caseball2051
Well-Known Member
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-belville/10-lessons-learned-from-m_b_779959.html
thought it was an interesting read and figured Id share.
thought it was an interesting read and figured Id share.
10 Lessons Learned from the MJ election defeats
- Thread starter caseball2051
- Start date
OO
Technical Skeptical
Here is a copy of my response to Russ.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-belville/10-lessons-learned-from-m_b_779959.html
While I found this article rather interesting and my agreement with your views was favorable for most of the article, i have a few qualms about some of the things you have said.
The least of my worries surrounds point three. I believe that pot should be treated like a commodity, just like anything else. In order to do this, we should allow the free market will have its way with pot, and if the consumer truly wants their product from the small size growers, then they should be ready to pay the higher prices from someone who isn't able to afford to sell to as many people. My expectation is that since pot grows so well in the "triangle", that the larger businesses who will fill the market's demand will be rooted in that area, and that many of the people who currently make a living off growing will continue to do so. Many will not be able to compete with the market and will have to find a better source of income, which is not a problem in my eyes. the only reason there are as many people as there are now in the business of growing is that it is so profitable. The reason it is so profitable is that it is illegal, simple as that. I don't have any sympathy for an individual who can't adapt to a change in the market, this is how America was designed to work, it's not like there's no other job out there for those who will be put out of the growing business, they just have to find new niches for themselves.
With point number four, my only suggestion is that our examples be as true as possible, as to not fall to the level of our government on this same issue. It shouldn't be hard to demonstrate our point anyways.
My largest objections revolve around points seven and eight. Regarding point seven, my objection is for the same reason you object to the drug testing. The reason I feel this way is because to me, marijuana law reform is all about having the law reflect reality, and under your proposal, the law would not reflect reality, it would unfairly punish users. For me, ANY marijuana law that allows recreational use needs to tackle the point that employers should have no say in what you do in your personal life, if anyone is willing to let their employer decide how they live their life outside of work, they should work for Steve Jobs. For the rest of us, the law needs to be a fair and realistic (I.E. reflects reality) policy.
"When marijuana is legal, soon those policies for pot will seem as ridiculous. "
It doesn't matter whether a policy seems ridiculous or not. There is plenty of mainstream policy that is acknowledged as ridiculous, but they are still enforced. This law needs to be all inclusive reform, I don't think it is worth the risk to leave any loose ends.
As for the "treat it like alcohol frame," it should be more like a "treat it like pot frame". Yes my largest objection is to point eight, for the reasons you mentioned. These two years are our chance to educate the public on the truth behind driving law and drug law. As you explained, BAC does not tell you how inebriated someone is. What is necessary is to show the public just how wrong our current drunk driving law is. That is the preferred alternative, as the last thing we need to do is make both drug and driving laws a misrepresentation of reality. That would be an injustice to both drug and driving law reform. The reason why we can't have a system that tests the level of cannabinoids in the blood is that we still don't know how the different ratios of cannabiniods affect people. Therefore we must leave it up to the individual to decide whether they are capable of driving or not, and punish them should they make a bad judgement call. The reason I am fine with this is that with cannabis people's judgement is not affected. People have for years expressed the idea that cannabis affects judgement making ability, but I have had a huge exposure to pot and haven't seen it. Every instance of stupidity I have witnessed could have been directly attributed to the nature of that person. Or at least that is how I felt after witnessing those instances.
Though I would like to spend more time addressing point eight, we have reached the point of futility since we are in such close agreement. Therefore I will continue on.
To address point nine, one of my favorite aspects of Prop 19 was the fact that it addressed the fact that certain regions would like to prohibit the use of the drug which is fine by me, there are dry counties after all, who see alcohol as bad enough to prohibit it's consumption entirely. I feel that it is ONLY acceptable to do this at a county level. I would much prefer an opt in clause for this reason. To me, one of the greatest strengths of our form of government is that small scale populations can decide their own policies. Consistent statewide regulation is not necessary because each county has it's own law enforcement to enforce the laws of that area, as it should be. They should not be forced to comply with other jurisdictions for the sake of congruency. And yes, I'm from the unincorporated area of San Diego county, I know from personal experience how difficult it is to differentiate between each area, but i'm certain that this would be a viable defense in court should you be in one of the bordering areas. if you are outside of the bordering areas, the responsibility of knowing local law lies on the individual. If the issue is one of taxes, then those who are in an area of higher taxes will just have to compete.
