forget you guys:rolleyes:

Nicki

Alphahookups
04-12-2009, 3:37 PM
AB390 is moving through the assembly, sponsored by Tom Ariamano, a San Fran Liberal Dem who is our enemy. Major mover of Prop H. Tom knows who the Pink Pistols are because the SF chapter was in his face and he knows that even though we were small in number, Prop H got significantly support than prop 15 did in 1982 due to SF Pink Pistol efforts.

I contacted NORML(National organization for the reform of marijuania laws) and initial contact is that they are open to having pro gun speakers speaking in favor of the bill.

In my Pink Pistol chapter, no one supports the drug war at all, I am touching base with other chapters on the issue, but my gut tells me, it is universal.

Generally our chapters attract libertarian minded individuals. We dont have too many social conservatives in our groups.

Which brings me to this post. I know that this board is split on supporting the drug war, my purpose of this post is not to start division amongst ourselves, rather it is to get a poll on this group.

Since this board contains the activist elements of the gun community, the leaders, I would like to get your opinions which is why I have a poll.

If I don't have a response you would like, make a posting.

I don't know how much time I would have to speak, but the following issues would be some of the issues I would address.

1. Close to half the gun related crimes in our country are side effects both directly and indirectly to our drug prohibition. Anything that cuts down on the size of that black market will reduce violence.

2. This bill will open the door for Industrial Hemp production, anything that helps the economy, by default reduces crime.

3. Gun owners get sick too. Medical marijania works, people should not have to give up their guns to take medicine.

4. Mexican Drug cartels have illegal marijaunia farms in remote areas of the state. Hunters should not have to worry about getting into armed combat if they accidently come across these illegal "marijuania operations".

The people of California voted for prop 215 in 1996. Rather than respecting our 9th and 10th amendment rights, the Federal government is saying screw you to the will of the people of California.

This bill will of course be challenged by the Federal government and it will probably result in litigation on the 9th and 10th amendments and possibly a direct challenge of the Federal government's expanded authority by claiming everything we do is "Interstate Commerce".

I am more than a gun rights supporter, I am a rights supporter, I support the whole bill of rights, not just the parts I like.

Now, if the interstate commerce clause is reduced to what I believe was original intent, that is to "create free trade zones" and to facilitate interstate commerce between the states, alot of Fed regulations will have their legal foundations cut out from undeneath them.

Here is the good one for us. Anyone who votes for AB390 is acknowledging that prohibitions don't work.

For those of us who have anti gun politicians, a vote for AB390 undemines any vote they make for more victim disarmanent.

This bill will help set up the term, "selective choice" on rights rather than pro choice.

I view this as a 1 in a 1000 shot, but the payoff will be at least 1 million to 1, so I am going for things.

Thanks for your participation.

Nicki

I agree with Bill...the last thing we want if for people to think the gun advocates are also drug advocates. The two should never be related.

To play devil's advocate, these are arguments against your points, respectively.
1)In reference to your first argument:
1...prove your statistics.
2...just because something cuts down on violence, it does not mean that it is ethical or correct.
2) It's arguable that hemp in it's unsmokable form can already be used for production.
3) I don't think you are a doctor, so I'm not sure how you would be able to quantify that medical marijuana "works". To my recollection, all medical marijuana does is temporarily make the pain go away, to which there are already legal drugs that do the same thing.
4) It can be argued that if you legalized medical marijuana, you move the danger from the fields to the streets, because you have to deal with DUI's more often.

Lastly, you have to make a decision. It sounds like you are on the fence for states rights. You talk about the federal government overruling the California decision yet you claim to want incorporation, which is in opposite to that exact position.

Devil advocate aside, I think Marijuana should be legal if for no other reason than it's no worse then alcohol or tobacco.

nicki
04-12-2009, 4:16 PM
People do things emotionally. So let's go over a few things.

Prop 63 passed because most Californians believed the jails were full of non violent drug offenders and every cop I talked to in the bay area acknolwedges that half the arrests and court cases are directly and indirectly related to drugs. Granted, this deals with just marijuania, but it is a step to bringing sanity to all of our drug policies.

We have the highest incarceration rate in the world and our prisons are overflowing. Why do you think we are letting career criminals out of prison early.

If police resources are tied up dealing with drug crimes, it means they are not being used elswhere.[/I]


2...just because something cuts down on violence, it does not mean that it is ethical or correct.

