All potheads are currently for this proposition. Sounds like you are too. Are you a pothead? I have always desired a society that was safe to raise my children in. One void of you stoners and the bad choices you continually make that affect your lives and the lives of the people around you. I want sober respectful people in the community I live in not a bunch of stoned junkies with no regard for the laws of the land or the rest of the people in it. So if you junkies get your wish with trashing California please stay out there and stay away from the rest of the country. Here's a red herring for you. These laws weren’t written to inconvenience you they were written to save your life. They keep people like me from killing people like you.

John Bostick is an ignorant douche.

Prop 19 favors the corporate growers, nothing more than another corporate/government partnership to squeeze the little guy out of business.

More government means more freedom, Sullum?

Really?!

Joe, you really need to clean up your comments. Make an intelligent counterpoint, or don't post.

Let’s see what legalized Drugs would do.

Addicts would actually live longer; the quality of the Drug would be protected and no longer cut with dangerous additives. Keep a Druggie alive for 10 years their chances of quitting go way up.

The Drug Cartels go away; with no money to be made making and selling Drugs they will have to find something else to do. We could all use less crime. I don't mind them killing each other, a few less criminals would be a good thing, but when the violence spills out to the Public that is another story.

The crops used to make Drugs are traded on the open market and compete against other Crops. The poor Farmer actually gets to choose what he wants to grow. No Cartels forcing him to grow or paying him more money for the crop they need. Sounds like more incentive to grow Food to feed the people.

The big thing is since Prohibition the "war on drugs" has been waged and what are we left with but with bigger problems along with the Millions of Addicts we would have anyway. If I thought for one minute there would be significantly less addicts in the World I would be in agreement with prohibiting them. The fact is there will always be people wanting to and using drugs making the "war on drugs" a waist of resources and a cause of needless Public deaths.

All this coming from a man that watched his Brother age twice as fast and have medical problems because of illegal Drugs. Do I think my other Brother or Sister would have become addicts? Not any higher chance than if they were legal. People that die from taking Drugs have more choice that the innocent People that die from the crime caused by Prohibition.

I am not quite sure where I stand on this issue, but I DO wonder about the number of people who got into drugs as teens simply BECAUSE it was illegal. The allure of the "under the radar" clique, the secret or illicit appeal is quite possibly one of the attractions? My gut reaction is less government is better and let the people decide, but I guess we have to see how it plays out and what unintended consequences result.

I don't see this initiative as having an effect on the drug cartels. A certain percentage of the people would grow their own pot (cheapest choice). Most would buy from the cartels as they don't charge sales taxes (second cheapest choice). The state will price themselves out of the market while the black market will continue to proliferate.

Fighting the legalization of mind alterating drugs is the good fight that shouldn't be left as simply another social experiment.

I've been hoping that people will come to their senses about the use of controlled substances.

The education process doesn't appear to be sufficient.

Like with the 10 Commandments, once someone beaks one and find that they like the sin, the soul is lost.

As long as we have thousands/millions of people using controlled substances we will have those that will supply their drug of choice.

It's hard to believe that today, with all that we know about cancer, we have people that still smoke. It's been my experience that those that smoke pot, smoke cigarettes, so there are no studies that show that smoking pot is injurious to a person. There is also the short and long term memory loss issues. How productive and reliable is a pit smoker?

Now to extrapolate that to other controlled substances; Cocaine, Meth and Crack to name a few.

These addicts feel free to use and abuse those substances without regard for the long time abuse results.

Who will be responsible for the care and treatment of addicts that cannot care for themselves? Who is gong to reimburse the citizens that are being robbed by addicts to fund their dependency? Who will care for the children/victims of addicts that cannot care for them?

Controlled substance use is not dangerous to others? Tell that to the people that are being murdered in Mexico and other countries as people fight/struggle to supply controlled substances to self-indulgent Americans that create the demand.

As for the pain issue? Cannabis Sativia has been synthesized and may be available through a prescription (for those that really need it).

It is too easy to point to Prohibition as an illustration to legalization of controlled substances. What would we do with all of the

Dead Heads? (not referring to Grateful Dead Fans)

JTG, you are absolutely right!

Hey, look, John Bostick, you'd fit right in about a hundred years ago. And you'd have been a moron, then, too!

