California Proposition 19: the Mariju...

California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legalization Initiative

Created by CitizenTopix on Oct 7, 2010

19,879 votes

Click on an option to vote

Yes

No

Other (explain below)

Ronald

Bellflower, CA

#11271 Jul 25, 2012
Provocateur wrote:
<quoted text>
Chemicals in Cigarettes: Carcinogens
A carcinogen is defined as any substance that can cause or aggravate cancer. Approximately 60 of the chemicals in cigarettes are known to cause cancer.
TSNAs
Tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines (TSNAs) are known to be some of the most potent carcinogens present in smokeless tobacco, snuff and tobacco smoke.
Benzene
Benzene can be found in pesticides and gasoline. It is present in high levels in cigarette smoke and accounts for half of all human exposure to this hazardous chemical.
Pesticides
Pesticides are used on our lawns and gardens, and inhaled into our lungs via cigarette smoke.
Formaldehyde
Formaldehyde is a chemical used to preserve dead bodies, and is...
...Arsenic
Commonly used in rat poison, arsenic finds its way into cigarette smoke through some of the pesticides that are used in tobacco farming.
Cadmium
Cadmium is a toxic heavy metal that is used in batteries. Smokers typically have twice as much cadmium in their bodies as nonsmokers.
Chemicals in Cigarettes: Radioactive Toxic Metals
There are a couple of toxic metals in cigarette smoke that carry an extra punch of danger for anyone breathing it in: they are radioactive.
Radioactive Cigarette Smoke
Lead-210 (Pb-210) and polonium-210 (Po-210) are poisonous, radioactive heavy metals that research has shown to be present in cigarette smoke.
Chemicals in Cigarettes: Poisons
Poison is defined as any substance that, when introduced to a living organism, causes severe physical distress or death. Science has discovered approximately 200 poisonous gases in cigarette smoke.
Ammonia
Ammonia compounds are commonly used in cleaning products and fertilizers. Ammonia is also used to boost the impact of nicotine in manufactured cigarettes.
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon monoxide is present in car exhaust and is lethal in very large amounts. Cigarette smoke can contain high levels of carbon monoxide.
Hydrogen Cyanide
Hydrogen cyanide was used to kill people in the gas chambers in Nazi Germany during World War II. It can be found in cigarette smoke.
Nicotine
Nicotine is a poison used in pesticides and is the addictive element in cigarettes.
A Word About Secondhand Smoke
Also known as environmental tobacco smoke, secondhand smoke is a term used to describe cigarette smoke that comes from two sources: Smoke that is exhaled by the smoker (mainstream smoke) and smoke produced by a smouldering cigarette (sidestream smoke). Secondhand smoke is known to contain at least 250 toxic chemicals, including 50 cancer-causing chemicals. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. That means if you can smell cigarette smoke in the air, it could be harming your health.
.
It is never too late to quit smoking tobacco!
Provocateur.

Your thesis "seems" to have the ring of legitimacy until one factors in the fact that those making such "studies" are the primary beneficiaries of nationalized Big Tobacco money. There has never been any legitimate study made by any reputable source that proves tobacco use is in any way harmful to the user. In fact, tobacco use is beneficial. Not only does tobacco use increase mental acuity among the "morally straight" users of tobacco, but, even though most tobacco smokers only live just as long as non-smokers - and longer than great numbers of them - the world's longest lived people are cigar smokers. Contrast that with pot use. Not only does pot destroy the mind's ability to function at a socially acceptable level, but automobile driving under the influence of pot is a KNOWN cause of death by automobile. It is not unusual to hear of pot smokers who have been convicted of lewd conduct in public restrooms zonking out and crashing their automobiles into buildings.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/cj6pvbp