The government has a constitutional duty to provide for the common defense. Any government policy that creates problems conflicts with their constitutional duties. Ethical or correct is debatable, whose morals are we going to use. God gave us free will, our government should recognize our rights to make bad choices and to live with the consequences of our actions.


2) It's arguable that hemp in it's unsmokable form can already be used for production.

Other states have tried to pass hemp industrial bills, but the hemp industry is on hold because of the THC content issue. Hemp that is good for rope is not good for dope, but that is enough of a issue to stop the Hemp industry. This of course is another issue.


3) I don't think you are a doctor, so I'm not sure how you would be able to quantify that medical marijuana "works". To my recollection, all medical marijuana does is temporarily make the pain go away, to which there are already legal drugs that do the same thing.

I am not a doctor, but I am in the medical field and I deal with alot of people who have medical issues and have done so all my life. I will tell you that cancer patients, MS patients, people with parkinson's and AIDS patients say that marijuania works. Other people I know in the medical profession have found the same thing.

The Doctors have been quiet because the DEA has threatened to yank their medical licenses if they prescribed marijuania medically.

I know of Parkinson's patients who inquired about Marinol. It was available, but it would cost 700 dollars per month out of pocket. This is the discount rate for someone on medical, the regular rate would be 900 dollars per month and it is not covered by most insurance plans.

Cancer patients who are on chemo have sever nausea and their digestive system does not work.

The argument that they should take horse pills which take 20 to 30 minutes to take effect if they are properly absorbed when they are throwing up to get their medicine versus smoking the medicine which bypasses the digestive tract and goes directly into the blood system and thus can be more readily controlled by the user is something that is cruel and barbaric.

4) It can be argued that if you legalized medical marijuana, you move the danger from the fields to the streets, because you have to deal with DUI's more often.

Marijuania levels can be detected in the blood, we can come up with a impairment rating system, kind of like we do with Alcohol.

Lastly, you have to make a decision. It sounds like you are on the fence for states rights. You talk about the federal government overruling the California decision yet you claim to want incorporation, which is in opposite to that exact position.

I believe in pitting the Feds and the States against each other. I am for Individual rights. As a practical manner, I believe that the more local we keep government, the more control we have over it.

However, we need to have a means to control state and local governments that get out of control.

I support states rights, but I don't support states having the ability to deny residents of their states their natural rights. The people of the state must have a way to protect their rights from state and local government abuses and if that means the Feds can come in and enforce civil rights, so be it.

Nothing is perfect, it is a give and take. Had the US Supreme court actually upheld the 14th amendment in the Slaughter house cases and Crunshiak, many of the laws we have today that we are fighting probably would never have happened since they had their roots in stripping non whites of their rights.

Good debate points.:thumbsup: I need to sharpen my skills.:mad:

Nicki

]

SubstanceP
04-12-2009, 4:22 PM
Medical marijania works, people should not have to give up their guns to take medicine.

I'm all for legalizing pot, but, this claim is ridiculous. Most peeps making this claim believe pot's a pain med. Yeah sure!

WDIK? Drugs are just my business.

BTW, the evil pharma industry is working on a class of pain meds that may knock out ALL pain sensation.

Alphahookups
04-12-2009, 4:40 PM
Good debate points.:thumbsup: I need to sharpen my skills.:mad:

Nicki

No worries...I'm just here to reiterate what people will undoubtedly bring at you.

Like I said before...I am a true libertarian and I think people should be able to do whatever they want to their OWN bodies.

...that said, I think we should still be carefully who fights these fights as it's easy to lump drugs and guns into a bad category and cast them away.

We support gun rights and drug rights, but all people will see is guns and drugs and they will vote against both.

A324
04-12-2009, 4:51 PM
I thought this was the 2nd Amend. Politics and Laws forum?

Does the 2nd Amendment cover marijuana legalization too? Did I miss something?

AJAX22
04-12-2009, 4:56 PM
I thought this was the 2nd Amend. Politics and Laws forum?

Does the 2nd Amendment cover marijuana legalization too? Did I miss something?

The interaction of state and federal law has far reaching implications...


and from a ethical standpoint, freedom is freedom

dfletcher
04-12-2009, 5:26 PM
Drugs and guns are being illegally mixed, look how well that's turned out for us. At least we can point at the affair and disavow it. If they are linked as a voting group or some legitimate endeavor, how on earth do we handle that? I don't think we need pot to become our own Reverend Wright.