All drunks are currently for this proposition. Sounds like you are too. Are you a drunk? I have always desired a society that was safe to raise my children in. One void of you alcoholics and the bad choices you continually make that affect your lives and the lives of the people around you. I want sober respectful people in the community I live in not a bunch of wasted drunks with no regard for the laws of the land or the rest of the people in it. So if you drunks get your wish with trashing California please stay out there and stay away from the rest of the country. Here's a red herring for you. These laws weren’t written to inconvenience you they were written to save your life. They keep people like me from killing people like you.

@John Bostick First You are an Idiot. Cannibis was made illegal so the Hearst Syndicate and Dupont Chemical could corner the market on Pine Pulp paper production,any idiot,even You, knows how quickly news paper yellows in the sun. Secondly, the US Constitution is written on hemp paper,that's why it's still with Us today. People like You hate the idea of Freedom,You want to control and be controled.If people like You want kill people like Me,You better pack a lunch and bring those extra body bags.P.S. Google 1937 Billion Dollar Crop then Google "Douche Bag"

This is all about the blind leading the blind. The "War on Drugs" is a complete and utter failure. Alcohol and Tobacco while legal and taxed kill more people every year than illegal drugs. Legally prescribed drugs kill more people every year than illegal drugs. Distracted driving due to cell phone use kills more people than "pot".You all probably don't know it,but there was a time in the US that the law said that farmers had to grow cannibis. Washington and Jefferson(Remember those guys?) discussed their hemp growing methods. You are either Free or Your not. The only "Winners" in drug Prohibition are the lawyers,courts,and prisons.

A couple of musings:

1. Pot may have an initial allure to young people just because it is illegal - but not after the first joint. People like the high they receive and that is why they continue to smoke it.

2. It does impair a person when they smoke it - taken form personal experience.

3. The war on drugs is a moral issue, which is why there will never be a consensus on this issue. There will always be people like me who have realized over time that we must strive to live by a better standard than my own selfish desires - and we feel is best for our society as a whole. And there will always be others who want no standards to have to live by and call it freedom. The problem with that kind of freedom is that we cannot rely upon people to have the good of others as a primary concern for how they conduct themselves, without a standard by which they conduct themselves. What you feel is good for you may not be good for me, and what I feel is good for me may not be good for you, because we are all selfish creatures only out for our own good. That is why we must have standards to live by.

A truly novel idea would be to require voters to summit a resent drug test from an accredited clinic at the voting booth. We wouldn’t be in the shape were in now if our elections were exclusive to sober minded mature people.

John, this is not about the blind leading the blind it’s about stoners like you that don’t know that they’re blind wanting to lead the people that can see.

Who really cares what California does. If you want to get rid of POT let the Govt. run it, it will go broke shortly. The cost will rise to where nobody can afford it, Govt. salaries, benefits, pensions etc. The Govt. is the biggest suppler of DOPE in the country. We control how much and where it comes in. The longest supply trail the Govt. had was Viet Nam. It went from "the golden triangle" to Hondurus and then to the US. Remember Norega? We only busted him because he was shipping more drugs than he was supposed to, and we had to slap his hands. How do you think the CIA funds it's wars? Through drug trafficing, and now they are in Afghanistan, OPIUM capitol of the world?.

Interesting observation, just look at who is resorting to name calling and character bashing and who is using logical arguments. Liberty is for a Moral and Religious People for a reason and for the same reason Government can not legislate Morality. We each have different ideas about our wants needs and desires and it is wrong when we impose those ideas on others and call them laws. The same Government that says they are not responsible for personnel safety come up with more laws to protect us from ourselves there is no justice in that any more than creating Crime and blaming someone else. I'm surprised that none of the name callers picked up on the fact I was talking about all drugs and that would influence the Cartels.

Mexico's president will probably weigh in on this, as it will deflate Mexico's second largest component of their GDP. (First being $ sent from illegal emmigrants to the U.S.) Mexico has a vested interest in drugs remaining illegal in the U.S. They want to keep their crooked politics going forever! Had they an interest in cleaning up their country, they would clean up the cartels. But, alas, they are in bed with them.

Another idea might be to require voters to provide evidence of their ability to understand the issues at hand by submitting to a spelling test ;-).

Data from the Netherlands where pot has been legal for many years indicates that usage rates are below those in the U.S. There is something to be said for the point of view that a certain amount of drug use is driven by the allure of doing something that is prohibited.

