NationStates Jolt Archive

And not just for sick people. (http://laist.com/2008/06/30/california_to_legalize_weed_for_eve_1.php)

This initiative will amend the Constitution of California to defend and safeguard the inalienable rights of the People against infringement by governments and corporations, providing for the lawful growth, sale, and possession of marijuana. Marijuana will be taxed through a system of stamps and licenses--a $5 stamp will be required for the sale of an eighth ounce of marijuana and a $50 annual license will be required for the growth of one marijuana plant. To protect participants and encourage participation in the system, such licenses and stamps will be available anonymously in stores where marijuana is sold.

Ha! Take that 'outlawing gay marriage' amendment!

Okay, realistically I'll be surprised if this even makes it on the ballot (it doesn't have enough signatures yet), much less pass. And even if it does pass, there still is the problem with federal law and enforcement. Already there are areas of California where they don't bother enforcing the prohibition unless you're an ass about it. But even given our, shall we say 'pot friendly' environment (I remember smoking in a parking lot with a friend who barked at tourists aghast at our brazenness, "You're in California!" I generally don't like being that brash about it, but I was promised a burrito...it is remarkable what kind of whore I will become for a burrito...) I don't see this really making it or making too much of a difference.

Mendicino County has 'legal' pot and that has to be the most over patrolled stretch of highway I've ever seen.

The real question is if it does fly, are we going to have the pot-tourism problems that Amsterdam has?

But I thought New York was the New Amsterdam... :(

The Governator used to do some Ganja Dance back in the Mister Olympia days. Why would he outlaw it?

:D

But I thought New York was the New Amsterdam... :(

For some reason they thought being the new York was cooler. Silly rabbits...

Well you see, pot isn't - strictly speaking - legal in Amsterdam. It just happens that it is police policy to leave it be as long as you don't cause a mess in the street. And if you do cause a mess in the street they will fuck you up. I remember getting lost in the Red Light district at 4am looking for some food, and I asked a policeman for directions. I wasn't even drunk, but seeing that I needed food at that hour, he just told me to fuck off. In about those terms.

Good for you, Californians.

This reminds me of the time when i regularly hung out with a bunch of american exchange students. We where sitting in a park, where i'd just rolled us a joint. While i was searching my pockets for the lighter, one of the students tapped me on the arm, pointing out a pair of coppers walking closer. The look of stunned amazement on their faces while i calmy lit up and started tugging away, with those cops walking past us at 2 meters and doing nothin about the joint. Abolutely priceless. In fact, mastercard should use it as one of their priceless adds :)

Well you see, pot isn't - strictly speaking - legal in Amsterdam. It just happens that it is police policy to leave it be as long as you don't cause a mess in the street. And if you do cause a mess in the street they will fuck you up. I remember getting lost in the Red Light district at 4am looking for some food, and I asked a policeman for directions. I wasn't even drunk, but seeing that I needed food at that hour, he just told me to fuck off. In about those terms.I was with a group of friends in Amsterdam that bought a joint and started smoking it in the street. Two cops showed up. One of them laughed at us while the other politely told my friends that they had to smoke it in a coffee shop.

'Course, this was during the day time, so the circumstances aren't entirely comparable.

Well yes, but you can see why looking for food at 4am in the Red Light district might ill-dispose a policeman. I was a bit pissed off because I was genuinely hungry though.:p

of course they won't make a penny on this unless they lower the drinking age below the barbaric 21 :p

Well yes, but you can see why looking for food at 4am in the Red Light district might ill-dispose a policeman. I was a bit pissed off because I was genuinely hungry though.:p

you should of gone to one of the legitimate businesses in the area as some will usually serve food

Pot will be legal, but smoking will be banned. Have a nice day. :)

There may be an underlying reason for doing this.

I heard that this could be a way of increasing potential sentencing - if you are caught with pot the tariffs may be lower than if you were caught avoiding the tax on the sale of it.

looks like i'll be wanting to move to California again :p

i should imagine, though, even if this did go through, it would take some time to get pot-tourists descending on the state. there's an issue of trusting that you won't be done for it, and that kinda comes from word of mouth. i don't know... maybe i'm talking bollocks. i'm tired. but california is a long way for me, wheras Amsterdam is a skip and a jump away:)

But I thought New York was the New Amsterdam... :(
"Why they changed it I can't say,
People just liked it better that waaaaay"

(sorry) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38WeXe41Czo&feature=related)

The real question is if it does fly, are we going to have the pot-tourism problems that Amsterdam has?