Since this is a political issue it should be addressed in political terms and not just social terms, so the whole "MJ is bad or good" isn't important in that context. What do we get out of this politically? Is Ammiano going to be progun or even neutral? No. Will he get Mark Leno to dump his Cow Palace gun show ban bill? No. Are potsmokers going to hit the polls and vote progun? Somehow I don't think so.

Shotgun Man
04-12-2009, 5:41 PM
My only question is that right now medical marijuana users do not have to pay a tax. So this bill will cause med mj users to pay tax?

WeRmany
04-12-2009, 6:24 PM
While I agree that pot laws are BS imposed on us by Hearst Publishing decades ago and the stuff isn't nearly as bad as alchohol and tobacco, I strongly disagree that simply legalizing it will reduce the drain on law enforcement resources or empty the prisons.

Most of the pot offenders in prison are simply habitual offenders. It is inordinately difficult to get sent to prison for pot. I doubt it can actually be done for simply using the stuff. It takes multiple convictions for massive amounts of the stuff several times. Or its an add on for more serious offenses.

Quasi legalizing it in my county was an unmitigated disaster. Grows can be seen from just about any unpaved road. They trespass, trash the environment with mega fertilizers, and are a hazard for legitimate users of the land. They are not mellow hippies. They are mexican criminals and plain white trash on parol.

If I seem a little bitter, its from experience. A grow house from a multi house organization was busted on my block and nobody went to jail. These guys were shipping out of state to their pals in the mid west. It was for profit, not medicine. Most of the home invasions you read about are about these places or their distributers. Or innocent people in their neighborhoods.

I've also raided grows on my inlaws ranch. The grows were reported by the neighbors kids riding their dirt bikes. Too small for local law enforcement, there are simply too many. If the public doesn't think there is a reason for private ownership of AR15s, this is one. This is done en mass, everybody heavily armed. Booby traps are a problem even if the tenders run.

IF they want to take down the Pot laws, it needs to be done at the national level. Anything else will just make California the grow house for the nation.

Pleasant tie dyed types looking out for those suffering from cancer are not behind these initiatives.

I think we need an initiative to adopt the Chinese solution to Meth dealers.

I'm sorry if I seem harsh, but these are real problems.

KylaGWolf
04-12-2009, 6:27 PM
Nicki sorry this is one I cant support I am deadly allergic to the stuff. If someone wants to smoke it in their house for medical purposes I am fine with it but if its on the streets I have to say no. Really puts a damper on my day having to be rushed to the ER to keep my airway open not to mention that bills that go along with that trip. Not to mention my nutso neighbor that is completely unhinged is a pot smoker and not sure but after he does it he goes absolutely nuts mood swings and everything else I can't say that it is all he does but the only one I know about. Although I will agree that alcohol can be much more of an issue as can tobacco.

Gray Peterson
04-12-2009, 8:57 PM
Lastly, you have to make a decision. It sounds like you are on the fence for states rights. You talk about the federal government overruling the California decision yet you claim to want incorporation, which is in opposite to that exact position.

I have no real stake in this situation one way or another, but I have to say that you're making a mistake of saying "the federal government" as one monolithic organization and misapplying your idea of incorporation.

The Controlled Substances Act and other assorted laws on this subject is a federal criminal law passed by Congress and enforced by the Executive Branch via the President, the Department of Justice, and DEA.

Incorporation is about applying enumerated and un-enumerated rights against state actions, either by one of two actions: Civil lawsuits against enforcement of state and local laws, or as a defense against a criminal charge.

You're conflating two different issues that have little to nothing to do with each other. Given your logic, the states could pass a law banning the possession of something is not constitutionally protected, and then can sweep search an entire block, neighborhood, or city for the possession of such things, WITHOUT WARRANT. This is where federal incorporation of the Bill of Rights comes into play if the state constitution is not sufficiently protective of the privacy rights of it's residents. This is why we have the 14th amendment in the first place, and it gave Congress specific power to ban infringements on the civil liberties by state and local actors.

There's also a different question that Nicki brings up in terms of the federal government's ability to ban certain substances under the 10th amendment, and there's certainly questions in light of the method done for alcohol prohibition (18th and 21st amendments). Gonzales v. Raich court stated that the Congress does have the ability, but courts have overturned themselves before, greatest recent example being Bowers v. Hardwick which was overturned by Lawrence v. Texas, which is now being used in some recent legal briefs in terms of overturning gun control laws on the state level.

