Arizona Prop 203

I'm not against expanding government for the regulation of some things, for a variety of reasons, but here's two:

1.) Government is dictated by the people. Hence the whole voting process. Is it the more effective way, no. But it's the most efficient. (in process if not necessarily in practice).

2.) Expanded government creates jobs. Most people who work for the government are regular Joe-Schmoes who just go to work and collect a meager paycheck like the rest of us. Right now, there are quite a few people who could use those jobs.

When people think of "expanded government" they think of Capitol Hill fatcats that dictate policy and make back-room deals. The reality is that the vast majority of people collecting a government paycheck are doing so because of the programs their constituencies deemed necessary/desirable.

Is this always the case? No. But the fact is there are certain aspect of society where government regulation and oversight is necessary. One of those (in my opinion) is making sure the food and medicinal products we consume are safe.

How this relates to the legalization of marijuana is not clear to me, because I have not done the economic research into how the increase in revenue will correspond to an increase in necessary government.

I do know that it is currently illegal to operate a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol OR marijuana, regardless of its legal description. I also know that most people who want to smoke pot, do so also regardless of legal definition. I have serious doubts as to whether legalization of pot will spur and increase in marijuana-related traffic accidents. Initially, the only ramification I can see would be a decrease in possession fines.

 

So based on that logic, we should go back to prohibition. The #1 drug impaired drivers have in their systems is alcohol by far.

Not to mention something I don't think any of us has touched on. The dollars our current marijuana laws put into the hands of bad guys everyday. Pablo couldn't make any greenbacks sellin weed if you could get it at the 7-eleven.

No I am not talkin about dirty hippies either, I mean shoot your Mom & Dad in the face then rape your little sister bad guys. These are people who kill & commit acts of violence in the name of profit, remove the profitability and the violence will decrease.

Also ever look at the DEA's budget, its huge & a large chunk of it goes towards the eradication of marijuana. Between the savings from not fighting it & the increased revenue from taxing it not to mention the jobs that growing it for consumption as well as all of the industrial uses for the plant it seems to really make sense. Hell back in WW-2 the slogan was hemp for victory, we used it to make all kinds of stuff paper, rope, cloth.......

 

Just a couple thought here, it seems that you have never worked for or tried to get a job with a government agency. These jobs you speak of don't just appear out of thin air. I worked for the USDA forest service for a year as an intern and in that time saw things that would never be tolerated in private sector, not to mention were boarderline illegal. Besides where are they going to get all that money just to start up a new division to regulate pot? When I was working for the Forest Service there were doing anything and everything to eliminate position short of laying people off.

As I mentioned I have had the misfotune of both working for and looking for a job with the Gov. agency and it's not just a regular joe that gets a new job (unless they live out in the middle of timbucktwo). Agencies recycle, once you're in you're set for life. Baring any kind of MAJOR illegal activity. Aside from that, one the only ways, right now to get a government job is to have a very specialized degree and experience or be former Military.

As for as regulating, once you give an agency the power to regulate you may as well sign your rights away. When working at the forest it took an act of god for some people to get permits to take pictures of flowers on public land. No one voted for that regulation, it was just the scope of thier power to regulate it. Just imagine what they would come up with for a drug like marijuana.

It's sad but a fact of Gov. agencies that the bueracracy flows from the top down. So I really don't think the couple jobs people may get is worth the risk of a new ragime to pass new broad and unyeilding regulations.

 

So now we are talking wide spread recreational use...I thought this was just about medicinal purposes?

And again if we could make laws against people being stupid we would, but since we can't we do the next best thing and restrict items/substances in hopes it will stop the stupid people. It doesn't always work though...

 

No I am for medicinal usage first & foremost but since it has been brought up yeah it is ridiculous that alcohol/tobacco are legal & marijuana isn't.

If it were legalized would I run out & stock up, hell no. I have a wife & two kids can't be that irresponsible anymore. I smoked when I was in college a few times made me tired & hungry that's about all. Did it make me a danger to myself or those around me no, when I drink too much I am a danger to myself & all who are within arms reach, yes. Which is why I don't do much of that anymore.

Alcohol for me at least causes me to lose the ability to think cleary or use good judgement, I never felt that out of control when I smoked years ago. I guess my point is if you want to keep weed illegal but maintain alcohol as legal you are being a bit hypocritical in my view.

Your whole argument seems to be about the dangers of intoxication, but I bet if we did a study where alcohol was consumed in moderate quantities and another group smoked all they could stand the impairment of the drinker would far exceed the smokers in all areas. Also ever see someone OD on alcohol? I have too many times to count - I work in a college town. Did you know marijuana is one of the few drugs with no known lethal dosage look it up not even possible to ingest enough to OD.

I think your real problem is how you perceive the people you think are "pot heads" more than anything else. I got news for you I have known MD's, Lawyers, and many other "professional people" who you would never guess smoke and contribute allot to society, just like I know people who drink regularly with no problems & people who drink and are a total waste of space and do nothing but drain society - Open your mind a little and dont be so judgemental.