There will always be a small minority of the population that is unable or unwilling to control their use of substances such as alchohol, nicotine, caffeine, or pot. I'd suggest those people are not going to control their use regardless of what the law says. On the other hand, the vast majority of people eventually become mature and responsible enough to guide their own actions in this arena.

Similarly, many people can't seem to control their overall caloric intake, their intake of fatty foods, foods high in sugars, etc. Who will bear the burden of higher health care costs for these people? Should we have a government prescribed diet and mandatory exercise program that minimizes health care costs for society?

A society becomes less free to the extent they create crimes that are simply malum prohibitum. We could definitely do with some pruning of such laws from our books.

BMI, I believe your succint point is right on the mark. It is put simply enough that even a pothead can understand it, and would only disagreee based on selfish refusal to listen to truth.

A solid analysis of why to end the failed (and unConstitutional) war on drugs. CATO has another good article called, "Drugs and Conservatives Should Go Together". I'd personally prefer that nobody used drugs or alcohol, but unless they are actually violating MY liberty it is repugnant to violate THEIR personal sovereignty.

If drug use is driven by the allure of doing something that is prohibited and we made everything legal but murder would the number of people that are on drugs now become murders? The people that have been arrested and convicted concerning marijuana were so for breaking the law. They are outlaws. Give these outlaws what they want or else. It takes no effort for a person to raise children if you allow them to do anything that is legal. But for the people that don’t put any effort into it or restrictions on their children, the legal system is always required to curtail their children’s criminal activity. The reason we have a large penal system in this country is because we need it we have a large number of outlaws. Anyone wanting to live where drugs are legal should move to the Netherlands. I’d like to say happy trails and Dave, check my spelling on this I want to be able to cast my sober minded vote on this issue in spite of any spelling errors.

Whew.. quite a hot button here. ... deny the history of prohibition? I guess if the facts don't fit, ridicule or ignore eh... ??

Alchohol usage is the main cause of domestic violence and car accidents caused by "under the influence".

In Vietnam there were two groups in a bar the broke out in a fight. The drinkers, who were fighting, and the pot smokers in the corner laughing at them.

Serve a person a drink, you are asking for a fight, Serve a person a joint, you ask for a laugh and some really good cookies..

I recently had my first accident in 57 years of driving, and "medical marijuana" was involved. In a string of traffic a guy in a powered wheelchair putted right out in to the street, crossing at mid-block, everybody hit their brakes. The car behind me ran into me. I got out of my car and was checking on the driver that ran into me when the wheelchair went by within 10 feet of us. We could both smell the reek of pot on him. We looked at him and he ducked his head and sped up. He knew as well as we did that he was responsible. Do we really really really need more of this? We were lucky nobody was hurt this time, but both the lady driving the car that ran into me, and my daughter-in-law in my care are pregnant. Who's rights will prevail?

Argue all you want - this is another version of the Prohibition experiment that has also failed. We spend Billions for law enforcement and stop nothing. We support Mexico with a multibillion dollar trade in illegal drug - only part of which is MJ. I don't use and have never used but if you treat MJ the same as alcohol in driving and the work place then I think we have a place we should try. It would allow us to focus on more dangerous drugs and it would allow us to not only tax - but reglate the purity of the MJ. Look around you - they grow it between the corn rows in the midwest. the US government support it during the second world war as an alternative supply to compensate for the loss of Phillipine hemp for rope manufacture. Let us look to spend our tax dollars where it will make a difference.

When abortion was legallized, the incidence of abortion increased dramatically. Conversely, when the drinking age was raised, teen alcohol abuse decreased. We can reason, then, that if pot smoking is legallized there will certainly be more pot smoking. But pot smoking lowers productivity, worsenes health, risks public safety, and makes voter stupid. Who wants that?

Seems to me that when we were in Vietnam people needed to be able to do something other than giggling if something broke out.

The degenerates are nearly in control. Anyone with a business in California should move to another state. Anyone with young children should move, too.

The theory that legalizing, regulating, and taxing drugs will take the crime out of it makes perfect sense. The experience of Prohibition really makes it plausible.

Can someone then explain Mexico? They have largely legalized drugs there, and they're a total basket case of drug cartels and corruption. If Mexico is what legalization looks like, give me continued prohibition!

In regards to Mr. Bostic's argument:

The whole point of the argument made by this column and many of the comments supporting it is that pot should not be illegal, therefore precluding the people from smoking it from inherently being outlaws. Can you give a concrete reason why drugs should be illegal other than your moral opposition?