I may not agree with the idea of conflating gun issues and drug issues, but these are rather strange times indeed. I do believe, however, that the War on Drugs have led to situations where judges on all levels are creating "drug exceptions" to the 4th amendment because of their own personal dislike for users of the substance, overall weakening the 4th amendment. In Washington State, however, our version of the 4th amendment has been interpreted to be stronger in application against state and local authorities than the 9th Circuit has for the 4th amendment. I believe that the California courts have done the same for California's version of the 4th amendment, but I'm not sure about that. A weakening of the 4th amendment in general is a danger to ALL persons, and this is likely the reason why Nicki's idea is resonating among a significant amount of those who are voting in this poll.

jphaxx
04-12-2009, 9:14 PM
I think this will destroy gangs' power and a major source of their income. over 3/4s of illegal drug users solely use marijuana. I like this bill.

bigcalidave
04-12-2009, 9:37 PM
I support it. It puts the big guys out of business, they are the most dangerous ones, and it gives the state more money, which we need for SCHOOLS! Kids are pretty much morons these days, they spend so much money hunting for pot and claiming a war on drugs that the schools have to fire all the teachers. Absurd! People who smoke pot are like people who drink. Most of them do it reasonably and with self control. There are always a few who abuse substances, but unlike with alcohol, most people who smoke too much pot can't do anything at all to risk someone elses life. :P

kermit315
04-12-2009, 9:48 PM
Look at it this way. If california does this, and legalizes something within the state, in spite of federal regulations, what is to stop them from criminalizing something in this state (guns) in spite of federal regulations.

I think it would set a dangerous precedent for them. If you want the pot laws changed, I think it needs to be started at the federal level, then worked down to the states.

rabagley
04-12-2009, 10:07 PM
It may have already been stated, but:

US drug laws are the reason why the gun homicide rate is so high (and the more important homicide rate as well).

The US drug market is currently funding the Mexican drug gangs which make all of legal gun owners (especially those of us in SoCal) look bad in the news.

The War on Drugs does nothing positive and does many negative things.

The number of users and addicts are higher than ever before.
The incarceration rate in this country is higher than many totalitarian dictatorships, and most inmates are incarcerated for drug or drug-related crimes.
Minimum sentencing rules remove discretion and negotiating ability from prosecutors and judges.
The War on Drugs is the reason that most cities, counties, and even small townships have demanded (and gotten) tax revenues to fund one or more extremely expensive SWAT units and radically expand the police force since 1950.
The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth Amendments to the US Constitution are now routinely ignored in pursuit of drugs.
Drug-infested areas have such high crime rates that they distort any analysis of crime or violence in this country.


Legalize them all. Tax the sales. Guarantee the purity. Leave irresponsible use a criminal act, just like DUI.

bigcalidave
04-12-2009, 10:20 PM
Look at it this way. If california does this, and legalizes something within the state, in spite of federal regulations, what is to stop them from criminalizing something in this state (guns) in spite of federal regulations.

I think it would set a dangerous precedent for them. If you want the pot laws changed, I think it needs to be started at the federal level, then worked down to the states.

Irrelevant of what the federal government thinks, I believe it's a step in the right direction of having the state government Legalize something that is absurd to be illegal... Just like guns. Gotta look at it from both sides. Making things illegal that the federal government says are legal, we still have protection with the constitution (in theory ;) ) Hopefully...

thedrickel
04-12-2009, 10:24 PM
You can already be on prescription narcotic painkillers, uppers, downers, anti-depressants, whatever the F . . . and still own guns legally. Why shouldn't you be able to get a weed prescription and have guns? I'd rather stoners have guns than people that need antidepressants!

GW
04-12-2009, 10:38 PM
Legalize them all. Tax the sales. Guarantee the purity. Leave irresponsible use a criminal act, just like DUI.
That states it perfectly

Takes money away from gangs and puts it in state coffers

It has to be obvious to even the thickest heads that when people want something, they will find a way to get it. And somebody will find a way to get it to them
What is the legacy of Prohibition?
organized crime
We have the same legacy from the war on drugs
Instead of wasting taxpayer dollars policing this crap, have it generate tax dollars instead.
Legalize it and tax it.

lioneaglegriffin
04-12-2009, 11:07 PM
f**kin liberals! :p

383green
04-12-2009, 11:12 PM
IMHO, this poll/topic doesn't belong in the 2nd Amendment forum. Mods, please move it to off-topic.

