Digg.com vote presses Schwarzenegger on legalizing marijuana
As more government officials choose to publicly answer questions submitted by Internet users, they're encountering a new phenomenon: marijuana activists intent on forcing answers to the would-you-legalize-pot question.
In March, President Obama's first virtual town hall took a detour when questions about legalizing marijuana were voted to the top of the "financial stability," "jobs," "budget," and (of course) "green jobs" polls on WhiteHouse.gov
On Wednesday, it was California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, who was put on the spot. Digg.com users propelled a legalize-marijuana question to the No. 2 position (behind one asking about what he was thinking when photographed grimacing at President George W. Bush).
Earlier this month, Schwarzenegger said "it's time for debate" about legalizing marijuana. Read on for an excerpt from the CNN interview.
Q: What is your stance on the legalization, cultivation, and regulation of marijuana in the state of California?A: I like the law that we have in place. And I don't believe in legalizing marijuana, but I'm always open for the debate because there are people that feel differently. And I said I'm always interested in debating any of these issues because there's always different ways of looking at it. And I think it would be interesting to see the information that is available, if there's any information available, of how well countries are doing that have legalized marijuana. But I don't think that information is available, and I'd want us to see that.
But I believe in the law, the way the law is right now, and I think it's worked very well for the state of California. And I think it would be a mistake to just go and legalize something that we don't believe in just because it would produce an extra billion dollars in revenues. And I think we just have to learn how to live within our means rather than trying to do things we really don't want to do.
Q: New polls actually show that more than half of Californians support legalizing marijuana. So would that sway your stance on it whatsoever in this open debate that you're calling for? Would it sway your opinion?
A: Well, it could very well go on an initiative one day, where they ask the voters directly, that could very well be. And if the voters make that decision, that's fine. But I think it is very important for us to make certain decisions not just because they would bring in some extra money, and I think this is why people have been talking about that in California, to go in that direction, and to start debating that issue. Because it would produce, as they say, $1.3 billion, $1.4 billion extra revenues.
Thanks to a 1996 ballot measure, medical marijuana is already legal under California law, though local officials have substantial discretion. Although that conflicts with federal law, the Obama administration has chosen not to target California medical marijuana dispensaries.
State legislator Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat, introduced a bill in February to legalize recreational marijuana. Bill AB 390 would license "commercial cultivators of marijuana" and establish a complicated web of regulations and tax rules they and retailers must follow.
It could raise over $1.2 billion a year in new tax revenues, assuming a $50-an-ounce tax, according to an analysis by California NORML, an organization working to reform the state's marijuana laws.
A Field poll released on April 30 found that 56 percent of the state's registered voters support legalizing marijuana and taxing its sale.
Declan McCullagh is a contributor to CNET News and a correspondent for CBSNews.com who has covered the intersection of politics and technology for over a decade. Declan writes a regular feature called Taking Liberties, focused on individual and economic rights; you can bookmark his CBS News Taking Liberties site, or subscribe to the RSS feed. You can e-mail Declan at declan@cbsnews.com. 
It's about growing and using hemp to replace all the trees we chop up every year. Hemp makes great paper and it's a renewable resource, unlike our forests. It makes cloth suitable for clothing, and it doesn't take as much out of the soil as cotton.
The revenue it could raise is a small factor here. Ultimately, it's really about freedom to use all the resources God put on this planet.
Forests are renewable. At least the forests used for paper and timber. How do I know? Well, my family used to own a paper company, and we owned forests, that we renewed. You are misinformed.
Beyond this, hemp is not without it's problems. Where do you grow the hemp? Well, it grows best in CLEARED OUT areas of FORESTS. So to increase hemp production, you generally must clear out a forest. So rather than that forest being renewed, you have hemp being renewed in the same place. You don't gain much here, environmentally. And more animal life benefits from a forest that is harvested every 20-30 years than a hemp field that is harvested continually. Top soil is also destroyed by the farming you are talking about, with more fertilizer and other contaminants being used, than a forest, which after initial planting, is left to it's own devices, renewing the soil on it's own.
The argument is always so "simple" for the pot smokers. You use these "it's good for everyone" arguments that are both misinformed and incomplete. But ultimately, your goal is not to provide cheap paper for the world or to be a champion of freedom or to expound on the rights God grants man.