Ronald
TWG

Cathedral City, CA

#11272 Jul 25, 2012
I would probably vote for marijuana's legalization. First of all, I don't smoke marijuana myself and never have, but I have friends that do and some of them are very successful, professional people who use quite frequently and work in highly-skilled technical professions. So therefore, I don't really think marijuana is as harmful and many who argue against it claim that it is. I certainly don't think it is any more harmful than alcohol over the long term, and probably not as harmful. Also, I certainly believe the government spends entirely too much money and resources trying to erradicate marijuana. The federal government spends billions of dollars a year on marijuana eradication throughout the country, with the biggest chunk of that money spent in California, Kentucky and North Carolina. It reminds me of what the government was doing in the days of prohibition, until they finally legalized the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages. I do think this is a repeat of prohibition and should come to an end. My only question about legalizaion in California is this. If California legalizes marijuana, which I understand they already have for medicinal purposes, what are we going to do about federal law? Even though a person may not be violatig state law by the sale, distribution and use of marijuana; they will still be in violation of federal law. Of course, it is up to federal prosecutors to take that matter up, but nevertheless they will be violating federal law. If California law is changed, will there then be an effort to change federal law?
Happy feet

Covina, CA

#11273 Jul 25, 2012
Bong the gong and get it on.
Ronald

Bellflower, CA

#11274 Jul 25, 2012
TWG wrote:
I would probably vote for marijuana's legalization. First of all, I don't smoke marijuana myself and never have, but I have friends that do and some of them are very successful, professional people who use quite frequently and work in highly-skilled technical professions. So therefore, I don't really think marijuana is as harmful and many who argue against it claim that it is. I certainly don't think it is any more harmful than alcohol over the long term, and probably not as harmful. Also, I certainly believe the government spends entirely too much money and resources trying to erradicate marijuana. The federal government spends billions of dollars a year on marijuana eradication throughout the country, with the biggest chunk of that money spent in California, Kentucky and North Carolina. It reminds me of what the government was doing in the days of prohibition, until they finally legalized the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages. I do think this is a repeat of prohibition and should come to an end. My only question about legalizaion in California is this. If California legalizes marijuana, which I understand they already have for medicinal purposes, what are we going to do about federal law? Even though a person may not be violatig state law by the sale, distribution and use of marijuana; they will still be in violation of federal law. Of course, it is up to federal prosecutors to take that matter up, but nevertheless they will be violating federal law. If California law is changed, will there then be an effort to change federal law?
TWG.

Yes. Your understanding is amiss. California never "legalized" any aspect of illegal Marijuana, not is sale, its possession or its use. Federal drug and tobacco law trumps State law. A State's law with regard to dangerous drugs - such as Marijuana - is only legal if it does not conflict with Federal drug law. Under Federal law, the sale, possession, and the use of mind rotting pot is illegal.

Ronald

Since: Nov 08

Corbin Ky.

#11275 Jul 25, 2012
Provocateur wrote:
BEHAVIORAL CAUSES OF DEATH (ANNUALLY)
Tobacco 400 Thousand
Diet/activity patterns 300 Thousand
Alcohol 100 Thousand
Microbial agents 90 Thousand
Toxic agents 60 Thousand
Firearms 35 Thousand
Sexual behavior 30 Thousand
Motor Vehicles 25 Thousand
Illicit use of drugs 20 Thousand
Marijuana 0
ANNUAL AMERICAN DEATHS CAUSED BY DRUGS

TOBACCO .......... 400,000
ALCOHOL .......... 100,000
ALL LEGAL DRUGS ..........20,000
ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS ..........15,000
CAFFEINE ..........2,000
ASPIRIN ..........500
MARIJUANA .......... 0
----------
Source: United States government...
National Institute on Drug Abuse,
Bureau of Mortality Statistics
TWG

Cathedral City, CA

#11276 Jul 25, 2012
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
TWG.
Yes. Your understanding is amiss. California never "legalized" any aspect of illegal Marijuana, not is sale, its possession or its use. Federal drug and tobacco law trumps State law. A State's law with regard to dangerous drugs - such as Marijuana - is only legal if it does not conflict with Federal drug law. Under Federal law, the sale, possession, and the use of mind rotting pot is illegal.
Ronald
I totally understand that federal law trumps state law. That is exactly why I was asking what would be done about federal law if a state law was passed. However, and I may not be understanding it correctly, but I thought California had already passed a medicinal marijuana law. I could be wrong, but I believe that is the case. I'm quite sure they did because after doing so, people were opening up clinics to sell medicinal marijuana to those who had a doctor's prescription. So I don't think my understanding it amiss. Maybe it is, but I don't think so. Has or has not California already passed a medicinal marijuana law? If they have, it would still be illegal under federal law.

Since: Nov 08

Corbin Ky.