Hell, I won't be a tourist...I'll fucking move there.

WTF! $5 tax on an eighth? How much do you lot pay for it, shit man!

it's stuck in my head now so it's only right that other people should suffer, too
I hate you now.

i should imagine, though, even if this did go through, it would take some time to get pot-tourists descending on the state.

I think most of them would wait for the inevitable dick measuring contest between Sacramento and Washington to sort itself out before visiting.

I think most of them would wait for the inevitable dick measuring contest between Sacramento and Washington to sort itself out before visiting.

Oh, that will be long and tedious. And sadly it won't matter who is president. Obama can't 'afford' to look 'weak' on drugs, not first thing out of the gate. I really just think it will be a symbolic gesture if it gets that far, and that's a big 'if'.

But I thought New York was the New Amsterdam... :(

I know. And why they changed it, I can't say.

I guess they liked it better that way.

I wonder what city this idea came out from. I bet it's San Fransisco. Nothing coming from SanFran should be considered (aside from gay rights, but that's just my agenda getting the best of me. :) ).

Private marijuana use in California is not a new issue. The reason is court costs are too high. What about a minimum age? How would that change distribution laws? Same as providing alcohol? Is this strickly home personal use? I'm not opposed to legal marijuana only because that makes it not an illegal activity that opens the door to other crime because thats what happens. If smoking marijuana is a crime and it's not that bad then the next thing is a crime and isn't bad either.

This is why our state rules. Of course it won't happen, but just the fact that people try so hard makes me proud.

Seriously, though... I can't imagine how bad it would be if I could just pop into 7-11 to buy weed. I sit around on my ass all the time as it is, and most of the time I'm not stoned.

Private marijuana use in California is not a new issue. The reason is court costs are too high. What about a minimum age? How would that change distribution laws? Same as providing alcohol? Is this strickly home personal use? I'm not opposed to legal marijuana only because that makes it not an illegal activity that opens the door to other crime because thats what happens. If smoking marijuana is a crime and it's not that bad then the next thing is a crime and isn't bad either.

This is the same line of thinking as "If you let whites and blacks intermarry, people will start marrying children and dogs and trees." It doesn't hold up to any evidence I've ever seen.

*moves to Califonia and starts weed plantation*

The '08 Pot Rush has started!

This is why our state rules. Of course it won't happen, but just the fact that people try so hard makes me proud.

Seriously, though... I can't imagine how bad it would be if I could just pop into 7-11 to buy weed. I sit around on my ass all the time as it is, and most of the time I'm not stoned.

I was sitting around with a friend of mine who had quit a while back and he turned to me after a while and said, "You know what happens when you quit smoking pot? You remember what it's like to be bored."

I was sitting around with a friend of mine who had quit a while back and he turned to me after a while and said, "You know what happens when you quit smoking pot? You remember what it's like to be bored."

I take it he didn't take up caffiene to fill the void like my mother did? :)
She does crazy stuff on caffiene, trust me.

I was sitting around with a friend of mine who had quit a while back and he turned to me after a while and said, "You know what happens when you quit smoking pot? You remember what it's like to be bored."

Hahahaha! That reminds me of a joke...What did one Deadhead say to the other Deadhead when they ran out of pot? "You know dude, this music sucks.":)

Also you all might check into Maine and Rhode Island, those two states have some way loose parameters on medical herb...

Hahahaha! That reminds me of a joke...What did one Deadhead say to the other Deadhead when they ran out of pot? "You know dude, this music sucks.":)

Also you all might check into Maine and Rhode Island, those two states have some way loose parameters on medical herb...

They're pretty loose around here, too. All I really have to do is go to a willing doctor and tell him my pockets hurt and get a card. I won't do it though, because I don't want to be the anecdote used to take marijuana away from sick people it helps.

They're pretty loose around here, too. All I really have to do is go to a willing doctor and tell him my pockets hurt and get a card. I won't do it though, because I don't want to be the anecdote used to take marijuana away from sick people it helps.

