Pros & Cons In Nevada ...

ViRedd

New Member
Potheads, puritans and pragmatists: Two marijuana initiatives put drug warriors on the defensive
By Jacob Sullum
Wednesday, October 18, 2006


Nevada is known for gambling, 24-hour liquor sales and legal prostitution. Yet the main group opposing Question 7, an initiative on the state's ballot next month that would allow the sale and possession of up to an ounce of marijuana by adults 21 or older, is called the Committee to Keep Nevada Respectable.
In Colorado, opponents of Amendment 44, which would eliminate penalties for adults possessing an ounce or less of marijuana, are equally certain of their own rectitude. "Those who want to legalize drugs weaken our collective struggle against this scourge," declares the Colorado Drug Investigators Association. "Like a cancer, proponents for legalization eat away at society's resolve and moral fiber."
To sum up, smoking pot is less respectable than a drunken gambling spree followed by a visit to a hooker, while people who think adults shouldn't be punished for their choice of recreational intoxicants are like a tumor that will kill you unless it's eradicated. In the face of such self-righteous posturing, the marijuana initiatives' backers have refused to cede the moral high ground, a strategy from which other activists can learn.
The Nevada campaign, which calls itself the Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana, emphasizes the advantages of removing marijuana from the black market, where regulation and control are impossible, and allowing adults to obtain the drug from licensed, accountable merchants. To signal that a legal market does not mean anything goes, the initiative increases penalties for injuring people while driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
The "regulate and control" message has attracted public support from more than 30 Nevada religious leaders. The list includes not just the usual suspects -- Unitarian Universalist ministers and Reform rabbis -- but also representatives of more conservative groups, such as Lutherans and Southern Baptists.
"I don't think using marijuana is a wise choice for anyone," says the Rev. William C. Webb, senior pastor of Reno's Second Baptist Church. "Drugs ruin enough lives. But we don't need our laws ruining more lives. If there has to be a market for marijuana, I'd rather it be regulated with sensible safeguards than run by violent gangs and dangerous drug dealers."
Troy Dayton of the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative, who was largely responsible for persuading Webb and the other religious leaders to back Question 7, notes that support from members of the clergy, which was important in repealing alcohol prohibition, "forces a reframing of the issue." It's no longer a contest between potheads and puritans.
The Colorado campaign, which goes by the name SAFER (Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation), emphasizes that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol and asks, "Should adults be punished for making the rational choice to use marijuana instead of alcohol?" This approach puts prohibitionists on the defensive by asking them to justify the disparate legal treatment of the two drugs.
So far they have not been up to the task. Mesa County District Attorney Pete Hautzinger has implicitly conceded marijuana itself is not so bad by implausibly linking it to methamphetamine. In a televised debate with SAFER's Mason Tvert, Colorado Attorney General John Suthers insisted "the only acceptable alternative to intoxication is sobriety."
That's fine for those who avoid all psychoactive substances as a matter of principle. But since most people -- including Suthers, who acknowledges drinking -- like using chemicals to alter their moods and minds, it's reasonable to ask for some consistency in the law's treatment of those chemicals, especially at a time when police are arresting a record number of Americans (nearly 787,000 last year) for marijuana offenses.
Despite a hard push by federal, state and local drug warriors who have been telling voters in Nevada and Colorado that failing to punish adults for smoking pot will "send the wrong message" to children, the latest polls indicate most are unpersuaded. Perhaps they worry about the message sent by the current policy of mindless intolerance.


Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com. Be the first to read Jacob Sullum's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox. Sign up today!


Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
State Question #7: Shall Titles 32, 40, and 43 of the Nevada Revised Statutes be amended in order to allow and regulate the sale, use and possession of one ounce or less of marijuana by persons at least 21 years of age, impose licensing requirements on marijuana retailers and wholesalers, allow for the sale of marijuana by licensed marijuana retailers ($1,000 per year) and wholesalers, impose taxes ( $45.00 per ounce on the wholesaler) and restrictions on the wholesale and retail sale of marijuana, and to increase the criminal penalties for causing death or substantial bodily harm when driving while under the influence of drugs and alcohol? yes or no! Maximum Penalties For above would be increased to: from 20 to 40 years and from $5,000 to $10,000 fines. Also would make it a class B felony for persons over 21 to sell or give to a minor. Thats the gist of it!
 