Are you also an advocate of reinstating the 18th amendment? What is the difference between someone smoking a joint or going to a bar and having 4 beers? By logical dedcution, I'm also presuming that you are a proponent of obamacare? After all it is the law these days...however misguided.

I'm sure the first thing you will say is that people who smoke pot will harm other people. Well, there are laws to take care of people who are irresponsible in their actions to the point of harming others, especially when voluntarily injesting intoxicants. Regardless of whether it is legal people will smoke it and people will be irresponsible. By pushing the drug trade underground, we are only ensuring that it is not regulated and being capitalized on by people who truly are willing to commit murder, i.e. the drug cartels and the various compents which comprise them.

I am all for legalizi89ng if and only ig any one who having smoked up is not permitted behind teh wheel of a motor vehicle for 8 hours after they finished their toke. A means and method to determine if such users are impaired while driving, and teh harshest sentece meted out as possible even a death penalty if these usless turds end up driving after toking and killing someone .

harsh of course but it will cut down on users. As for cartels Crims will always find a way to profit.

All we are doing is trading one pusher for another, both a re harsh mistresseds and even more cruel as masters

Joe: A mind is a terrible thing to waste and so is our time reading your comment. Refute John B's claims and don't resort to name calling it makes you look ridiculous.

I believe in individual responsibility when it comes to drug use. The problem I have is with children and animals who have no choice around people who have no sense of responsibility.

I also have a problem with people who believe this legalization proposition is the most important issue facing California. You need to stop smoking long enough to see what's happening to this beautiful state.

Cannabis is a hallucinogen and must be treated as such. The choice of the individual to partake in

the consumption of this drug in my opinion should be administered by a physician. Oregon's Medical Marijuana Program is doing well.

It was recently reported that carrot tops contain a similar psychoactive agent as marijuana. The government is moving quickly to put carrots on the banned list of things you aren't allowed to grow, ingest, or have in your possession as an adult citizen of the United States.

People that grow carrots for their own use will be put into prison for violation of the law. As carrots really cannot be proved to have any medicinal use they will not be available through a Doctor's prescription.

While the government recognizes that making carrots illegal could result in making a large portion of carrot enjoying citizens criminals it recognizes the greater good for society as dominant over an individual citizens right to choose for themselves if carrots are dangerous.

Studies show carrots to be a gateway vegetable to stronger drugs as 100% of people that have used any drug or alcohol admitted to carrot use in their early years of childhood.

Mexico, the largest producer of carrots and other vegetables, has decried the move as another attempt by the U.S. to destroy their economy but also issued a public statement that as long as Americans want carrots Mexico will continue to find a way to get them across the border.

In a related story a young boy was given carrots for his nearsightedness and is reported to being able to see more clearly. Doctor's are convinced that the carrots relieved the boys suffering but the government will demand several more years of extensive study and funding of research by major pharmaceutical companies to develop a synthetic alternative to carrots to ensure that home grown carrots are not administered without proper medical advice and control.

Drug crazed degenerates like Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barrack Obama. Crimes like killing someone because you disagree with them. Effects that last at least 8 hours right? I haven't smoked in many, many years but the misinformation is pretty extreme here.

I have been at odds with the counter culture for most of my life having been raised with both parents as marijuana smokers. I don't really understand the fears that it will have an immediate and detrimental affect on a persons behavior in a violent or irresponsible way. I DO however believe that it creates an attitude of apathy and laziness over the course of time. To many of us this is not an option in an economically stressed economy.

I have a two key rules that I live by, self determination and a reverence for all life. This issue is going to be voted upon and if not this time, at some point in the near future it is going to pass. Educate yourselves and make your own decisions rather than argue baseless points on both side, you do discredit to your causes.

On another side note, I understand it is a common tactic on discussion forums to use two usernames and argue both sides of a story from different perspectives in order to drum up emotional responses in favor of the side you are truly trying to advocate... food for thought.

Anyone know which section of the Constitution gives the feds any say on drugs or medicine? When was the Tenth Amendment repealed?

@Howard Last, The Controlled substance act of 1970.

Why do you think it's called "Dope?"

Argue pro and con to your heart's desire, the fact still remains that there is not one word in the US Constitution, with the putative exception of the "commerce clause," that gives the federal government the authority to "regulate" drugs of any stripe - The "commerce clause" has been stretched so thin you can read the New York Times through it due to Washington usurping the rights and powers of the states and the people.