SP1200
04-13-2009, 12:25 AM
Please don't legalize pot. Big tobacco will just come in and take it over, then my parents wont be able to pay their sub prime mortgage!
Pot is in the perfect Grey area right now. Illegal enough for the stupid thugs to go to jail. Legal enough for for sick people to have it.

jphaxx
04-13-2009, 12:34 AM
By the way, it would also provide for clothing and paper!

jphaxx
04-13-2009, 12:37 AM
f**kin liberals! :p

By the way, I actually consider myself a liberal... fighting for more rights and more freedoms. I'm just a Jeffersonian liberal. I'd rather have the inconveniences of too much freedom than to live without any.

unusedusername
04-13-2009, 2:02 AM
I strongly agree with not mixing the issues. For what it's worth, I'm for leagalizing all things. A thing should not be a crime, only an action.

That being said, since that is not a mainstream idea, I'll support not banning things one thing at a time.

HeyZeus
04-13-2009, 4:03 AM
What is all that extra law inforcement going to do once Mary Jane is legal?
It is about money. There will be another issue raised to keep bringing money in for law inforcement.

DocSkinner
04-13-2009, 4:12 AM
Bans are bans - they are equally ineffective in all cases: guns, MJ, alcohol, books, etc...

MJ is no worse than tobacco or alcohol, and it use should be regulated exactly the same.

DocSkinner
04-13-2009, 4:16 AM
Please don't legalize pot. Big tobacco will just come in and take it over, then my parents wont be able to pay their sub prime mortgage!
Pot is in the perfect Grey area right now. Illegal enough for the stupid thugs to go to jail. Legal enough for for sick people to have it.



many would say the same about guns:

Illegal enough for the stupid thugs to go to jail. Legal enough for the people that really need them to have them.

But who determines "need"?

and as stated before - just supports thugs, and gives some politicians sound bites to get reelected, and make a lot of extremely high paying jobs over a silly plant.

And I am not even a user -

colossians323
04-13-2009, 4:17 AM
Nicki,

PLEASE FOR GAWDSAKES DON'T DO THIS AND MIX UP THESE ISSUES.

Agreed.



I do agree that the drug war is lost and that the only thing as useless as the French Army With Accordions is a bunch of DEA agents & drug cops.

But we do NOT need gun issues conflated with drug issues. "Druggies for guns" concept will be used against us.

How is this war lost?
this war was simply moved to the border states and Mexico.

If we really want to talk about lost wars wasting trillions of dollars, we better start looking at the war on poverty before we start taking resources away from the war on drugs.;)

With the weak line of reasoning the legalize crowd use, we should also legalize open borders. With all the wasted resources, we are losing this battle as well

DocSkinner
04-13-2009, 4:27 AM
as for mixing the issues -
we NEED to mix the issues.

Same logic, same reasoning. The problem is that we separate out these issues and allow the political parties to manipulate us through that division.
United we stand type of thing.

Oh - you own guns - you go in the Republican pile. Oh - you support legal MJ - you get dumped into the Democrat pile. It is this lumping and separating that helps the parties have a strangle hold on the system, and keep these issues active and public, while doing all sorts of other crap while supposedly duking it out over the key issues.


I would much rather see pro gun democrats, so that we can just drop the entire issue of gun ownership from the political playing field, as well as legal MJ issue, and force the politicians to get focused on real issues.

DocSkinner
04-13-2009, 4:31 AM
Agreed.




How is this war lost?
this war was simply moved to the border states and Mexico.

If we really want to talk about lost wars wasting trillions of dollars, we better start looking at the war on poverty before we start taking resources away from the war on drugs.;)

With the weak line of reasoning the legalize crowd use, we should also legalize open borders. With all the wasted resources, we are losing this battle as well




How is the war lost? How long would it take you to get some MJ? You can probably get it quicker and easier than tobacco cigarettes. That is called a lost war.

weak line of reasoning? that bans do not work? isn't that one of the major lines in the fight against the gunBANNERs?

Apply your argument equally across topics, or admit the argument is in itself fatally flawed.

Mulay El Raisuli
04-13-2009, 5:19 AM
1. Close to half the gun related crimes in our country are side effects both directly and indirectly to our drug prohibition. Anything that cuts down on the size of that black market will reduce violence.

Nicki


This is quite properly placed at the head of the list. Bans don't work. If aimed at a product the people want, bans just raise the price of the banned item. A very high profit margin inspires the desire to keep that profit. That, added to high risk associated with an illegal item, leads only to violence. We saw this with Prohibition. In spite of that, we still try to keep out drugs. No surprise, we're getting the same effects that Prohibition brought us.