It's simply to get high.
Prohibition hasn't worked.. it didn't work in the 20s and it's not working now.
I got caught with weed twice in college. Sue me.
Now whenever I get pulled over, they illegally search my car.
Why? Because bully cops are prejudiced agaist people with _ANY_ criminal history.
I think _THAT_ is what has got to change.
Hopefully, legalizing it would be a step in that direction.
why do you keep getting pulled over anyway?
they probably search your car because you are driving like an idiot and have a big marijuana leaf sticker on your back windshield?
yes the cop knows. ever see the laptop in cop cars and radios on the cop. these are for communication. before the police officer even turns on his lights he has called in your plate which brings up all your registration info and subsequently your info as well. some police cars are even equipped with a text recognition system that automatically checks every recognized plate it sees and checks them against arrest records and stolen car registries. once you are pulled over license and registration is collected scanned and checked against the data they already have in front of them.
Big Brother is watching us all and nothing is secret. The only records police don't have instant access to is any juvenile records, and while you may have been cleared of charges on previous arrests they will only care about the arrest report not the subsequent actions of the courts. They catch your once you're going to be searched the rest of your life.
Legalizing MJ will close down farms. It will divert resources to a recreational product and away from staples. The price of food will go UP, quite a bit, not just for Californians, but for Americans. This "tax" on consumers will more than offset the "tax benefit" of legalizing and taxing MJ.
But of course, the goal of the legalize crowd is NOT the benefit of mankind. It's self serving.
"I want to take drugs" is fine and dandy. But not on my dime.
Drug Prohibition has failed for the same reason Alcohol Prohibition failed. Prohibition does not work. Don?t Be Fooled Prohibition is UN-AMERICAN!
END THE FOOLISH, FAILED WAR ON DRUGS!
John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln but Harry Anslinger assassinated Lincoln?s ideas for America.
So ridiculous to try and change the foundation America was built on.
Our grandparents gave their BLOOD to be free from this way of thinking
don't buy these lies people. Think and make choices for yourself. And if
you can't do that join the military but for Pete's sake don't fall for this crap.
END OF DISCUSSION
At this point, California grows a great deal of the country's food, and replacing that with hemp and pot is NOT a viable solution for our tax problems. There is not enough water to grow everything.
you can't do that join the military END OF DISCUSSION!!!!!
Who said everything has to be grown in California? There are states with vast amounts of land, plenty of water and nothing being done with either. MJ grows in close to desert conditions, is incredibly robust and does a lot of good things (the entire plant is usable meaning zero waste).
It also takes less work to get right and can demand more returns per acre than your current crop yields.
In other words, you could be doing less work for more money with no need for government subsidization and you could actually help to improve the flow of cash in California for the food industry (ever heard of the munchies?). That means if you move the tomato fields, strawberry fields and whatever other fields are in California to a more suitable climate with more water and replace those crops with MJ, then you'll be not only more wealthy but also more capable of improving the lot in life of more people by hiring them to do what little bit of work is necessary for the MJ being grown in California and to do the work necessary for growing the crops transplanted to other parts of the US.
In your original statement, your last line was ""I want to take drugs" is fine and dandy. But not on my dime." That statement takes it for granted that you would be paying for them to get high. What if they paid you instead? Grow it and they will give you lots and lots of money.
And despite all the pro-hemp cheerleading out there, hemp is legal in many other countries, and yet it HASN'T replaced Cotton for clothes, nylon for ropes, or wood pulp for paper. Why is that? Hmmm...
1. Income from the legal sale of medicial Marijuana is taxed at the State and Federal Level like all other income.
2. Dispensaries pay payroll taxes like every other business.
3. Dispensaries pay utility taxes like every other business.
4. Dispensaries pay property taxes if they own property just like every other business.
5. Dispensaries pay taxes on all the goods they buy to stock their shops just like every other business.
STOP THE CONFUSION.
Yes. That was beyond a shadow of a doubt, sarcasm. At least to those that can see the world through their steel curtains.
All Government's are based on those before them and around them. Thankfully America had the forethought to create a living document as a basis of government so that we can evolve and adapt as time changes. Though the forefathers where also fans of this little dubious plant, you know like Washington Jefferson Franklin.