The question should, and by state's rights, be left up to the several states to decide, as it was in the not-very-distant past, not the federal government.

A small dose of reality to stick in your pipe and smoke: People are going to do what they want to do, regardless of any laws, federal or state. I concur that legalization (for medical concerns, of course, of course) will slow down the importation of c. sativa from Mexico, Columbia, Jamaica, British Colombia, and California itself, et alia, but it won't stop it by any means - The illegal use will continue, as it does today, by means of the existing black market. A black market run by cartelistas that make the old Cosa Nostra look like choir boys. Legalizing marijuana for "medical purposes" won't stop the flow of drugs across our borders, especially our southern border, as the non-medical use will, without any doubt, continue, and will be supplied by the current criminal factions.

In fine: As things stand, today, the only viable way to stop the killing over which cartel owns what slice of territory, and the importation of the argument onto American soil, is to repeal all federal drug laws, thereby leaving the question up to the citizens of the several states. "Medical marijuana" is a canard, and is but the tip of the iceberg in an ongoing effort (by the usual suspects) to legalize all "recreational drugs." A subject that the US Constitution does not address in any fashion, but leaves such questions up to the states, or the people. [See: Amendment X, United States Constitution]

Who IS John Galt?

leave it up to individual states-end all federal "loans" to irresponsible states unable to balance a budget-(let cali go bankrupt)-then lets see how it all shakes out-maybe legal weed is the solution-I don't think so but let 'em find out for themselves-hell Cali could legalize all drugs for that matter,why stop at weed-its a state matter.But when the money is gone and businesses as well as people move out and all hell breaks loose-they are on their own-reap what you sow

Ah... here we go again. Once again the lovers of government control are trolling the boards of people who believe the power of the government should be limited. John Bostick is the poster-child for Marxist-like government control into our formerly free lives as Americans. He posits that anybody who thinks people should be free to do as they please unless they hurt someone else is a libertine bent on destroying "the children" and deserves summary execution. For the record, this is an excerpt from the Terms of Use for Patriot Post we all agree to abide by:

1. material which threatens or abuses others, or which is defamatory or libelous, or which is invasive of another's privacy;

2. material for which User does not have the right to post, including, without limitation, material which infringes on the rights of third parties, including, but not limited to, copyright, trademark, trade secret, privacy, personal, publicity, moral or proprietary rights;

3. material which is false;

4. material which advocates illegal activity or discusses an intent to commit an illegal act;

5. material for advertising or commercial solicitation;

6. material which contains a virus or other harmful code or device;

7. material which is vulgar, obscene, pornographic, indecent, lewd, violent, abusive, threatening, harassing, discriminatory or which constitutes hate speech; or

8. material which does not pertain directly to the subject matter of the particular forum.

I’m pretty sure John Bostick’s first post violates numbers 1 and 7, and arguably 3 and 4.

Well John, I'm not a pot smoker, and as a military officer I am subject to no-notice drug tests at any time. I do not, nor have I ever, taken any illegal drugs, and only very rarely do I use legal ones (a single glass of wine every six months or so at most.) But since I believe in the Constitution and you obviously don't, perhaps you could answer Howard Last's question about when we repealed the Tenth Amendment. I must have an older copy, since mine still shows the Tenth as being valid.

By your logic people want liberty for the sole purpose of abusing it and harming others, especially all those children you claim to be concerned with. In the meantime, your game looks like fun - can I play too? Let's see...

Do you believe in freedom of the press, John? You must be a child pornographer. That might explain your obsession with the children.

Do you believe in freedom of religion, John? You must be a member of some nefarious cult. Do you sacrifice the children to Satan after you finish filming them? The picture is becoming clearer now.

Do you believe in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, John? You must be a whack-job who just wants to kill people who disagree with you. Judging by your initial post that seems likely.

I could go on but I trust I've made my point. I doubt you're really a sociopathic child-molesting member of a violent cult, but if you're going to accuse people who favor liberty of having bad motives you'll face the same argument for the freedoms YOU care about.

The question is not really whether drug use is GOOD. I certainly don't think it is. The question is, "How much do you want the Federal Government to dictate how you live your life?" And while we're at it, drug prohibitionists never seem to count the costs. Nothing is free, and declaring a particular intoxicant illegal while others remain legal is simply arbitrary and counter-productive. Laws should not be arbitrary or counter-productive, and federal laws should face the strictest scrutiny of all, as they affect us all. Bad federal law actually hurts us all, and not in the "the kids might see" sense either.