#11277 Jul 25, 2012
TWG wrote:
<quoted text>
I totally understand that federal law trumps state law. That is exactly why I was asking what would be done about federal law if a state law was passed. However, and I may not be understanding it correctly, but I thought California had already passed a medicinal marijuana law. I could be wrong, but I believe that is the case. I'm quite sure they did because after doing so, people were opening up clinics to sell medicinal marijuana to those who had a doctor's prescription. So I don't think my understanding it amiss. Maybe it is, but I don't think so. Has or has not California already passed a medicinal marijuana law? If they have, it would still be illegal under federal law.
California was one of the first states to legalize Medical Marijuana. In 1996, voters passed Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, legalizing marijuana for medical use.
Proposition 215 permits seriously ill Californians to use marijuana, provided they first obtain a doctor's recommendation.
Proposition 215 also gives doctors a legal defense against professional or legal sanctions for recommending marijuana use.

http://www.my420clinic.com/id5.html

Ronald is evidently a drug dealer who is upset that he may lose his source of income if pot is made legal. He claimed that marijuana has no medical use and I showed him differently and that mj has been used for medicinal purposes for 10,000 years but he ignores the facts so I ignore him.
Luggy leauger

Covina, CA

#11278 Jul 25, 2012
More of the same is always the worst step, sure seems like a good sign on name, i'll use it too!
TWG

Cathedral City, CA

#11279 Jul 25, 2012
wowed wrote:
<quoted text>
California was one of the first states to legalize Medical Marijuana. In 1996, voters passed Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, legalizing marijuana for medical use.
Proposition 215 permits seriously ill Californians to use marijuana, provided they first obtain a doctor's recommendation.
Proposition 215 also gives doctors a legal defense against professional or legal sanctions for recommending marijuana use.
http://www.my420clinic.com/id5.html
Ronald is evidently a drug dealer who is upset that he may lose his source of income if pot is made legal. He claimed that marijuana has no medical use and I showed him differently and that mj has been used for medicinal purposes for 10,000 years but he ignores the facts so I ignore him.
Thank you for your response. I didn't think I was wrong about that and I didn't think I said anything in my post that would lead anyone to believe I thought state law trumped federal law. As a matter of fact, that was the exact point I was trying to make, was that it was still against federal law to use, sell or distribute marijuana, even if California passed a law. I was simply asking if there would be a push to change federal law. Evidently Ronald's understanding of my post was amiss. Thanks again for your response.
Porky

La Puente, CA

#11280 Jul 25, 2012
Got to get some grits first, ya know!
Get a clue

United States

#11281 Jul 25, 2012
tinamo wrote:
I am voting no. Have just a couple of basic questions? Who will be going to their homes to measure the regulated grow? Department of Agriculture? How are these users really going to keep the weed away from their kids and their friends? What breathalyzer test are we going to use when some one is under the influence and driving?
Kids, adults, seniors, etc. will continue to consume the drug regardless if a law is in place. As for driving under the influence, we face the same problem now. This depends not on law but on morals my friend. You speak as if laws keep people at bay from consuming whatever it is they want. For anyone to think that as soon as this law passes droves of people who never did it to begin with will somehow start.
TWG

Cathedral City, CA

#11282 Jul 25, 2012
Get a clue wrote:
<quoted text>
Kids, adults, seniors, etc. will continue to consume the drug regardless if a law is in place. As for driving under the influence, we face the same problem now. This depends not on law but on morals my friend. You speak as if laws keep people at bay from consuming whatever it is they want. For anyone to think that as soon as this law passes droves of people who never did it to begin with will somehow start.
I totally agree with Get A Clue on this. People who are going to use marijuana are going to use it regardless of what the law is. If you don't believe this, take a look back into our history and see how prohibition worked. It didn't, plain and simple! I think history has shown the more the government tries to restrict our freedom on certain things, the more people seem to want to do them. I also agree that driving under the influence of marijuana is just as prevailant as driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages. Legalizing marijuana isn't going to change that. Just because marijuana use is legalized doesn't mean it is going to cause an increase in those who drive under the influence. I have never smoked marijuana in my life, as I stated in a previous post. If marijuana use was legalized tomorrow, I would still have no desire to smoke marijuana or use it in any form. I simply have no interest in it. I also do not believe anyone else who has no interest in it is suddenly going to develop one because it is legalized. Just as prohibition of the manufacture, use, sell and distribution of alcohol never worked, neither has the war on drugs worked. Our government has waged a war on drugs that has been going on for years. The government has spent countless billions of dollars on this war. What good has it done? The drug problem has progressively gotten worse and continues to do so. I am not a fan of drug use in any form. However, what the government has been doing to stop it is clearly not working. So those who say legalization is the answer; well, maybe they are right. I guess adult individuals should be able to introduce whatever they want to into their own bodies, as long as they don't engage in behavior that affects others, like driving under the influence.
Ronald

