Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / July 2009

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Time for state to debate pot legalization

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
rpautrey2 - 27 Jul 2009 19:52 GMT
http://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/article/5684/

dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com
209-249-3532

Time for state to debate pot legalization

Call it reefer madness.

Oakland voters on Tuesday created a business-tax category for the
selling of pot from store front operations.

The pot clubs that under California law are licensed to sell pot for
medicinal purposes were paying $1.20 per $1,000 of gross receipts.
Since passage of Measure F, that tax rate will jump to $18 per $1,000
of sales.

Backers of legalizing marijuana applauded the move as it adds to the
effort to legalize pot.

There is one slight problem with all of this. If doctors are
prescribing marijuana for medical reasons, then how can it be taxed?
Prescription drugs are exempt from taxes. Marijuana is a drug and if a
doctor is writing out a note allowing a patient to legally buy it then
it is a prescription as well.

Studies have shown that pot can be effective in providing relief to
those with AIDS, cancer, and glaucoma among other afflictions. It is
true that there are doctors making pitches on the internet to pay them
so they can prescribe pot for things such as PMS, back pain, and more.
There is no research to support such assumptions. If marijuana were
regulated like other medicinal drugs by the federal government, then
there would be a standard.

Then again, who is fooling who? It is hard to believe Los Angeles has
enough seriously ill people to support the 500 plus medicinal
dispensaries of marijuana in that city. All of their customers are not
ill.

Whether one likes it or not, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
is right that the time has come for a serious debate. There is a need
to keep pot use in check and to start making it pay for government
services.

It costs a ton of money to keep drinking in check. Manteca, as an
example, has a full-time officer funded for DUI enforcement by the
state as well as to run sobriety checkpoints thanks in part to
revenues from taxes on alcohol. Marijuana for the most part isn’t
bringing in cash to pay for the cost of enforcement of consumption
standards as alcohol does.

Not that it is justification to legalize it, but the State Board of
Equalization has estimated that San Francisco Assemblyman Tom
Ammiano’s proposed legislation to legalize pot and slap it with a $50
per once tax would generate $1.4 billion for the state in new taxes.

Of course, if someone is paying that money in taxes they don’t have
funds for something else.

A debate on the subject would also have to include a component on what
to do with home-grown pot. Those advocating legalizing pot need to
remember there is a down-side. The revenue agents that went after
moonshiners back in the 1920s and 1930s weren’t doing so because the
home brewed stuff could kill someone but because they were growing it
for profit and avoiding the payment of taxes.

Any debate on legalizing needs to include much tougher consequences
for growing at home for sale by adding real teeth with mandatory 10
year prison sentences. One can’t use the argument that legalizing pot
is a good way to raise taxes without expecting a heavy fist to come
down on those who try to skirt the law.

Rest assured if the federal government embraced legalizing pot they’d
view any grown at home for profit as contraband and would deal with it
much more severely than some hapless Joe arrested with a ounce of
marijuana on him.

The governor’s call for a debate makes all the more sense given how
local jurisdictions are dealing with the implementation of medicinal
marijuana as allowed under Proposition 215. Oakland obviously has a
much tighter rein on things than Los Angeles.

It is disingenuous to simply use the need to generate more taxes as a
reason to legalize marijuana. A debate needs to go forward since it
seems wildly unfair that someone in Oakland with glaucoma is now
subject to a much higher tax to secure medicinal pot than someone in
Los Angeles.

Marijuana needs to be a controlled substance much like cigarettes and
alcohol and subject to state and federal taxes and regulations and not
the whims of local jurisdictions.

To contact Dennis Wyatt, e-mail dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com
M_P - 27 Jul 2009 22:41 GMT
> Marijuana needs to be a controlled substance much like cigarettes and
> alcohol

High time (no pun intended) since it's less harmful than either of
those legal drugs.
MagneticEnergy - 28 Jul 2009 00:06 GMT
So if we took a piss test of everyone entering a jail cell in the
United States, and find that 99% of them will test positive for
marijuana, are you going to still claim that marijuana is "harmless"?
And do you really think you can get tax money when people might just
buy one bag (to prove they got it legally) then grow as much as they
want in their back yard, the woods, whatever (since the cops will not
want to spend time looking for it)?

Also, your sentence somehow implies that marijuana is not a controlled
substance, and it is under regulation.   I don't make the laws, and if
that is what the public wants to do, by all means, make yourselves
silly, I just don't think that it will be "harmless" or without
serious problems that we will not be able to ignore?
rpautrey2 - 28 Jul 2009 00:15 GMT
> So if we took a piss test of everyone entering a jail cell in the
> United States, and find that 99% of them will test positive for
> marijuana, are you going to still claim that marijuana is "harmless"?

MagneticEnergy,

You need to keep away from
those strong magnetic fields.