Yeah, I live in Vermont, they are really terrible with not giving them out to folks in need. But on a bright note, they have added some more diseases that now fall into the "good" category...I mean really, for anyone, of any health level, less than an ounce, and you get the equivalent of a traffic violation (misdemeaner)and you can cultivate up to three, same deal.

I know. And why they changed it, I can't say.

When the British got their hands on the Dutch colony of Nieuw Amsterdam, they wanted it to more correctly mirror the glory and splendour of the British Empire, so they changed its name. At least that's my guess.

It seems like what this would do if passed (which it probably won't) would be to increase the already significant gray-market pot-growing economy in California, which is good for the pot growers but not necessarily good for the rural communities in which the pot is grown. And no, I'm not saying this because "weed is evil!" -- it's a large amount of unregulated agricultural activity in a state where water and other natural resources have long been fought over. Some of the problems, such as water theft, would be the same if Californians were growing large numbers of tomato plants in secret. Since pot will remain illegal under federal law, growing pot is going to remain a largely clandestine activity, and thus difficult to tax. I can see why the writers of the referendum added the tax provisions -- it makes it more appealing to voters in the middle of a state budget crunch -- but I don't see how the revenue portion works at all. State police have better things to do than hassle small-time users to make sure they've paid their $5, and the big guys are too far underground to find. I also don't see that it'll have a great effect on "pot tourism", as the activity is still going to be against federal law.

Which is a long way around of saying that while this may be a victory in the cause of personal freedom, it's probably economically negative or at best neutral. That's just a first impression, though, I'll have to think about it more.

It seems like what this would do if passed (which it probably won't) would be to increase the already significant gray-market pot-growing economy in California, which is good for the pot growers but not necessarily good for the rural communities in which the pot is grown. And no, I'm not saying this because "weed is evil!" -- it's a large amount of unregulated agricultural activity in a state where water and other natural resources have long been fought over. Some of the problems, such as water theft, would be the same if Californians were growing large numbers of tomato plants in secret. Since pot will remain illegal under federal law, growing pot is going to remain a largely clandestine activity, and thus difficult to tax. I can see why the writers of the referendum added the tax provisions -- it makes it more appealing to voters in the middle of a state budget crunch -- but I don't see how the revenue portion works at all. State police have better things to do than hassle small-time users to make sure they've paid their $5, and the big guys are too far underground to find. I also don't see that it'll have a great effect on "pot tourism", as the activity is still going to be against federal law.

Which is a long way around of saying that while this may be a victory in the cause of personal freedom, it's probably economically negative or at best neutral. That's just a first impression, though, I'll have to think about it more.
Our biggest problem right now with weed is the forest cultivation. It's the bulk growers who use forest land to grow their weed and, along with the aforementioned water problems, are ecological disasters to our already kind of fragile forests. Despite our large population we still have pretty big tracts of redwood forest that's more or less inpentrible, in that it's not easy to hike so we don't. So every September a whole bunch of helicopters start flying over them looking for signs of crops. Often they're characterized by pollution (the growers that oversee the crops certainly don't heed the "take only pictures and leave only footprints") and contaminating the water and soil that they do use. Both are things that are not necessary to grow pot, they call it weed because it kind of is one, you don't really have to try that hard to get it to grow.

I'd have to agree that this will do little if nothing to end forest cultivation and does have the danger of increasing it. But the thing is, I don't know that I've ever bought weed cultivated that way, and I've been smoking for a while now. I'm never more than one or two steps away from the guy who grew it, and most of the time direct. When 215 was passed that actually became even more so the case. This might in fact be too anecdotal to really matter, I'm a NorCal Slacker and run in pretty hippiefied circles-essentially weed snobs. I don't know where other stoner crowds get their weed or if they care. And I've smoked with SoCal stoners-their weed sucks and their attitudes about it are very different. It might just be an entirely different story down there.

Which is to say I guess I agree with you to a degree. But 215 did improve private cultivation a bit once we knew that the state was on our side (though Jerry Brown is cracking down now, but in an effort to protect the spirit of 215. He's busting shops that are not running as non-profits (actually part of 215) and are being too loose with the requirements. He insists that this is for sick people and not to legitimize pot dealers.)

If we start to realize that the state is on our side again we might have less use for out of state cultivators fucking up our forest land.

Haha, I would love to see this get passed. About a month later federal agents would be busting in everyone's door.