Marijuana reform initiatives on the ballot in 2016 - Official results thread

[Suzanimal]

If Prop. 205 passes, Maricopa County Attorney's Office funds from marijuana diversion program would dry up

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office stands to lose millions in drug-diversion program revenue over the next few years should recreational marijuana become legal through Proposition 205.

The funds constitute a small percentage of the county attorney's nearly $100 million annual budget. But over the past 10 years, the office has collected nearly $15 million by referring clients to TASC, a private drug-treatment contractor hired to rehabilitate marijuana and other drug offenders.

If the ballot measure passes, certain marijuana prosecutions would become history, cutting into a drug-diversion program for marijuana offenders that has served almost 15,000 defendants over the past six years.

Defendants facing drug charges must pay the program’s fees, and in exchange they sidestep felony convictions if they successfully complete the program. TASC, in turn, reimburses the County Attorney’s Office up to $650 per marijuana client.

...

Montgomery frequently mentions the drug-intervention program in his anti-Prop. 205 messaging. He holds it up as a fair alternative to a felony conviction for lower-level offenders.

...

First- and second-time drug offenders are eligible for TASC. After an arrest, prosecutors in the County Attorney’s Office can refer a defendant for the diversion program and essentially put a hold on filing charges. If the program is completed, the case is either dropped with no charges filed or the pending charges are dismissed.

The defendant facing marijuana charges is responsible for paying the program fees, which can amount to more than $1,000, according to information obtained by The Republic from TASC. Of this, $150 is marked for intake, another $150 is for program costs, and $650 is then returned to the County Attorney’s Office. Defendants can pay lower fees, based on their income.

Random drug tests required by the program cost $14 apiece, and defendants could be responsible for a $50 fee to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office for fingerprints and photographs.

Marrya Briggs, TASC chief operating officer, said there are no readily available reports that show how much reimbursement comes from marijuana clients, but she provided figures that confirmed more than three-quarters of TASC's clients since 2011 were referred because of marijuana charges.

Over the past six years, 77 percent of TASC's clients entered the program for marijuana charges, or 14,891 of 19,444 total clients since 2011, according to TASC.

County Attorney's Office records, provided to the newspaper this month under the state's public-records law, show the office received an average of $1.6 million annually from TASC reimbursements from 2010 to 2016.

The office receives $1,200 per defendant arrested on dangerous-drug charges and $1,500 per defendant placed in the TASC program for narcotics, according to a county attorney's spokeswoman.

...

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/...ions/92795924/

[tod evans]

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office stands to lose millions in drug-diversion program revenue

Revenue my ass!

Tax dollar allocation is what they're speaking about, the tax payers will save millions if this bill passes..

Paint an honest picture you bastards.

[Danke]

Revenue my ass!

Tax dollar allocation is what they're speaking about, the tax payers will save millions if this bill passes..

Paint an honest picture you bastards.

I'm sure they look at it as OPM. Maybe Federal funds?

[osan]

The fact that these ballot measures exists shows how unfree we are, having to ask permission of BigBro as if we were idiot children incapable of making decisions for ourselves.

It is disgusting.

[Xenliad]

This measure leaves much to be desired, but I did my part.


http://imgur.com/a/C75m0

[parocks]

The Yes On 1 Campaign in Maine is led by David Boyer, Ron Paul staffer in Maine in 2012. I haven't seen recent polls, but I'd assume a win.

[jct74]

60 Minutes will be airing a segment on the ballot initiatives coming up in a few hours. Looks like a hit piece to me.

[Suzanimal]

60 Minutes will be airing a segment on the ballot initiatives coming up in a few hours. Looks like a hit piece to me.

"They're in disbelief that it's harmful. They say, How can it be harmful? It's a legal drug"

[jct74]

Catholic church spending big to defeat marijuana legalization in Massachusetts

Archdiocese gives $850,000 to fight marijuana bid

By Jim O’Sullivan
OCTOBER 28, 2016

The Boston Archdiocese is pouring $850,000 into a last-minute effort to defeat a state ballot measure to legalize marijuana, calling increased drug use a threat to the Catholic Church’s health and social-service programs.