> So if we took a piss test of everyone entering a jail cell in the
> United States, and find that 99% of them will test positive for
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> silly, I just don't think that it will be "harmless" or without
> serious problems that we will not be able to ignore?
Hiccum Blurpaedius - 28 Jul 2009 00:27 GMT
> So if we took a piss test of everyone entering a jail cell in the
> United States, and find that 99% of them will test positive for
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> silly, I just don't think that it will be "harmless" or without
> serious problems that we will not be able to ignore?

I do not trust God, do you?

Exterminate the Christian Government
Pete nospam Zakel - 28 Jul 2009 01:33 GMT
>So if we took a piss test of everyone entering a jail cell in the
>United States, and find that 99% of them will test positive for
>marijuana, are you going to still claim that marijuana is "harmless"?

So if we took a piss test of everyone entering a jail cell in the
United States, and find that 99% of them will test positive for alcohol,
will you start screaming loudly for alcohol to be banned?

If we took a piss test of everyone entering a jail cell in the United States,
and find that 100% of them are human beings, are you going to call for all
human beings in the US to be thrown in jail?

There is a saying that "correlation does not prove causation".  If 100% of
people in prison drink water, does that mean water turns people into
criminals?

Note that it is very unlikely that 99% of those jailed and imprisoned will
test positive for marijuana.  But it has been shown that the vast majority
of people who use marijuana do not commit crimes at a higher rate than those
who do not use marijuana (other than the "crime" of possessing marijuana).

-Pete Zakel
(phz@seeheader.nospam)

"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and
the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react.  He
seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."

            -1921 New York Times editorial about
            Robert Goddard's revolutionary rocket work
Happy Oyster - 28 Jul 2009 05:47 GMT
>So if we took a piss test of everyone entering a jail cell in the
>United States, and find that 99% of them will test positive for
>marijuana, are you going to still claim that marijuana is "harmless"?

They should make the same test with senators in Congress.

A test in Germany had a hilarious result... ;O)

Signature

**** WARNING **** The web-hoster Globat.com steals money from your
credit card account. If you are a customer of Globat.com, never give
them any credit card information. If you can't erase the information,
then do delete the old card and get a new one!      **** WARNING ****

trigonometry1972@gmail.com | - 31 Jul 2009 06:44 GMT
> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:06:50 -0700 (PDT), MagneticEnergy
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> them any credit card information. If you can't erase the information,
> then do delete the old card and get a new one!      **** WARNING ****

I take it they had a batch of positive drug tests? While I've never
done
"pot" as far as I can see the ban just adds one more drug to the list
to drugs the Mexican (and other nations) drug kingpins can bring in
the States at huge profit. It is time to bury Nixon and his policies
(his "War on Drugs")
as they are both feeding drug lords and filling the jails at cost in
dollars
of 50K or 60k+ per year for each person taken from the street.
There so many people in jail in the States, I suspect
one is often safer from the state in Red China than
in the USA. It danger to have such an over-sized
criminal "justice system" as it wants "flesh" to eat.
And the old boys and old girls in the state houses are always
passing more laws.

.................Trig
Happy Oyster - 31 Jul 2009 11:13 GMT
>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:06:50 -0700 (PDT), MagneticEnergy
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>I take it they had a batch of positive drug tests?

A journalist team from TV mad drug tests in the toilets of the Bundesstag.

They found ... traces of drugs...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_q=akte+hat+im+bundestag+drog
en+gefunden&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&a
s_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images


http://www.shortnews.de/start.cfm?id=140048
<quote>
31.10.00 23:18 Uhr  |  
News-ID: 140048

Koks im Bundestag
Die Redaktion von Akte 2000 hat sich in den Bundestag eingeschlichen und Proben
von 28 Toiletten genommen.

Ergebnis: In 22 Toiletten wurden Spuren von Kokain gefunden und in so hoher
Konzentration, daß sogar Drogenhunde noch fündig geworden wären.
Die einzigen Toiletten die clean waren, waren die Besuchertoiletten.
********************************************************************

Stellt sich die Frage, was jetzt passieren wird.

Die Akte 2000 Redaktion will morgen ihre Ergebnisse an die zuständigen Behörden
weitergeben.
</quote>

The only toilets which had been clean were those of the visitors...

Signature

**** WARNING **** The web-hoster Globat.com steals money from your
credit card account. If you are a customer of Globat.com, never give
them any credit card information. If you can't erase the information,
then do delete the old card and get a new one!      **** WARNING ****

* US * - 28 Jul 2009 16:34 GMT
>So if we took a piss test of everyone entering a jail cell in the
>United States, and find that 99% of them will test positive for
>marijuana, are you going to still claim that marijuana is "harmless"?

Everybody in jail has consumed soda pop.

Now you need to criminalize that.

Idiot.
B Sellers - 28 Jul 2009 16:43 GMT
>> So if we took a piss test of everyone entering a jail cell in the
>> United States, and find that 99% of them will test positive for
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Idiot.

    Nah.  It is the mashed potatoes with their deadly admixture
of animal fat and liquid i.e. HOH which results in the criminality
you describe.

    You won't outlaw HOH will you or maybe mashed potato?

