I’ve been meaning to post this and now this is the last evening to fill out the survey at JustSayNow.com
Give them your thoughts.
- DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy
Join us on Pete's couch.
Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to: Recent Comments
on Marijuana potencies and transitioning to Schedule III: “Sometimes, we shoot ourselves in the water bong. No pharmacy lets you smell your meds. But, you can ‘technically’ get…” Oct 28, 10:19
on Marijuana potencies and transitioning to Schedule III: “A 37-percent decrease in ODs from opioids combined with other drugs was achieved using drug treatments, drug education, and naloxone:…” Oct 21, 21:40
on JD Vance is a marijuana prohibitionist: “After trying disparate brands, I can confidently articulate thc cbd gummies are top-notch. The taste is ambrosial and doesn’t entertain…” Oct 14, 13:04
on JD Vance is a marijuana prohibitionist: “This study doesn’t surprise me. But here’s the thing: Synthetic THC as a single-molecule may help reduce agitation but it’s…” Oct 6, 13:24
on Irvin Rosenfeld and the Compassionate IND — Medical Marijuana Proof and Government Lies: “rvylba” Oct 2, 22:32
Are we there yet?
Did anyone read this post on NORML about the 10 lessons they learned?
http://blog.norml.org/2010/11/08/10-lessons-learned-from-marijuana-election-defeats/
Concerns:
#3: What would a level playing field look like for smaller growers? I for one support a legal, regulated environment, but do not want laws that subsidize smaller growers just because they’re paying their rent with the money. I think NORML and other national players should be cautious about going too far with this idea. The people voting against it that are small time growers for medical marijuana will probably vote against it anyway even with an olive branch. Don’t underestimate the power of money. Moreover, marijuana should be cheap, not expensive for the sake of some people. Bottom line is marijuana consumers shouldn’t have to pay more to satisfy a few stubborn people that are being selfish.
WITH THAT SAID, I would still support an initiative that legalized it with some type of small grower incentives, but we are just discussing possibilities right now. Never vote no on a marijuana legaliation initiative because you disagree with a certain part. It can always be fixed later, and the amount of help a success would have is more than worth it.
On #5: Careful here, but yes. This message, taking on the morality of the issue, may backfire in reformer’s face. Reformers have made great strides in the whole “marijuana is bad, so let’s control it” argument. We need to stress it’s less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, but I don’t know if you can make a concrete moral argument that will win too many people over because of the nature of morality debates. Taking on the moral issue might get the message side tracked.
However, image-wise, NORML is right. They need to show businesswomen, mothers, successful people, using marijuana. If they can manage that, it would only be helpful. However, there is a pretty huge stigma, so that will be tough to pull off. But that’s the right way to go about changing public perceptions and arguing the morality of the situation without making some type of abstract argument that marijuana use isn’t immoral. Show them it’s not immoral, don’t explain it or argue it isn’t.
#8: Here is the problem with #8. You are opening up a can of worms and the whole discussion will go into THIS SPECIFIC part of the initiative. It will revolve around if the science is good enough to detect marijuana impairment from a single device and no single device is probably good enough, and prohibitionists will exploit this while ignoring the fact that breath tests for alcohol aren’t perfect either and aren’t the only piece of evidence cops use in DUI/DWI.
The fact is, cops can already detect impairment through various roadside tests, and then get a blood test. They do it right now. This is how it is in most states already. Cops could get better trained to detect marijuana impairment without some type of magic roadside test. I feel this is a dangerous thing to bring forward because prohibitionists will exploit that the technology for these various methods like saliva are not precise enough and “aren’t ready”. The no roaches or used paraphernalia idea isn’t bad though. This should probably be included without anything else. I don’t think the no on 19 crowd made much headway on the driving argument.
We need to go to the hispanic community. The movement has not sufficiently gotten the word out to hispanic voters.
If all the potential youth voters can muster is talking the talk, instead of bringing themselves to vote for change, then nothing is going change that. They should be encouraged to gently engage their grandparents generation with their savy on the internet. Hints might be brought to fore while in their company watching movies, news items or concerning some individual that they respect that, unbeknownst to them, kicks back with the herb superb. The younguns should look for common ground with oldster on various themes – medicine, economics, history, judicial dissent, corruption, draconia etc. Talk to them, not at them. Ask them about their awareness on the subject.
I submit that anecdotal personal experience figured significantly to see California voters choose legalization by 46%. Despite being denied the voting influence of growers in the north, and the vindictive dispensary heads, people who don’t even partake of their commodity were taking the time to write their approval for legalization. Answering articles on the subject with such introductions as; ‘I had to give up smoking pot long ago but…’, ‘I don’t know enough about marijuana laws but…’ , ‘It didn’t do anything for me but…’, I became aware this year, of a subset of perceptive individuals that saw anachronistic laws as being harmful to society, even though these laws did not affect them personally. This is one heck of a more salient scenario than in 1972, when that Prop 19 was crushed as explicitly defined as ‘straights’ versus ‘heads’.
Prop 19: What Went Right, What Went Wrong
Indeed, the post-election output on Prop 19 has been stunning. Russ Belville of NORML has 10 Lessons Learned from Marijuana Election Defeats, while the Christian Science Monitor has Three Reasons Prop 19 Got the Thumbs Down (federal government opposition, midterm voter demographics, and fear of regulatory gridlock), and Pete Guither at the Drug War Rant has his own Prop 19 Wrap-Up.
Dr. Mollie Fry’s Medical Marijuana Conviction Upheld November 08, 2010
A panel on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the marijuana cultivation and distribution conspiracy convictions of California Dr. Marion “Mollie” Fry and her partner, Dale Schafer. Fry and Schafer, both medical marijuana patients, had been sentenced to five years in federal prison in the case, but were free on bail pending the appeal. There is no word yet on when they will have to report to prison or whether they will try further appeals.
Dr. Mollie Fry gets 5 ******* Years! March 19, 2008
Editorial: Synthetic marijuana has very real risks 11/9/2010
With the jury still out on medical marijuana and full legalization of pot – a natural, non-synthetic product – likely years away, the prudent thing for lawmakers to do is ban sale of spice products in the state of Arizona.