The church’s contribution represents about a 50 percent increase over what the antimarijuana Campaign for a Safe and Healthy Massachusetts has collected so far. The total, however, is still less than half of what has been raised by the referendum’s proponents.

The church’s donation will likely help fund an existing advertising campaign. Archdiocesan officials have also sent materials to parishes and schools arguing against the ballot question.

“It reflects the fact that the archdiocese holds the matter among its highest priorities,” archdiocese spokesman Terrence Donilon said of the donation. “It’s a recognition that, if passed, the law would have significantly detrimental impacts on our parishes, our ministries.”

...

read more:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...eeK/story.html

[Danke]

Catholic church spending big to defeat marijuana legalization in Massachusetts




read more:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...eeK/story.html

They are as bad as government, looking for state hand outs. Not really interested in treatment for the few that have a problem with marijuana.

[Suzanimal]

Catholic church spending big to defeat marijuana legalization in Massachusetts

“It reflects the fact that the archdiocese holds the matter among its highest priorities,” archdiocese spokesman Terrence Donilon said of the donation. “It’s a recognition that, if passed, the law would have significantly detrimental impacts on our parishes, our ministries.”

read more:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...eeK/story.html

Really? That kind of money could really help some poor people. This kind of $#@! pisses me off.

[jct74]

Another $#@!ing casino person trying to shut down legal marijuana. I don't know what it is about weed that they think is such a threat to their business model. But probably Wynn just made the donation so his casino could get built.

Money to gov’s no-to-pot group came just ahead of casino vote
Wynn ups the 'anti'

Joe Battenfeld
October 29, 2016

Casino mogul Steve Wynn handed out $100,000 to Gov. Charlie Baker’s anti-pot legalization campaign one day before the state Gaming Commission gave the green light to Wynn’s planned Everett casino development, records show.

Wynn Resorts’ large donation was received by the Campaign for a Safe and Healthy Massachusetts on Tuesday, just 24 hours before the massive casino complex got final approval, clearing the way for construction to begin soon.

Baker, along with Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh and House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, formed the committee to defeat Question 4 — which would legalize the recreational use of marijuana for adults 21 and over — and has made it a major political priority.

The governor partly controls the Gaming Commission, which voted unanimously on Wednesday to approve the controversial casino development. Baker also stepped into the casino fight earlier this year to resolve a dispute between Wynn and state environmental regulators.

Wynn’s $100,000 contribution is his first to Baker’s anti-pot campaign, which has drawn support from numerous business leaders and development companies regulated by the state, as well as dozens of Bay State elected officials.

A spokesman for the campaign to legalize marijuana said the Wynn donation to Baker’s ballot question committee raises questions about whether he and other developers might be trying to “curry favor” with the administration.

...

read more:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/col..._just_ahead_of

[jct74]

Here's that 60 minutes propaganda piece if anyone's interested, brought to you by "Dr. Jon LaPook".

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minut...reational-pot/

[dannno]

Another $#@!ing casino person trying to shut down legal marijuana. I don't know what it is about marijuana that they think is such a threat to their business model. But probably Wynn just made the donation so his casino could get built.

People take more risks on alcohol and they make worse decisions. People on cannabis tend to be more cautious.

[dannno]

Here's that 60 minutes propaganda piece if anyone's interested, brought to you by "Dr. Jon LaPook".

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minut...reational-pot/

I like what the officer said at the end about how he has been trying to encourage regional practices to start making sure they check drivers who have been in accidents for THC because it totally discredits the statistics that they have been touting in Washing about how the % of accidents with THC in their system have gone up - that is because they likely had the same issue and had to start encouraging them to check for it and so of course when they started to check more for it in more places the percentages went up.

In Colorado, we actually saw that fatal accidents fell sharply after legalization. This is a better statistic to look at, imo, since it is more easily measured.