 

good statement. I also do not agree when people want to restrict others due to moral/christian beliefs.. Keep it to yourself.

 

Meh, I think I've typed all I need to in order to explain my point of view.

Recrational use = No
Medical use = yes (with stipulations)

This bill is too broad for the stated use of medical weed IMO.

 

We are on the same page!!

 

I realize the thread has moved past this (a lot lol) but I still wanted to address it. You not actually opposing it itself, but since there is alternatives you dont feel there is a need to legalize the real deal?

Ok, fair. But lets look at what it is doing to our country and state. Does Marinol somehow negate the drug cartels that are profiting, taking money out of our country and taking up the budget for war on drugs? No. Did you know

"In 2008, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard also floated the idea, saying that the Mexican cartels rely on marijuana smuggling for 75 percent of their financial base -- legalizing marijuana in the United States would not only wipe out the illicit market, but it would also loosen funds to combat the smuggling of hard drugs.In 2008, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard also floated the idea, saying that the Mexican cartels rely on marijuana smuggling for 75 percent of their financial base -- legalizing marijuana in the United States would not only wipe out the illicit market, but it would also loosen funds to combat the smuggling of hard drugs."
Source

This is not even going into the people that in prison using tax dollars for something that is far safer than alcohol, been used for ever even by our founding fathers (who believe in freedom), does not kill you like alcohol and cigarettes both do.

Safer borders, new industry (in this economy we sure could use it), its your choice what you do with your body, tax revenue, there are too many reasons not to support this in my opinion.

 

You sir, are right on point

 

Well there's your first problem, you quoted Terry Goddard. He'll be gone this election and we will have a real attorney general.

If we do legalize pot here, what's going to stop the cartels from just bring more and more into this country to sell when suppliers here can't keep up with demand, and now it's legal! lol What happens when people want to grow and sell pot here and start infringing on the cartels profits. Do you really think they're just going to lay down with out a fight? Where will the fight take place? Here in the good ol'pot growing and selling USofA. Didn't we just have a huge masecre down near the boarder over cartels using the same route...that was only the way they take to get the pot here.

Nope not enough benifit IMO.

 

On one end you make definitive statements about someone not being a "real" attorney general and then throw out big "what if" statements. The truth is I don't think you have really thought this threw because you present no new material, you just look to combat everything stated.

You simply haven't read the bill to know what the law entails. A system will be made that registered patients will be monitored and tracked limiting the amount they can purchase.

Again its not about right or wrong, its about where the money goes now? Have you heard of any radical things going on in the 13-14 states that currently have systems in place? I think not. If the war on drugs had been won I would understand your point, but the fact is, people are still using it, using properly and safely. The billions of dollars that go into fighting the drug cartels and the war on drugs might as well be burned up (pun intended) cause it hasn't helped.

 

Well said, some good points made IMO. We are supposed to be "The Land of the FREE" after all.

 

Man, I got sucked into the whole "what if zombies attacked" thread, then had a meeting and completely forgot about this one.

Bummer.

 

I never have smoked it, and never will I, but I say legalize it. People do it anyways, and no one doesn't do it because it's illegal. Seriously, who would tell their buddies, "Oh dude, it's illegal to smoke pot in this state." No one says that.

 

Always room for more input

True true. Also, I personally don't hangout with known murderers or know anyone who does, but millions of people are accepting of their friends, family, elders, etc that illegally smoke marijuana. Kind of says something about our stance on the issue in an underlying way

 

Nah. I'm kinda bored with this topic, and I don't live in AZ, anyway.

I will say, though, that I actually have worked for a government entity (several, in fact) and that I don't much care for people making assumptions about me.

That being said -- I think the answer lies in the economics. I personally would be skeptical about this proposal unless it contains provisions where the legalization program is self-sustaining. I would vote against it if tax dollars went into the funding.

 

Ok so here's the rest of the article for people to read instead of a snipit posted...

Now that I had an opportunity to read the entire article my questions are even more valid. These 100,000 foot soldiers of the cartel, do you think they'er just going to lay down while America just steps in and takes their revenue? I ask questions that are hard to answer so instead you deflect and call me combative. Your own "source" validates my questions.

And Terry Goddard is a d-bad, I don't like him or his policies that's my opinion though.

So do you really still think I haven't put much thought into this?

PS What about the argument that MJ is a gateway drug...as your report details cartels are bringing in more than just pot.

 

No, I will not be voting for it.

 

Good question, here is the answer from the bill itself

"(a) THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ALL FEES SHALL GENERATE REVENUES SUFFICIENT TO IMPLEMENT AND ADMINISTER THIS CHAPTER EXCEPT THAT FEE REVENUE MAY BE OFFSET OR SUPPLEMENTED BY PRIVATE DONATIONS."