ViRedd

New Member
This measure wouldn't "measure" up to my standards at all.

How about just something simple like: "The people of Nevada, being of sane mind, have come to the realization that what the citizens smoke, snort, inject or drink, is none of the goverrnment's business as long as the rights of another are not violated. This bill requires that from now on, the State of Nevada is to stay out of the people's non-violent, voluntary business. It is also agreed, that the State of Nevada will in no way profit from the passage of this bill."

There, isn't that much better?

Vi
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Who cares if it measures up to Your Standards.
At least it is a step in the right direction... Besides Vi, the Republicans in Nevada as well as the churches are backing this measure.
You see they want to make it to where you can buy cannabis legally and it is a TAXED commodity just like Cigarettes and Liquor.

Just think one day you could actually go to the store and buy Acapulco Gold in regular and menthol, yes that's right, Acapulco Gold, Just a stoney 3 hits longer. :D
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
I remember a few years ago the Cigarette Co.s copywrighted those names (Acapulco gold, Panama Red, Etc.) and the federal Govt. had pot plantations in I believe Tennessee or Virginia, (close to the Capital, Hmmmm....) so who do you think the growers will be? Lets see, some Republican assholes that own land in this area and have sway with The Govt. well yeah, how do you think it works anyway? so the assholes will turn it into a Huge profit making machine. Well are they any worse than pot wholesalers now? Untill they completely De- Reg Pot we will never be out from under greedy assholes whom control the cultivation and Marketing. At least if your caught walking around with less than an ounce, your safe. If caught driving with the same amount, I don't know what the law will expect out of you, drug testing to see if your under the influence. If your a daily user, you'll test positive! Now can they tell if you have enough in your system to be affected, as in DUI, or will they just throw the book at you for testing positive. These are questions that need an answer if your facing 40 years for an accident, even if it was not your fault!
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
You know what's funny, Cigarette Companies have been buying land in South America for years.
I do beleive that they need to come up with a test that tells how stoned you are at the time of the accident.
But I still think it's a step in the right direction.
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
Yeah, the neat thing would be to get in on the chain somewhere, from growing to selling, but I'm sure the rich connected assholes will have that sown up. What do you want to bet some state senators Son or son-in-law will get the contract to grow and distribute. I'd say free enterprise won't enter into it! But I think it'll be a better law than now! In the last three years, 10,000 people have been incarcerated for pot infractions, that is 3300 a year or about ten a day, Not real excessive in a population of 2 million, they're pretty lax on minor possession even now! I remember reading about a guy in Texas in the 60s, got Life for a joint! Now thats excessive! ("dang me, dang me, ought to take a rope and hang me, hang me from the highest tree, oh mama don't you cry for me")- Poetic lisence!
 

ViRedd

New Member
Whatever government taxes is not free. As human beings, we have the right to grow and consume any damned thing we want as long as we do not violate the rights of another in the process. Freedom is the right to be left alone and governmental regulation and taxation of the herb is not being left alone.

Vi
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
You know, for someone who hates the Government as much as you, You sure stick up for the Bush regime. Did you catch his (Bush) latest faupaw, Doing away with Habias Corpus, no more 72 hour court date mandated. For someone whom hates the Govt. so much you sure trust this wanabe dictator Bush! Are you related, I could under stand that, nepotism and all but otherwise you're either stupid or not watching the news. I don't think they show the bad things G.W. does on FOX, maybe you ought to switch channels once in a while. Now take into consideration the whole thread and don't pull one sentence out to make a fool out of yourself with. Thanks Red!
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
so Red offends you, well have you ever thought of what offends me. Mainly it's your know it all attitude and the fact that you back up all your supposed "facts" with other peoples opinions. I've stated numerous times that I'm only expressing my opinion, Because it doesn't agree with yours, does not make you the superior "opinionator" (My word). can I find lots of people that agree with me, hell yeah, but I don't feel the need to prove that my ideas are aligned with many others as I suppose you do. So continue with your other peoples opinions rants, just don't be-little me because I don't feel the need to do so. Your "facts" are 99% opinions as there are very few facts in political arguements. That's why they call it rhetoric!
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
Don't worry Vi has been done with me on a number of times, Like I said do a little research and then present your argument,
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
I hate research. I can't stand roaming the net to prove a point. If my point is not taken or understood, then I guess in that sense I've failed. Having faced failure a number of times in my young life, I find it not that dramatic. I hope I've learned from my life experiences and if I can share them with you, well OK. If they offend you, I know not what to say except "excuse Me"!
 