[Suzanimal]

Government Regulators Drive Legal Marijuana Underground

Ryan McMaken

Following voter referenda in which the voters opted to legalize recreational use of marijuana, four states — Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska — legalized to varying degrees. Colorado and Washington were the first, back in 2012, but in all cases, federal regulators have done their best to hobble the newly legalized industry and to keep businesses in a legal gray area.

Specifically, it has been the banking industry — which is regulated at the federal level — which has done nothing at all to attempt to cooperate with private firms in jurisdictions where the voters have parted ways with federal prohibiting marijuana use.

Colorado in particular passed legislation allowing for the creation of "marijuana banks" that were designed to create new financial institutions that could be allowed to functions under federal banking regulations. The governor of Colorado passed that legislation into law in 2014, but the Federal Reserve system — one of the federal government's agencies that regulates the financial sector — refused to allow these institutions to exist.

The Fed, which vehemently opposed any meaningful oversight for itself, nevertheless is happy to assist the federal government in shutting down peaceful, legal businesses.

Federal prohibitions on banking for cannabis-related businesses has meant that dispensaries and related businesses — even businesses that never touch physical marijuana, such as advertising agencies — must deal in large sacks of physical cash. This, not surprisingly, has led to more criminal activity in which violent thieves more often ambush employees of cannabis-related businesses, hoping they'll score a large cash payout. The problem could easily be solved, of course, by allowing these business to put cash deposits in banks.

The result, not surprisingly, has been that businesses have moved underground to use so-called gray markets in a gray economy. This involves numerous workarounds, but federal regulators spend immense amounts of time trying to spy on these businesses and come up with new ways to stymie their efforts to engage in a legal business.

In a lengthy article on Monday, Bloomberg recently recounted the efforts of these legal businesses in detail and their efforts to conduct business while still paying taxes and staying in line with state-level regulations. Bloomberg even recounted how the DEA threatens businesses over which the DEA has no actual jurisdiction:

“This strikes me as ludicrous,” Wykowski said. As a prosecutor, “all of our focus was to get the underground economy above ground. The way you do that is to take the cash, because when it is deposited, you can follow its paper trail,” he said. “It is self-defeating for the government not to encourage people to use bank accounts and accept their cash.”

People in the business have been forced to be “more clever with banking, so a lot have indirect banking so they can pay with checks or wire transfers,” the lawyer said. He doesn’t want to give an exact definition of “indirect banking,” however, since “the Drug Enforcement Agency tries to foil any workarounds we come up with.”

For a while, Wykowski said, one strategy was to hire an armored car service that would deposit the client’s cash in its own general account, then wire it to the client’s banks, and that the DEA found out and wrote a letter to the armored car company saying it would pull its license if it didn’t stop. The DEA said in a statement they didn’t send such a letter but did have “some telephonic discussions with multiple armored car companies.” These discussions, the DEA said, were to advise the companies “of things we were observing in the ‘state legalized’ marijuana business.” The DEA does not have direct jurisdiction over licensing decisions made by state authorities. (The armored car company didn’t return requests for comment.)

...

https://mises.org/blog/government-re...na-underground

[tommyrp12]

Ok, so now the regulatory/ administrative state is being touted as the solution for a already thoroughly authoritarian republican form of a state. The regulatory/ administrative agency in charge can wipe out any remaining freedom for personal growers and smokers at a whim. There is no good solution for people here.

A. Vote for it and hope the regulators have mercy on the personal smokers and growers.
B. Vote no and have the status quo and wait for a better bill without regulation.
C. Do what you want regardless.

I'm going back to supporting C. Although I would have liked to have pissed off various tyrants in the state.

http://www.necn.com/news/politics/WE...399396561.html
6:30 - 6:47

The phrase to look for is "complete control to the regulators".

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...strative+state

I'm not sure if my cynicism about government and it's regulatory counterpart is clouding my judgment and this might be good over all, or if i'm guessing right and this is going to go south real quick due to regulatory capture and authoritarianism.