Those who point out that MJ will be on the streets & will lead to people driving impaired simply haven't been paying attention. That's already the case. Legalization won't raise the amount toked even a little bit. What it will do is reduce the amount of US $$$ going to cartels. Which will reduce the number of killings in Mexico, Columbia, AND HERE!

Further, the timing for this is great. Just as booze became legal again because the $$$ to fight it became tough to raise, good sense can come to this fight for the same reason. Stockton is about to lay off 40 cops. If crime were reduced, that wouldn't be a tragedy, would it? It would be the natural & expected action of an improving situation. Well, since Stockton is going to lay off those cops anyway, isn't it time that We The People improve the situation anyway? Not just for Stockton, but everywhere?

As for the state vs fed debate, a good idea has to start somewhere. And lets not forget that the feds have budget problems also. I'm sure the desire to pick a fight with us is there, but do they have the money to enforce drug laws throughout the state when Cal. cops aren't helping even a little bit?

This is an effort that deserves support. It may not belong on the 2A forum. But calgunners live lives separate from our guns & crime in general matters to us. If someone can't support it as a calgunner, then a way to support it via some other way should be found. Because this isn't an idea who's time has come. It's an idea who's time came a long damn time ago.

The Raisuli

jphaxx
04-13-2009, 8:44 AM
I agree with "the Raisuli". Prohibition has never worked in history.. What it does is create a black market with high profits. Then the worst criminal element gain power and they get to corrupt citizens, police and politicians. Just look at what occurred during the alcohol prohibition. That created the Mafias or at least gave the a good platform for their rise to power. Or if you look at the British East India company and what they did to China. Meanwhile we have a ton of folks on prozac and anti depressants that cause psychotic and violent behavior. The whole drug war is a fraud. Im a big believer that education together with legalization is the answer. For example, its better to gun proof a child than it is to child proof a gun. Its the same thing for everything. By proper education and legalization people will not think of it as such a taboo thing.

nicki
04-13-2009, 9:17 AM
I know some of you don't want to mix guns with other issues, but the reality is other issues have been mixed with guns by the media.

Obama, the Mexican government and their Media Allies are making a full press to ban our guns because of the Mexican Drug Cartels.

We live in a inter connected world, other things do effect us directly and indirectly.

This bill will effect our gun rights because if it passes, it means that the majority of the legislature rejects prohibition as a effective policy.

Well, if prohibition of Pot was a disaster, why wouldn't a prohbition on guns be a disaster also. What's different?

Acknowledging that prohbitions don't work changes the debate to how can we have regulations that protect the public safety without creating black markets.

Potentially, this could take all gun bans, these stupid ammunition encoding bills, etc etc off the table.

The Sponsor of AB390 was a major player in the San Fran handgun ban PropH, by the way, so by sponsoring this bill, he has cut off his own legs and ****s if he proposes any stupid gun restrictions.

When the legislature does have a vote on AB390, it will be a acknowledgement that prohibition type laws don't work.

What that means is that on future victim disarmanent laws, we can smooze to them about how they did the right thing on prop AB390 because prohibitions are a mistake and plead with them not to repeat the mistakes of the past with victim disarmanent.

In letters to the editor at papers, especially if the paper supports AB390, we can start linking, prohibiton does not work.

At town hall meetings, we can do the same.

The truth is the real political issue is freedom and without our guns, we will have no freedom.

Conversely, without our other freedoms, the police state that will evolve will not allow us to keep our guns.

Nicki

CA_Libertarian
04-13-2009, 10:04 AM
I don't like the regulation and taxation allowed in this bill, but it is a necessary step on the way to true liberty.

jphaxx
04-13-2009, 10:49 AM
I agree with the libertarian.. I also don't agree with the age limit.. But that's my personal feelings. Im just pro-liberty.

383green
04-13-2009, 11:12 AM
In general, I do not believe that simple possession of anything which a person rightfully owns (that is, that they didn't steal from the rightful owner) should be restricted. Just as most of us here understand that the focus on treating guns as evil objects is entirely misplaced, I cannot think of any other case where there would be any rational benefit to outlawing simple possession of any object or substance.

It's not the fact that a person possesses (or even uses) something that is ever a real problem; its what they do with it. Just as we understand here that possession of a gun by a law-abiding person does not cause any real problems, possession of anything else by that same person doesn't cause any problems, either.

In my ideal world (one which is unlikely to ever exist, sadly), there would be no laws against possession of things or substances, with the one caveat that those things or substances be the rightful property of the possessors (i.e., possessing the DVD player that you stole from your neighbor's house would still be frowned upon). Laws would target not what a person has (again, with the exception of things that were wrongly taken from somebody else), but what the person does. The kinds of behaviors that a free society must control all boil down to acts which cause harm to other people, through either deliberate action or gross negligence.