ViRedd

New Member
Med ...

You don't offend me, nor do you piss me off. Not in the least. Remember, after a lifetime in straight commissioned sales, my skin is four feet thick. :)

All I've ever wanted from you is for you to back up your statements. If you say, for example, "Real estate agents drive prices up through collusion," I want the information that you've based the statement on. I mean, if you can't back the statement up, then why should anyone believe it?

Vi
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
Are there any things in life you know to be true but can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt? Does it not make sense that the only ones benefiting from the real estate boom are the investors and real estate agents. Do you think someone whom owns their home and doesn't want to sell it benefits. they have to pay higher taxes (not in California I know) but everywhere else. even if you sell your house for 400,000, you have to live somewhere so you'll just have to put that money in another house, unless your leaving the area and moving to podunk USA where the prices are lower, so basically there is no net gain. The reasoning here is 3% of a higher amount translates to more profit for realators and agents and investors of course make money when their investment doubles or triples. Mean while the poor bloke that is starting out in life has had the American dream smashed in his face, Who can afford a 350,000 house on 12.00 per hour. What do I need to do to prove the obvious, provide you with reading glasses. I guess since you're one of the responsible parties, you'll never agree with this postulate. Just know that myself and a lot of people I talk with know whom is responsible for the high housing prices, and it's blokes like you! It's about time the internet knocked this shady business practice down a peg or two. 6% is just too high of a percentage to pay someone for what is usually much less than 40 hours of actual work to make a deal.

Hopefully the RE agents, mortgage brokers and appraisers will stop their [["collusive"]] business arrangements, reduce their fees and be more reasonable in order to compete.

Here in the Bay Area, median home prices are in excess of $700K which could cost over $42,000 in commision fees. That's just too damn much, especially in the last several years where homes basically sold themselves during the boom. Now with the slowdown in the RE markets agents have to work a little harder, but the work is still not even close to being worth what they charge.

Give me an internet site that charges a reasonable flat rate to list the property, guide me through the process and I'll be happy to do most of the leg work myself. (Right off the net just like your drivel)
 

ViRedd

New Member
Very interesting post you made there Med ... and through your last post, you've given me a ton of insight into your thinking. I imagine a lot of folks think exactly like you when it comes to Realtors and the R.E. business. If you and I ever meet in person, this is a topic that I'd LOVE to discuss with you. You see, I've met a lot of folks who feel exactly as you do. In reality you have no idea what life in the R.E. business is like. Therefore you have no basis, other than what you "feel" to go on.

I'll end with this ... In spite of the increase in housing prices, and they don't get much more expensive than in California, the average income earned by full time agents is under 50k a year. Keep in mind, there are no paid vacations, no sick leave, no medical insurance, no retirement plans and NO EMPLOYER. R.E. agents are independent contractors ... and that means, no union to rely on for collective bargaining. It is one of the lowest paid easy jobs and one of the highest paid hard jobs on the planet. One will get out of the business EXACTLY what one puts in ... no more and no less. It is a go-it-alone type of business. In other words, Med ... their ain't no free lunch in the real estate business.

Here's a page from the National Association of Realtor's website that will give you a lot of insight into the business:

http://www.realtor.org/Research.nsf/files/Structure Paper FINAL 11-28-05.pdf/$FILE/Structure Paper FINAL 11-28-05.pdf

I was wondering, Med ... is there a law somewhere that forbids anyone other than carpenters, plumbers, electricans and cement finishers from making money?

Take a look at the equity gain in your own property, Med ... then invite your Realtor to lunch.

Vi
 

medicinaluseonly

Well-Known Member
I've told you, its' to the short pier with her! What the hell am I gaining besides more taxes, I plan to die in this house so I could care less what the resale price is, I know my taxes have gone up 100.00 a month, gee thanks! (I think you owe me a 1200.00 dinner every year), I'll be in touch!
 
Top