[jct74]

The regulatory/ administrative agency in charge can wipe out any remaining freedom for personal growers and smokers at a whim.

What freedoms to they have now though? The legislators can mess with any part of the bill they do not like anyways, because it is not a constitutional amendment. But they're probably not going to screw with it too much, because then there would be a huge public outcry for going against the will of the people. My advice is vote for it. It will be a huge strategic win for the nationwide movement, with no eastern state having legalized yet and Massachusetts being close to the massive population center of New York City. Probably would kick off a domino effect of other eastern states legalizing too, which legislators in Vermont and New Jersey have recently looked at. If it loses though the prohibitionists will have a field day and the pressure on other eastern states to legalize will be much lessened.

[jct74]

Colorado Lawmakers Want Arizona’s Anti-Marijuana Campaign To Stop Misleading People About Their State
As Arizona voters prepare to vote on legalization, an anti-drug group paints a bleak picture of life in a neighboring state.

Matt Ferner
10/31/2016

Lawmakers in Colorado on Monday asked an anti-marijuana campaign in Arizona to stop airing ads that they say contain false information about their state and could mislead voters who will be deciding on recreational legalization of the drug next week.

State Sen. Pat Steadman (D) and Democratic state Reps. Millie Hamner and Johnathan Singer wrote an email to Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy leaders to call out ads the group has run. They say the TV spots contain “inaccurate and misleading statements” about the use of legal marijuana tax revenue in Colorado as well as rates of teen drug use.

“As members of the Colorado Legislature who played a central role in the budgeting and appropriation of marijuana tax revenues, we feel it is our duty to set the record straight so that voters in both [Arizona and Colorado] have accurate information about this subject,” the letter reads.

In an ad titled “Empty Promises,” two former Colorado school officials suggest that millions of dollars in tax revenue that were supposed to go to schools instead funded the regulation of the legal marijuana industry. Former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb makes a similar claim in an ad titled “Mistake.”

“We can say with certainty that the claims about Colorado marijuana tax revenues featured in your committee’s ads range from highly misleading to wholly inaccurate,” the lawmakers write, citing multiple official state documents that illustrate their point.

...

read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0390e69d1e031



Two new ads running in Arizona to counter the misinformation:

[Danke]

"Focus on more serious crimes?"

So the ad is saying Marijuana usage is a crime...

[jct74]

"Focus on more serious crimes?"

So the ad is saying Marijuana usage is a crime...

currently, yes.

[tommyrp12]

What freedoms to they have now though? The legislators can mess with any part of the bill they do not like anyways, because it is not a constitutional amendment. But they're probably not going to screw with it too much, because then there would be a huge public outcry for going against the will of the people. My advice is vote for it. It will be a huge strategic win for the nationwide movement, with no eastern state having legalized yet and Massachusetts being close to the massive population center of New York City. Probably would kick off a domino effect of other eastern states legalizing too, which legislators in Vermont and New Jersey have recently looked at. If it loses though the prohibitionists will have a field day and the pressure on other eastern states to legalize will be much lessened.

I'll vote yes but reserve the right to say I told ya so when they ban it again.

BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts’ top law enforcement official went on the offensive Thursday against the legalization of recreational pot, arguing that the marijuana industry would resist curbs on the potency of its products and “always put profits ahead of people.”
Question 4 on Tuesday’s ballot would legalize possession of small amounts of recreational marijuana for adults 21 and older and allow for retail sales of the drug, including in the form of edibles such as cookies or candy.
Attorney General Maura Healey, a Democrat, is among several high-profile elected officials opposed to the ballot initiative, a list that also includes Republican Gov. Charlie Baker and Boston’s Democratic Mayor Marty Walsh.