Here are some examples of the way I think things should work:

Having a gun in the house: Legal; no specific legal permission needed to codify this.

Carrying that same gun, openly or concealed: Legal; no specific legal permission needed to codify this.

Shooting people with that same gun, other than in defense of self or others: Illegal. Not because of the gun, but because of the action, which may either be deliberate or simply negligent.

Leaving an unsupervised loaded gun on the floor in the kids' play room: Illegal; gross negligence.

Having a pallet of pot in the garage: Legal; no specific legal permission needed to codify this.

Smoking a bit of that same pot in a pipe: Legal; no specific legal permission needed to codify this.

Lighting the same pallet of pot and getting the entire neighborhood wasted: Illegal. Whether deliberately or through negligence, the act harms other people.




With all of this being said, I really do not believe that any good can come from conflating gun rights with drug laws at this time, and I really don't think that it's in our best interest to talk about that here in the 2nd Amendment forum.

Yes, everything is interrelated. Yes, fundamentally, laws against the possession of pot are just as wrong as laws against the possession of guns. Still, I don't see any good coming from getting the pro-pot and pro-gun issues mixed up. The media would have a field day painting gun-owners as crazy pot-heads, and pot-heads as crazy gun-wielders. Conflating the two issues will only help anti-pot and anti-gun people unite and get mindshare of the populace.

Yes, guns and drugs are tied together by the latest "oh noez, the Mexican drug cartels has gunz!!1!~" theater, but the guns are being associated with the drug suppliers, not the drug users. Those two groups are seen very differently by most people, I think. Just noting that the guns+suppliers connection is being touted by the anti's does not imply that the guns+users connection should also be made. That would really backfire, IMHO. Just look at some of the strong reactions that we see here whenever drug legalization is mentioned, and consider that this group tends to be much more focused on personal liberty and responsibility than society at large. Negative reactions would be larger and more widespread in society at large than they are in this forum.

I strongly believe that this discussion belongs in the off-topic area.

sorensen440
04-13-2009, 11:16 AM
I strongly support this bill (and I dont smoke) but I strongly am against mixing gun rights with drug rights

383green
04-13-2009, 11:18 AM
I strongly support this bill (and I dont smoke) but I strongly am against mixing gun rights with drug rights

We sure seem to fully agree on a lot of things. Were we separated at birth, perhaps? :rolleyes:

Hopi
04-13-2009, 11:25 AM
I strongly support this bill (and I dont smoke) but I strongly am against mixing gun rights with drug rights

Gun rights and drug rights are inherently under the same umbrella of civil rights.

383green
04-13-2009, 11:54 AM
Gun rights and drug rights are inherently under the same umbrella of civil rights.

That is basically correct, with the caveat that gun rights are specifically enumerated in the BOR, while drug rights are not.

Still, conflating the two at this time will be counter-productive. The biggest hurdle that we (as gun rights advocates) have in order to gain mindshare, is to convince people that gun owners can be trusted with the responsibility of possessing dangerous weapons. Too many people are focused on blaming things rather than people; our society has drifted too far from emphasizing personal responsibility, and thus it is all to easy to vilify in peoples' minds, because they don't naturally consider that personal responsibility comes into play.

Consider the stereotype of a pot-head: a lazy, irresponsible, paranoid loser. Whether the stereotype is correct or not isn't the issue (I know people who have smoked pot who are polar opposites of that stereotype). The stereotype is a reflection of the mental image that forms in many peoples' minds the instant that pot use is mentioned.

Now, when we're trying to convince people that as gun owners, we can be responsible to not spray bullets all over the place, not let our toddlers shoot up the neighborhood, not shoot up the workplace whenever anything doesn't go our way, etc., how would it help us to publicly associate ourselves with people who are viewed (whether rightly or wrongly) as the least responsible members of society?

This cuts both ways. How will it help the pro-pot folks to associate themselves with gun owners, who are among the most (wrongly-) vilified people in society right now?

Yes, the fundamental rights considerations between pro-gun and pro-pot issues are pretty much the same. Still, combining the two in the public view right now would be counter-productive. The pro-gun people would lose supporters who have knee-jerk reactions on drug issues, and vice versa.