If you would like to continue this discussion, please do respond, as my opinion and views are always open to change in the face of a reasonable argument.
Thank you for reading.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-belville/10-lessons-learned-from-m_b_779959.html
While I found this article rather interesting and my agreement with your views was favorable for most of the article, i have a few qualms about some of the things you have said.
The least of my worries surrounds point three. I believe that pot should be treated like a commodity, just like anything else. In order to do this, we should allow the free market will have its way with pot, and if the consumer truly wants their product from the small size growers, then they should be ready to pay the higher prices from someone who isn't able to afford to sell to as many people. My expectation is that since pot grows so well in the "triangle", that the larger businesses who will fill the market's demand will be rooted in that area, and that many of the people who currently make a living off growing will continue to do so. Many will not be able to compete with the market and will have to find a better source of income, which is not a problem in my eyes. the only reason there are as many people as there are now in the business of growing is that it is so profitable. The reason it is so profitable is that it is illegal, simple as that. I don't have any sympathy for an individual who can't adapt to a change in the market, this is how America was designed to work, it's not like there's no other job out there for those who will be put out of the growing business, they just have to find new niches for themselves.
With point number four, my only suggestion is that our examples be as true as possible, as to not fall to the level of our government on this same issue. It shouldn't be hard to demonstrate our point anyways.
My largest objections revolve around points seven and eight. Regarding point seven, my objection is for the same reason you object to the drug testing. The reason I feel this way is because to me, marijuana law reform is all about having the law reflect reality, and under your proposal, the law would not reflect reality, it would unfairly punish users. For me, ANY marijuana law that allows recreational use needs to tackle the point that employers should have no say in what you do in your personal life, if anyone is willing to let their employer decide how they live their life outside of work, they should work for Steve Jobs. For the rest of us, the law needs to be a fair and realistic (I.E. reflects reality) policy.
"When marijuana is legal, soon those policies for pot will seem as ridiculous. "
It doesn't matter whether a policy seems ridiculous or not. There is plenty of mainstream policy that is acknowledged as ridiculous, but they are still enforced. This law needs to be all inclusive reform, I don't think it is worth the risk to leave any loose ends.
As for the "treat it like alcohol frame," it should be more like a "treat it like pot frame". Yes my largest objection is to point eight, for the reasons you mentioned. These two years are our chance to educate the public on the truth behind driving law and drug law. As you explained, BAC does not tell you how inebriated someone is. What is necessary is to show the public just how wrong our current drunk driving law is. That is the preferred alternative, as the last thing we need to do is make both drug and driving laws a misrepresentation of reality. That would be an injustice to both drug and driving law reform. The reason why we can't have a system that tests the level of cannabinoids in the blood is that we still don't know how the different ratios of cannabiniods affect people. Therefore we must leave it up to the individual to decide whether they are capable of driving or not, and punish them should they make a bad judgement call. The reason I am fine with this is that with cannabis people's judgement is not affected. People have for years expressed the idea that cannabis affects judgement making ability, but I have had a huge exposure to pot and haven't seen it. Every instance of stupidity I have witnessed could have been directly attributed to the nature of that person. Or at least that is how I felt after witnessing those instances.
Though I would like to spend more time addressing point eight, we have reached the point of futility since we are in such close agreement. Therefore I will continue on.
To address point nine, one of my favorite aspects of Prop 19 was the fact that it addressed the fact that certain regions would like to prohibit the use of the drug which is fine by me, there are dry counties after all, who see alcohol as bad enough to prohibit it's consumption entirely. I feel that it is ONLY acceptable to do this at a county level. I would much prefer an opt in clause for this reason. To me, one of the greatest strengths of our form of government is that small scale populations can decide their own policies. Consistent statewide regulation is not necessary because each county has it's own law enforcement to enforce the laws of that area, as it should be. They should not be forced to comply with other jurisdictions for the sake of congruency. And yes, I'm from the unincorporated area of San Diego county, I know from personal experience how difficult it is to differentiate between each area, but i'm certain that this would be a viable defense in court should you be in one of the bordering areas. if you are outside of the bordering areas, the responsibility of knowing local law lies on the individual. If the issue is one of taxes, then those who are in an area of higher taxes will just have to compete.
If you would like to continue this discussion, please do respond, as my opinion and views are always open to change in the face of a reasonable argument.
Thank you for reading.