“Question 4 isn’t just about legalization — it’s about commercialization,” said Healey, who was joined by health care professionals who oppose the measure at a Beacon Hill news conference.
The measure’s language includes no specific limits on the potency of THC, the pyschoactive chemical in marijuana, for products sold in the state. Critics say today’s marijuana is generally at least six times more potent than it was in the 1970s.
“Maura Healey’s concern has no basis in fact and is yet another scare tactic to stop voters from putting the criminals who control the (marijuana) market today out of business,” said Jim Borghesani, a spokesman for the group Yes on 4.
Marijuana companies have already signaled their intent to fight any restrictions, Healey said.
“Potency limits might actually be better for people, but they are bad for profits, they’re bad for the bottom line and they’re bad for a billion-dollar industry that will always put profits ahead of people,” the attorney general said.

If approved, the ballot measure would create a Cannabis Control Commission to regulate recreational marijuana in Massachusetts. Backers say the commission would have absolute authority” over edibles and other products sold in the state, including the power to impose limits on potency. ..............................................

[jct74]

I'll vote yes but reserve the right to say I told ya so when they ban it again.

Good call, I think that is the right decision. I understand your concerns though; there is a possibility the bill could be majorly screwed with after it passes. That could be avoided with a constitutional amendment that strictly spells out everything, but that approach is also problematic for being too inflexible which gives opponents an opening to rail against the bill. There is no perfect solution, but the important thing is to move the ball forward, which basically was the point the Boston Globe made in their endorsement. And the bill is almost certainly going to be tinkered with after it passes, because it is unlikely legislators are going to let the 3.75% tax rate stand. I don't think the legislators (or regulatory commission) will do anything that severely violates the spirit of the bill however, especially if it passes by a significant margin which would send an even more emphatic message. Politicians usually respect the results of an election it seems like... although in Great Britain maybe not so much, we'll see how the Brexit thing turns out.

[jct74]

Sheldon Adelson throws in another $1.35 million in Nevada

Sheldon Adelson gave $1.35 million more to campaign opposing recreational marijuana in Nevada

By COLTON LOCHHEAD
November 5, 2016

Las Vegas Sands Corp. Chairman and CEO Sheldon Adelson gave $1.35 million more to the campaign opposing recreational marijuana in Nevada in recent weeks, campaign filings with the Nevada secretary of state show.

Adelson gave to the political action committee Protecting Nevada’s Children, which opposes Question 2, the ballot measure that would legalize the sale and consumption of recreational marijuana in the state.

Adelson has essentially self-funded the fight against the measure. He gave the group $2 million in September. Of the $3.44 million the campaign has raised since its September launch, $3.35 million, or 97.4 percent, has come from Adelson.

...

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/po...g-recreational



He also gave $500,000 recently to fighting Prop 205 in Arizona. Here is the full list of every contributor over $10,000.

$100,000-plus donors:

Discount Tire $1 million

Arizona Chamber of Commerce $918,000

Sheldon Adelson (Nevada casino magnate) $500,000

Insys Therapeutics Inc. (maker of Fentanyl and synthetic THC) $500,000

Empire Southwest LLC (construction-equipment company) $350,000

Services Group of America (food distribution company — has a division that sells food to private prisons) $180,000

SAM Action (national anti-marijuana group) $165,000

T. Denny Sanford (South Dakota businessman) $100,000

Larry Van Tuyl (auto dealership mogul who owns a $125-million-dollar yacht) $100,000

Randy Kendrick (wife of Ken Kendrick, Arizona Diamondbacks owner) $100,000


$50,000-plus donors:

Arizona Mining Association $51,000

Arizona Automobile Dealers Association $50,000

Michael Ahearn (co-founder of First Solar) $50,000


$25,000-plus donors:

Arizona Republican Party $45,570

Anita Farnsworth (Mesa philanthropist) $40,000

Pima Medical Institute $40,000

Dan Grubb (auto dealer) $35,000

U-Haul $35,000

Gila River Indian Community $25,000

Robson Communities Inc. (home developer) $25,000

Fulton Homes Corporation $25,000

Larry Clemmensen (Paradise Valley investor) $25,000

Southern Arizona Leadership (Tucson-boosting group) $25,000

Microchip Technology Incorporated $25,000


$10,001 to $20,000 donors:

William R. Metzler (real estate) $20,000

Arizona Cotton Growers Association $15,000

Taylor Morrison Inc. (homebuilder) $15,000

Greater Phoenix Leadership $15,000

Robert H. Castellini (Cincinnati Reds baseball team owner) $15,000

Jim Chamberlain (Sun State Builders owner) $12,821

Kent and Shelley Bunger (owners of contracting company) $11,000


$10,000 donors:

Pinnacle West Capital Corporation (parent company of Arizona Public Service utility) $10,000

Bashas' Inc. (grocery-store chain) $10,000

Daniel and Carleen Brophy (Wyoming-based philanthropists) $10,000

Foster Friess (Wyoming businessman) $10,000

Peterson & Burge Enterprises (Kingman brother-and-sister business behind Desert Oro Foods) $10,000

Arizona Rock Products Association (Rock PAC) $10,000

El Dorado Holdings Inc. (developer) $10,000

Ken Ellegard (auto dealer) $10,000

Jim Click Automotive Team $10,000

Bennett Dorrance (Campbell Soup heir) $10,000

Arizona Trucking Association $10,000

Scott Savage (Ohio investor) $10,000

Grimaldi's Brick-Oven Pizzeria $10,000

Lavidge (ad agency) $10,000

Michael Pierson (part-owner of Team PRP, a Mesa auto recycling firm) $10,000

Ewing Irrigation Products Inc. $10,000

Richard C. Adkerson (CEO and president of Freeport-McMoran) $10,000

Freeport-McMoran (mining company) $10,000

Arizona Wine and Spirits Wholesale Association Inc. $10,000

Ed Breunig (Laz-Y-Boy Furniture Gallery owner) $10,000

CopperPoint (insurance company) $10,000

Douglas Fougnies (patent enforcer) $10,000

Salmon for Congress (Matt Salmon isn't running for Congress any more, but can use his donors' money for other political campaigns) $10,000

Donald Diamond (Tucson real estate investor) $10,000

Knight Transportation $10,000

Arizona Chapter Associated General Contractors of America Inc. $10,000

M.R. Tanner Construction $10,000

Arizona Lodging & Tourism Association $10,000

Michael Pollack (Tempe movie-theater owner) $10,000

Sun State Builders $10,000

Jerry Hayden (retired businessman and Club for Growth donor) $10,000

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/...rizona-8794628

[jct74]

House Minority Leader backs marijuana legalization

Nancy Pelosi Backs California Cannabis Legalization

LEAFLY STAFF
November 4, 2016

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) came out in support of California’s adult-use Proposition 64 on Friday, telling the Los Angeles Times she’ll cast her ballot for the measure.

“I will vote for it, but I have not made a public statement about it until right this very second,” Pelosi said, according to the Times, which published the news Friday afternoon. The paper said she didn’t elaborate.

Pelosi, who leads Democrats in the US House of Representatives, is one of of only a small number of high-ranking public officials in who’ve come out in support of adult-use legalization. Others include state Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, bipartisan members of Congress—including US Reps. Jared Huffman, Barbara Lee, Ted Lieu, Tom McClintock, Dana Rohrabacher, and Eric Swalwell. Perhaps the most visible elected official to back the measure, however, is from clear across the country. US Sen. Bernie Sanders told supporters in Santa Barbara back in May that he supports Prop 64. “If I were a citizen of California,” he said,” I would vote for that ballot item to legalize marijuana.”

...

https://www.leafly.com/news/politics...ornias-prop-64

[jct74]

Will track the official results here. Anyone have some predictions to make? I'll say California by 12, Maine by 6, Massachusetts by 5, Nevada by 5, and Arizona will lose by 1. I'll be very happy with 4 out of 5 though, on the legalization initiatives. There are also 4 MMJ initiatives on the ballot.

[Sumthinorother]

I don't understand why you guys support these kinds of measures or how they have anything to do with liberty. Why not just eliminate any laws prohibiting the use/growing of this drug and all other drugs? Let a person grow what they want and ingest what they want and don't try to protect them from themselves.