The argument that the costs of "stoners" (as John Bostick puts it in his always-eloquent manner) are a cost to society begs the question of why society is responsible for insulating people from the consequences of their bad decisions. If some dude wants to smoke MJ in a legal manner (after the law) 1500 miles from my house, why is that my business and why is it my responsibility to pay for his medical care if he develops medical problems? Let him have the freedom - and the bills. I have no dog in this fight other than a desire to fight over-reaching government in general, as that really does hurt us all, including "the children."

There is no way to make sane assumptions with insane minds. This controversy has certainly drawn them out to prove that. Either by nature or drug induced insanity, dopers are trying and take over this country. I for one stand in opposition to this evil. Dopers that want to make dope legal do so because they’re dopers. They are the most selfish and self-centered people on the earth. There are no others with less concern for the well being of humans than dopers. The deception of others is nearly always rooted in the deception of yourself. Dopers are as transparent as the nose on your face in a public forum.

Rippedchef,

We must have been typing at the same time. I actually agree with your post. Bad decisions have bad consequences, and if enough people in any state decide to be stupid (whether by taking drugs, prohibiting drugs, subsidizing illegal immigration, raising taxes, building $500 million elementary schools, etc.) they should be free to do so... and the rest of us should be free to laugh at them when they want to FedGov to send us the bill.

Quote---

John Bostick

There is no way to make sane assumptions with insane minds. This controversy has certainly drawn them out to prove that. Either by nature or drug induced insanity, dopers are trying and take over this country. I for one stand in opposition to this evil. Dopers that want to make dope legal do so because they’re dopers. They are the most selfish and self-centered people on the earth. There are no others with less concern for the well being of humans than dopers. The deception of others is nearly always rooted in the deception of yourself. Dopers are as transparent as the nose on your face in a public forum.

Reply---Cool story bro. Really, this is complete troll food, please remove.

Rippedchef/Army Officer - congratulations on maintaining some level of focus on what the issue really is - federal government extending control where it doesn't belong or have authority under the constitution - and a State's right to set laws for the its residents.

Unfortunately it seems that the liberal agenda for creating the nanny state and federal government has severely usurped any constitutional limitations on government and there are too many people that either have become accustomed to being provided for at others expense, or now believe it to be the function of the federal government.

The other extreme seems to be Mr. Bostick's desire for unilateral control over the population, as long as it fits his morals. Hopefully the pendulum will never swing that far into extreme intolerance.

Someone asked about Congressional authority for prohibition on drugs and a reference was made to a thinly veiled claim under the commerce clause. I wonder how the authority to regulate interstate commerce can be applied to trade that has been made illegal? Wouldn't regulation of interstate commerce only be applicable to trade/industry that was subject to taxation? When did regulation of interstate commerce turn into criminalization of commerce that isn't taxed?

I just can't wait until just one stoned doctor

operates on your child and either maimes or kills the child....giggling all the way home...how about a teacher coming to class stoned...or the guy working on your brakes...or your babysitter caring for your infant...gigggle giggle..how about the nurses doing medications...giggle your child just got morphine instead of an antibiotic...how about a stoned rapist giggling while he rapes your wife or daughter.....yes lets just keep the giggles going fools

To explain Mexico; the United States demand for illegal drugs causes the problem.

sista sue,

Once again, an irrelevant point. All the things you describe are already illegal independent of MJ prohibition. Just substitute "drunk" (alcohol is legal) with "stoned" to see how vapid your argument is. Or are you arguing for the prohibition of alcohol too? How about cough syrup? Deodorant can contain alcohol. What about banning that?

And if you think people aren't using it now, although it's illegal.. well... as the kids say, "You must be high."

By the way, please continue calling people who disagree with you "fools." It lets those among us who prefer "thinking" to "feeling" know when our opponents are out of arguments when they start calling us names.

If anyone believes we should have more drunks and dopers in this country you are delusional. Alcohol and drugs both induce delusion. If you have gotten yourself into that mindset please seek treatment. Another thing I would request is that you don’t vote on anything until you have allowed you mind to clear. This society is suffering now from dizzies having equal voice without the desire or ability to share equal responsibilities (following the laws of our land) for example. I think there are even laws against stoners impersonating an officer.