If you look at the number of people who participated in Obama's website questions, that fact is pretty clear.
Well over 10,000 people joined in, voting for and supporting the legalization questions on Obama's website. This is an issue which the majority of the public now supports, not because they want to get high on pot... But because legalization/regulation is a FAR better solution to the problems, than prohibition could ever be... In fact, Prohibition is counterproductive towards it's own goals, and makes the problems FAR worse than they need to be!
Does the media honestly think they can portray the American public's support of this issue, as a marginal group of "Internet marijuana activists"? Because that is simply absurd.
Maybe that's not what they meant in this article, but the way they worded it, sure sounds like it.
The biggest difference between growing hemp for paper and using trees is in the processing. Hemp does not require bleach to whiten the paper. Trees do, and as a result, dioxins are polluted into water. If you have ever visited a paper processing plant -- and I have -- you would also realize there is a lot of air pollution as well from all the chemicals used to process tree fiber into paper.
As for economics, it can be argued both ways. A forest is cleared every 30 years or so, not annually. So, does that mean less energy is used to harvest trees over hemp? Well, roads must be built to log forest, and clear cutting leads to erosion which wash out soil and roads. Those roads must be repaired, etc. If a forest burns, that means 10-40 years of wood are lost. With hemp, that is not the case. It would also be hard to burn a green "forest" of hemp as the crop would have too high moisture content to stay lit for too long.
More information on hemp at <a href="http://www.globalhemp.com/">Global Hemp</a> website.
I'm so sick of the Gateway Drug Argument. Alcohol is the ULTIMATE GATEWAY DRUG. It's probably 90% of people's first buzz. And if they like it, the want more. None of my successful friends that smoke got into heavy drugs like coke.
Once it's legal it will be exciting for the first 3 months. After that, the people who smoke now, will probably smoke the same amount. And the people who won't, simply won't. Not much will change.
And if treated like alcohol. Kids will have as much access to it as a 6 pack of beer so it's regulated.
So legalize it. And to the folks that say NO and that have never done it, what right do they have to judge it?
Right now, all across America, and throughout the world, people are suffering from numerous disabling conditions that could be relieved with Cannabis based medications. Ranging from acute pain to congenital illnesses, these individuals suffer without relief. Why? Because government regulations prevent scientists and doctors from developing and administering the medications that could help these individuals.
For over seventy years a system of laws and regulations have criminalized people for using a natural pharmaceutical that has been commonly available and used for thousands of years. Seeds of prejudice sown in the fertile soils of intolerance and irrigated with laws written by people who have a special agenda, to deny the constitutional rights Americans are promised of ?life, liberty, and happiness? have created a criminal class from ordinary citizens. Over time a bloated establishment of law enforcement and prison complexes have evolved, costing taxpayers billions of dollars and criminalizing nonviolent individuals for their personal choices.
I developed the Transdermal Patch, not as a replacement for smoked or vaporized cannabis, the fastest and most effective way to apply full spectrum Cannabinoids, preferred by Dr. Donald Abrams at University of California Medical Center, but as a compliment to the inhaled form of administration. Many individuals prefer not to inhale cannabis so for them the Transdermal Patch is an ideal way to administer medication. Many physicians prefer the standardized and dose-predictable pharmaceutical that is achieved by the Cannabinoid Patch. Unique to the Transdermal Patch is its ability to provide long-term controlled application of the many specific Cannabinoids that can be extracted from Cannabis.
Lawrence Brooke ? Co-inventor of the Cannabinoid Patch
U.S. Patents 6,113,940 and 6,328,992
European Patent - EP 1186298
Canadian Patent - 2356020
Australian Patent- 785275
Useful links:
http://www.patchtek.com
http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/
http://www.cannabis-med.org/studies/study.php
Is it in production & for sale ?
- by Seaspray0 May 29, 2009 8:16 AM PDT
- After reading the headline, I was thinking wow! "Digg.com vote presses Schwarzenegger on legalizing marijuana". I mean Digg actually taking Schwarzenegger's body and pressed him into a big pile of legalized marijuana. What a visual, and I don't even smoke the stuff.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (46 Comments)