Bellflower, CA

#11284 Jul 25, 2012
TWG wrote:
<quoted text>
I totally agree with Get A Clue on this. People who are going to use marijuana are going to use it regardless of what the law is. If you don't believe this, take a look back into our history and see how prohibition worked. It didn't, plain and simple! I think history has shown the more the government tries to restrict our freedom on certain things, the more people seem to want to do them. I also agree that driving under the influence of marijuana is just as prevailant as driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages. Legalizing marijuana isn't going to change that. Just because marijuana use is legalized doesn't mean it is going to cause an increase in those who drive under the influence. I have never smoked marijuana in my life, as I stated in a previous post. If marijuana use was legalized tomorrow, I would still have no desire to smoke marijuana or use it in any form. I simply have no I also do not believe anyone else who has no interest in it is suddenly going to develop one because it is legalized. Just as prohibition of the manufacture, use, sell and distribution of alcohol never worked, neither has the war on drugs worked. Our government has waged a war on drugs that has been going on for years. The government has spent countless billions of dollars on this war. What good has it done? The drug problem has progressively gotten worse and continues to do so. I am not a fan of drug use in any form. However, what the government has been doing to stop it is clearly not working. So those who say legalization is the answer; well, maybe they are right. I guess adult individuals should be able to introduce whatever they want to into their own bodies, as long as they don't engage in behavior that affects others, like driving under the influence.
TWG.

Well, you claim prohibition "did not work". When you make such an outlandish claim, you should say what you mean by "worked". If the purpose of the Volstead Act was to reduce alcohol consumption among those of the American worker class, it was an astounding success. Not only did the consumption of alcoholic beverage plunge among the American working class, but per capita consumption of alcohol among Americans in general never regained its level of pre-prohibition times.

If you mean, when you say prohibition "did not work", that the binds of the social order were loosened and the result was increased criminal activity, think again. The encyclopedias still regard the St Valentine's Day massacre as the epitome of prohibition era gangland criminal activity. Yet, only 7 persons were killed in that instance, and all of them were well known gangsters and associates. Contrast that with today when random killings of "the public" are made "just for the Hell of it".

Take, for example, Chicago. More persons are murdered in Chicago in one year than the number of targeted gangsters and bystanders who were killed during the entire prohibition era. It makes little difference that most of those murders were committed by "Blacks" because they are heavily represented among today's windy city. Just as the media portrayed a tiny minority of the American public were flappers who demanded to be admitted to speakeasys', so too do Hollywood myth makers dwell on the relatively rare - when compared with today - prohibition era gangland murders.

Just the other day a Government subsidized pot smoking college student entered a theater and shot 70 innocent members of "the public", including murdering 12 of them. The failed Baby Boomer generation *(now in power)* worships authority. As a result, their children have never been socialized to view Government law as anything other than the voice of God here on earth. Once mind rotting pot becomes "legal", you can bet your bottom $Dollar that those children will view pot as "God approved". After all, didn't their failed parent generation say "if it feels good, do it".