Public opinion of both gun owners and pot users will need to change a lot before it would be beneficial to connect those two issues in open public discourse. The same goes for any other contentious issues, such as gay rights. Yes, there are [i]isolated places where the issues can be beneficially combined with good effect in front of a carefully-targeted primary audience (i.e., the Pink Pistols, where gun rights and gay rights are connected for a common subset of two special-interest groups). Maybe there are even some other isolated pockets of gun-/drug-/gay-/etc.-rights enthusiasts where some more overlaps can be beneficially addressed, but in general, these issues still should be kept separate.

It all boils down to this: Whenever there is an issue where many people have a strong irrational negative reaction, combining that with another such contentious issue can be guaranteed to unite the different anti-whatever contingents more easily than the different pro-whatever contingents. The anti-whatever sentiments need to be addressed individually before it's beneficial to start combining the pro-whatever sentiments.

As long as guns, drugs, etc. are largely irrationally feared and hated, the commonality of their civil rights considerations should remain an academic discussion between the limited subset of very pro-personal-liberty folks. Other people who are not primarily focused on personal liberty, and who have irrational objections to any of these issues, just won't see the issues the same way.

spencerhut
04-13-2009, 11:59 AM
I support 100%
For a good read on why marijuana is illegal in this country read this (http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/3jcl/3JCL29.htm).
Start around 1/4 of the way down with the Harrison Act.


I'll premise this with the fact I have never done a single illegal drug in my life, no I'm not trying to be funny. Never seen the need, had lots of friends that did, their business not mine.

That link is just fantastic. I really wish I could get a dozen or so people to read it.

Simply FANTASTIC.

M. Sage
04-13-2009, 4:05 PM
This bill is kind of pointless, since marijuana is illegal at a Federal level, and the state can't override the fed.

With this specific bill, my problem with it is that it "allows" marijuana rather than declaring that the government has no authority to regulate its use, and thus it will not regulate it. I would gladly support it on that grounds.

There's no reason not to regulate it as is done with other recreational drugs (the "medicinal" qualities of MJ are myth). In other words: tax the stuff.

KWA-S
04-14-2009, 12:21 AM
Like it or not, Drugs and Guns are being mixed together. The Mexican government is saying that the drug war and their internal problems are our fault.

...

I doubt it will even make the evening news. But in the highly unlikely event that the story goes viral and I become infamous, I won't forget you guys:rolleyes:

Nicki

Dang, that was a pretty powerful post. Reminds me of how much I respect you, Nicki, for all you've been through and are willing to go through. :thumbsup:

DocSkinner
04-14-2009, 7:54 AM
I know some of you don't want to mix guns with other issues, but the reality is other issues have been mixed with guns by the media.

Obama, the Mexican government and their Media Allies are making a full press to ban our guns because of the Mexican Drug Cartels.

...


The truth is the real political issue is freedom and without our guns, we will have no freedom.

Conversely, without our other freedoms, the police state that will evolve will not allow us to keep our guns.

Nicki

the truth is that keeping these ISSUES separate is the political aspect, and political power for the 2 parties. It allows the divide and conquer mentality that creates us and them politics, instead of what is right, just, and logical.

It is ludicrous for conservatives to complain that liberals don't think rationally about gun control, and then get all hysterical about legalizing MJ and ignoring facts, and the opposite is also ludicrous.

This is about combining rational thought about issues instead of making laws based on emotional hyperbola rhetoric. So as you say - they are ALREADY connected, but at a far deeper level than you state Nicki!

1911su16b870
04-14-2009, 10:30 AM
I support 100%
For a good read on why marijuana is illegal in this country read this (http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/3jcl/3JCL29.htm).
Start around 1/4 of the way down with the Harrison Act.

That is a very interesting treatise by Mssr. Whitebread...especially

Every criminal prohibition has that same touch to it, doesn’t it? It is enacted by us and it always regulates the conduct of them.

sorensen440
04-14-2009, 10:33 AM
Gun rights and drug rights are inherently under the same umbrella of civil rights.

Although that may be true I feel allowing the drug debate to be mixed with the firearms debate would be suicidal.

dfletcher
04-14-2009, 10:48 AM
Could we get Cheech & Chong to do a progun advertisement? I'm thinking "Nice Dreams" meets the "Assault on Precinct 13" ice cream truck.

"I want some Maui Wowi please". Puff, puff.

"Hey wait, this isn't Maui Wowi. Mister, hey mister ......" :11:

Kestryll
04-14-2009, 10:54 AM
Like it or not, Drugs and Guns are being mixed together.

Not here they aren't.