Why do they want people who don't smoke MJ to pay HIGHER TAXES?


Cause locking up more people for MJ and warehousing them in prisons IS A TAX INCREASE ON AMERICA!

These statements aren't even true. Prop 19 would NOT legalize getting high at work, while driving, or while around persons under 21. And marijuana operatives probably wont want thousands of acres to attract the feds.
The current regime just exports US jobs to Canada and Mexico anyway.

They HATES our jobs!
And I'm reasonably confident that'll be case here as well, Dan. Despite the claims in this ad, pot in CA is just short of ubiquitous: it spans generations, economic and social strata, geographic regions, even political leanings. In short, there is not a single person in the state who (whether they know it or not) DOESN'T know someone who smokes pot. And the state has NOT turned into a vast wasteland of tweaking zombies.

And of course, I'm sure there are plenty of safeguards in the legislation that will regulate marijuana in the same manner as alcohol, with the same penalties for abuse and unsafe usage.

In an economy where the state's unemployment rate is well over 12%, where there are more than 2 MILLION Californians currently out of work, where the state is looking at a $19 BILLION budget deficit, the revenue from the legal cultivation and sale of marijuana could go a long ways toward easing some of the pain (both economic as well as physical) Californians are facing every day.

If that means state LEA's lose some of their expensive toys, and some of their otherwise lucrative "drug war" profits, then I'm sure the citizens of California can learn to live with that.
After we're done beating back the scourge of legalized pot, let's keep the momentum and reinstitute Prohibition of Alcohol. Cause everyone knows that's way worse than pot. Why, I bet if we can keep pot outlawed, and outlaw alcohol, it might even save straight, monogamous-for-life-with-no-divorce-option, opposite-marriage!
And unicorns!
The only groups giving money to the opposition groups right now are law enforcement and district attorneys.
Excluding the "Legalization means" part at the end, here is a line by line response to each piece of misinformation/fearmongering in this ad
1)Teens in rehab due to criminal sentenses
2)Not a gateway, being illegal means puts it in the same environments as other drugs.
3)It might not have become more potent in a regulated environment.
4)Use a vaporizor or eat it.
5)Unlikely to be sold in sections of stores where minors would have easy access. Hard liquor is sold in stores in California.
6)Legalization would give youths more difficult access to it.
7)Would be treated the same as drunk driving.
8)Complete Bullshit!
9)Fewer would be prosecuted for it, therefore fewer would be in rehab for it. So how would insurance premiums go up?
10)So what? Aren't we subsidizing farmers who grow nothing?
This is the prop 8 people. Same people, same monies, same lies and "think of the children!™" bullshit. hopefully the pot heads are more up to kicking their ass than the gays were.
Also, Dominic, of course it's reminiscent of the anti-gay marriage people. It's the same money and probably the same ad agency producing it. I slog-tipped that to you this morning...not that I need the ego boost of acknowledgment...
how was the food at panevino? thumbs up or thumbs down? also, can we get gay married?
So, are they actually saying Mormons don't get high and get gay married?

Where do you think they came up with all those sister wives?
Hell, I'm seeing the same scare tactics here over the initiatives to permit private alcohol sales. You'd think no other state sold liquor in grocery stores, the way people are acting. "MY GOD, we'll have BABIES drunk on the streetcorner!" Sometimes I wonder if some of these people have ever left Centralia, or what.
@7: Better responses to a couple of those:

3) More potent pot means having to smoke less pot to get the same high.
4) a: It's more harmful because it's illegal. Nobody is mass-producing joints with built-in filters. How harmful is it compared to hand-rolled unfiltered cigarettes? b: Pot smokers smoke pot until they're high and then stop.

Pretty spot-on on the rest.
@13 i'm not worried about the babies, just the street drunks, thanks.
@14: I think it's "more harmful" gram for gram, although that doesn't account for additives in cigarettes. But there's less weed in a joint than tobacco in a cigarette and you can't really chain smoke weed (you'd pass out).
@14, I don't think its legal status has any bearing on weather it causes cancer or not. Which is why I suggested a vaporizor (which only heats it up enough to vaporize the THC, so you are inhaling no residue from the rest of the plant), or eating it.
Funny how claims of pot possibly causing cancer are only coming out now that it has a chance of being legal somewhere.
@16 A pack of cigarettes has approx. 3/4 oz. of tobacco. I don't know anyone who smokes that much pot in one day, but I know a few pack a day smokers. I don't think the 'gram for gram' comparison is applicable in this case.
Scarwey moosic. Seriously, this is the same argument I was given in 6th grade in 1970 as why drugs were bad. It was only till I realized that alcohol was in the same exact category that I realized these arguments are bullshit. So - follow the money - who doesn't want travel writing legalized, and why? It's never morals, it's always money. And I call it travel writing bec when I stopped by this guy's house to buy some a few years ago, he said he wanted his housemates to think I was there to 'read' his 'travel writing.' Okay, whatev. The name stuck.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.