Source: http://tinyurl.com/8yo2xsf

Ronald

Provocateur

Denver, CO

#11285 Jul 25, 2012
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Provocateur.
Your thesis "seems" to have the ring of legitimacy until one factors in the fact that those making such "studies" are the primary beneficiaries of nationalized Big Tobacco money. There has never been any legitimate study made by any reputable source that proves tobacco use is in any way harmful to the user. In fact, tobacco use is beneficial. Not only does tobacco use increase mental acuity among the "morally straight" users of tobacco, but, even though most tobacco smokers only live just as long as non-smokers - and longer than great numbers of them - the world's longest lived people are cigar smokers. Contrast that with pot use. Not only does pot destroy the mind's ability to function at a socially acceptable level, but automobile driving under the influence of pot is a KNOWN cause of death by automobile. It is not unusual to hear of pot smokers who have been convicted of lewd conduct in public restrooms zonking out and crashing their automobiles into buildings.
Source: http://tinyurl.com/cj6pvbp
Ronald
Ronald: I can't believe you're still stuck in this reefer madness, tobacco use is beneficial, ROTFLMFAO.
And your reputable source is a tinyurl tell us what kind of medication keeps you so mentally challenged?
The lewd behavior in public bathrooms I'll leave to politicians, you and football coaches.
Spotter

La Puente, CA

#11286 Jul 25, 2012
You've been spotted acting like a.
Ronald

Bellflower, CA

#11287 Jul 25, 2012
Provocateur wrote:
<quoted text>
Ronald: I can't believe you're still stuck in this reefer madness, tobacco use is beneficial, ROTFLMFAO.
And your reputable source is a tinyurl tell us what kind of medication keeps you so mentally challenged?
The lewd behavior in public bathrooms I'll leave to politicians, you and football coaches.
Provocateur.

Exactly. That which "everyone knows" is usually wrong. Were that not true, how could the stock markets ever "work"? The task before us is to determine why "everyone knows" something that is untrue.

Ronald
Flares

La Puente, CA

#11288 Jul 25, 2012
More than enough, but it's still weak.

But who bothers to read them anyway, just post over and move on.
Provocateur

Denver, CO

#11289 Jul 25, 2012
Ronald wrote:
<quoted text>
Provocateur.
Exactly. That which "everyone knows" is usually wrong. Were that not true, how could the stock markets ever "work"? The task before us is to determine why "everyone knows" something that is untrue.
Ronald
Because people like you believe what a tiny url tells you. And you spread it like manure every chance you get. Tobacco is beneficial to children, please. How many big deals has the stock market given you?
Flares

La Puente, CA

#11290 Jul 26, 2012
With a flip of a coin, every one makes choices, whats yours?
Ronald

Bellflower, CA

#11291 Jul 26, 2012
Provocateur wrote:
<quoted text>
Because people like you believe what a tiny url tells you. And you spread it like manure every chance you get. Tobacco is beneficial to children, please. How many big deals has the stock market given you?
Provocateur.

Exactly. Since Big Government began its war against its own people - the many millions of decent women and men who enjoy the simple worker *("middle")* class pleasure of using an occasional tobacco product - immune deficient ailments such as childhood Asthma among children have soared. The reason is simple. Tobacco smoke results in an immune response among children - a necessary component to produce strong healthy immune systems. Big Government has badgered decent parents to quit smoking,*(for purposes of increased taxes and Governmental control only)* so most children no longer benefit by being exposed to tobacco smoke. In less superstitious times, moms knew this association as "the dirt effect".

It is interesting to note that now, Big Government licensed media are promoting the idea that dogs, cats, and farm animals help children develop strong immune systems. Alas. Dogs, cats, and farm animals will never replace the beneficial effect of tobacco smoke. Like their Baby Boomer parents, today's children are being raised in too sterile an environment. I fear that - like their parent's generation - they will be totally dependent on ever more expensive taxpayer provided Government licensed drugs just to be able to live nearly as long as the WW2 generation, a generation that smoked more tobacco, and who, as a result, lived longer than any other generation in history.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/5tofbx

Source: http://tinyurl.com/cvpq2bm

Ronald

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Los Alamitos Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Santa Fe Springs Stench Returns (Oct '13) 52 min Bukowski 3
Bern Kuck Bern Kuck Bern Kuck Bern Kuck 56 min Vienna Vinny 2
News Tim Grobaty: The Palace the Lantern (Feb '08) 5 hr Ralanege 43
What has happened to Lynwood? (Dec '05) 5 hr JustStop 1,095
LMSA Soccer (Feb '10) 10 hr Ex LMSA 6,674
When I was in need of a personal injury lawyer (Jun '13) 17 hr Faylinn 52
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 20 hr stupid republicans 20,391

Los Alamitos Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Los Alamitos Mortgages