I don't want the government telling me certain drugs are good for me if I am a certain age. I know marijuana and alcohol aren't good for me. I think alcohol is the worst of them all. Not only should the government not restrict drugs but it should not promote them either.

Long before I ever heard of the "liberty movement" or Ron Paul, I was saying I thought drugs should not be illegal - but ALL drugs with NO age limits. I don't see any other way.

I was disturbed in 2012 when Ron Paul said he thought marijuana should be handled like alcohol, as if that works at all well. Get rid of the age limit and you at least get rid of some the attraction. Give control back to the parents.

I don't want marijuana to become a thing you are "supposed" to do just like alcohol has been my whole life.

at least it didn't look like any of these used the term "recreational" - as if I am supposed to think there is something recreational to do with the stuff.

Someone help me if I am missing something.

Thanks.

[Suzanimal]

I don't understand why you guys support these kinds of measures or how they have anything to do with liberty. Why not just eliminate any laws prohibiting the use/growing of this drug and all other drugs? Let a person grow what they want and ingest what they want and don't try to protect them from themselves.

I don't want the government telling me certain drugs are good for me if I am a certain age. I know marijuana and alcohol aren't good for me. I think alcohol is the worst of them all. Not only should the government not restrict drugs but it should not promote them either.

Long before I ever heard of the "liberty movement" or Ron Paul, I was saying I thought drugs should not be illegal - but ALL drugs with NO age limits. I don't see any other way.

I was disturbed in 2012 when Ron Paul said he thought marijuana should be handled like alcohol, as if that works at all well. Get rid of the age limit and you at least get rid of some the attraction. Give control back to the parents.

I don't want marijuana to become a thing you are "supposed" to do just like alcohol has been my whole life.

at least it didn't look like any of these used the term "recreational" - as if I am supposed to think there is something recreational to do with the stuff.

Someone help me if I am missing something.

Thanks.

You're not. I just hope these measures will keep some people out of jail.

[H. E. Panqui]

"Why not just eliminate any laws prohibiting the use/growing of this drug and all other drugs? Let a person grow what they want and ingest what they want and don't try to protect them from themselves." (sumthinorother)



...of course you are 100% correct here...REPEAL, not LEGALIZATION...[what a stooooopid term 'legalization' is!!]

...but you'll have to be satisfied in the knowledge your approach is right and just...because you are surrounded by goddamned republican and democrat fools...your common sense and decency is very uncommon in a country DOMINATED by goddamned fools currently fighting over stinking hillary and/or stinking trump...

...btw, up here in maine, i'm worried...there are LOTS of stoooooooooooopid (paul lepage) republican prohibitionists and MANY 'medical marijuana medallion holder$' who are teaming up on the 'no' side....

...strange bedfellows...as the goddamned fool republican prohibitionists would love to ban 'medical marijuana' too...

....the 'no' voters are authoritarian pieces of sh!t...all....

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't understand why you guys support these kinds of measures or how they have anything to do with liberty. Why not just eliminate any laws prohibiting the use/growing of this drug and all other drugs? Let a person grow what they want and ingest what they want and don't try to protect them from themselves.

I don't want the government telling me certain drugs are good for me if I am a certain age. I know marijuana and alcohol aren't good for me. I think alcohol is the worst of them all. Not only should the government not restrict drugs but it should not promote them either.

Long before I ever heard of the "liberty movement" or Ron Paul, I was saying I thought drugs should not be illegal - but ALL drugs with NO age limits. I don't see any other way.

I was disturbed in 2012 when Ron Paul said he thought marijuana should be handled like alcohol, as if that works at all well. Get rid of the age limit and you at least get rid of some the attraction. Give control back to the parents.

I don't want marijuana to become a thing you are "supposed" to do just like alcohol has been my whole life.

at least it didn't look like any of these used the term "recreational" - as if I am supposed to think there is something recreational to do with the stuff.

Someone help me if I am missing something.

Thanks.

It's just PART of the larger attempt to push for ending prohibition. Gotta start somewhere.