    ;^)

    later
    bliss
* US * - 28 Jul 2009 17:12 GMT
>>> So if we took a piss test of everyone entering a jail cell in the
>>> United States, and find that 99% of them will test positive for
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>    later
>    bliss

Good one.
B Sellers - 28 Jul 2009 17:40 GMT
>>>> So if we took a piss test of everyone entering a jail cell in the
>>>> United States, and find that 99% of them will test positive for
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Good one.
    Thank you.  It is very old but so many of the readers
are so much younger that they will not have heard/read it yet.

    later
    bliss
* US * - 31 Jul 2009 15:39 GMT
>>>>> So if we took a piss test of everyone entering a jail cell in the
>>>>> United States, and find that 99% of them will test positive for
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>    later
>    bliss

That's true, too.
M_P - 28 Jul 2009 17:42 GMT
> So if we took a piss test of everyone entering a jail cell in the
> United States, and find that 99% of them will test positive for
> marijuana, are you going to still claim that marijuana is "harmless"?

Among convicted jail inmates, 33.4% were using alcohol at the time of
their offense as compared to 13.6% for marijuana. (http://
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/sdatji02.pdf, tables 5 and 6)

So if marijuana is "harmful" because it causes crime, then alcohol is
more than twice as "harmful." But that assumes that none of those
inmates would have committed their offenses if they were sober.

> And do you really think you can get tax money

I didn't say one word about tax money.

> when people might just
> buy one bag (to prove they got it legally) then grow as much as they
> want in their back yard, the woods, whatever (since the cops will not
> want to spend time looking for it)?

People can legally brew/ferment/distill their own alcohol tax-free (up
to a certain amount) but that doesn't reduce alcohol tax revenues to
zero.

> Also, your sentence somehow implies that marijuana is not a controlled
> substance

Criminalization is too clumsy to qualify as "control." For example,
when you buy the legal drug alcohol you know you're getting an
uncontaminated product of known concentration, which is not the case
for illegal drugs and was not the case when alcohol was illegal.
B Sellers - 28 Jul 2009 18:16 GMT
>> So if we took a piss test of everyone entering a jail cell in the
>> United States, and find that 99% of them will test positive for
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> to a certain amount) but that doesn't reduce alcohol tax revenues to
> zero.

    Actually they are subject to numerous regulations and requirements
and private parties in the USA are not allowed to distill, alcoholic
beverages.  Otherwise we might have some interesting products.  Taxes
are involved in some fermentations,
May depend on local jurisdictions as well as Federal regulations.

    As for growing that assumes that the individual has suitable
property on which to be growing anything and that is not the case in
many urban and suburban areas.  In addition we have thieves who
trespass on accessible gardens. so growing your own is rather fraught
with problems.

>> Also, your sentence somehow implies that marijuana is not a controlled
>> substance

    Prohibition creates economic opportunity for the desperate.
    Prohibition fails to control anything.
    All the drugs made difficult to legally procure are available
on the street with no age requirement or surety of purity.
    Prohibition as practiced in the USA has only managed to employ
semi-educated thugs as law enforcement officers and foolish
politicians as the administrators of various agencies.
    You if a US taxpayer help pay for them all as well as the expense of
imprisoning the people they arrest and convict.

> Criminalization is too clumsy to qualify as "control." For example,
> when you buy the legal drug alcohol you know you're getting an
> uncontaminated product of known concentration, which is not the case
> for illegal drugs and was not the case when alcohol was illegal.

   
    Yep.
    later
    bliss
Bent Attorney Esq. - 29 Jul 2009 22:15 GMT
> So if we took a piss test of everyone entering a jail cell in the
> United States, and find that 99% of them will test positive for
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> silly, I just don't think that it will be "harmless" or without
> serious problems that we will not be able to ignore?

I could care less if this crap is harmless or not.  It's crap, but
people do have the right to put into their bodies whatever they
choose; even if it's crap.  The state does not own your body.  They do
not own you.  They cannot take your rights away.  What they can do is
put you in lockup because you exercised your rights.
Day Brown - 30 Jul 2009 22:02 GMT
>> So if we took a piss test of everyone entering a jail cell in the
>> United States, and find that 99% of them will test positive for
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> not own you.  They cannot take your rights away.  What they can do is
> put you in lockup because you exercised your rights.
Well, there are sanity hearings every day where they, in effect, lock
people up. Of course, if you are psychotic, you cant exercise rights, so
you may as well not have have them.
Hiccum Blurpaedius - 28 Jul 2009 00:22 GMT
> > Marijuana needs to be a controlled substance much like cigarettes and
> > alcohol
>
> High time (no pun intended) since it's less harmful than either of
> those legal drugs.

Nixon said marijuana is the devils weed and it caused him to break
into demoncrats office and send homeless people to jail, and lie to
congress. and give the chinese the right to steal airplane secrets and
glutton world oil.
It cuazez people to worship Satan and dance to sinful jazz, oink oink.
Oh yeah and it will make you shoot heroin snort cocaine and spenmd all
you money on crystal meth and kill people with axes.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.