Army/Xcpt-

wow-you agree with my post!-it took me awhile (as it will John Bostick and sista) to seperate the real issue(freedom) from the impact of legalization and resulting emotions (fear).We all want the same thing-its just a matter of how it gets done-either we have the feds hovering over more and more issues in our lives or we face the fact that freedom has good and bad sides to it.You both know from previous posts that I'm way defensive of children as both John and Sista are and I share their view that legalization is tragic but I'm afraid losing more and more freedom is even more tragic.Problem is I don't see how we can ever get back to limited gov't and there is no way the scenario I described in my previous post would be allowed to play out.So that leaves you(army/xcpt) arguing for something that is right but will probably never happen and them (sista/john b)arguing for the safety of children with the possibility of legalization-two entirely different issues-it took me awhile and some back and forth with army but I get it and I think with a few posts they (sista/john) would as well.Its kinda like an outline-army is talking about roman numeral one and john is talking about capital A-if anybody remembers outlines........

One more thing-when he types "thanks for playing" you know you're done-LOL

The decision to Prohibit a substance should be made on the County or City level. Pot should be treated like alcohol, it's fine to use every now and then. Just like alcohol it shouldn't be consumed frequently in large amounts, and you shouldn't use it around kids, before driving, at or before work. I've been around pot most of my adult life and just like alcohol, some people can't handle it. There are alot of misconceptions regarding pot and who uses it. Take the time to see who is actually funding the opposition to Prop 19.

There are three side effects of acid:

enhanced long-term memory, decreased

short-term memory, and I forgot the third.

-----Dr. Timothy Leary (1920-1996)

The drug war is more damaging to our society than drugs. Mexico is on the brink of collapse because the U.S. government insists on pushing their moralistic agenda re: drugs (and then they try to blame it on lax U.S. gun laws - lol). I'd like to see them pull the rug out from under the cartels by legalizing ALL drugs.

John Bostock had the audacity to write, "I think there are even laws against stoners impersonating an officer."

John, are you seriously suggesting that between the two of us I'm the one strung out on dope and you're the clear-minded one? You actually think it's impossible that a guy who's spent 26 years as a military officer and served in two wars might care about preserving liberty? I don't know how old you are, but if you're still under 42 you should seriously consider putting on a uniform. It might teach you a little about respect and the cost of liberty - you might learn to show some of the former and be less willing to cast off the latter.

I challenge anyone who has an IQ above 60 to read any post I've made and compare it to any one John has made on any topic. I'll let our words speak for us.

"I think there are even laws against stoners impersonating an officer."

John, Dude, there are laws against ANYONE impersonating an officer. I wonder how you'd feel about a law against impersonating a literate, thinking person.

Army Officer (et. al.) - Thank you for a very entertaining thread. Much better than anything I could have found on television.

And thank you, sir, for your service.

You all miss the point. Alcoholic beverages are just that. Beverages. Public drunkeness, drunken driving, etc are crimes. Getting stoned in public should recieve the same consequences. The only purpose of drugs is to get stoned. Will there be stoned check points? I don't have a problem with my friends who toke at home. They probably should get a life, but that is their problem. Laws should be equal and reasonable, if they cannot be constitutional. How did this column get on this site anyhow? The whole article should be considered trolling. Just look at the comments.

Do any of you actually want to be driving on the road with loved ones in your car, with people stoned on pot? It is bad enough there are enough people that can drink legally -then get behind the wheel-not legal, but they do--& are a threat to all they go near--Nobody in their right mind would want to add all the potheads that would now be able to legallay get high-then get in their cars & drive. THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Army, are you saying that 26 years in the military has taught you to oppose the federal laws that you don’t like so you can preserve liberty? I suspect you and Sullum would both go on to the bitter end to attempt to intellectual bankrupt anyone who opposes Proposition 19. But I’m a bit confused; it seems to me that you being a military man have deciding to set us up a new constitutional republic. This country is no longer just a republic the Seventeenth Amendment changed the national government of the United States from being a mere republic to being a true representative democracy, it took effect in 1913. Since then the U.S. Senate has been elected directly by the voters, rather than being appointed by the state legislatures. That makes the national government democratic in form, as well as being a republic. After that happened because we elected these people the laws they have put into effect have become the laws we as US citizens are required to stand by. So to answer your question, yeah I think you might be strung out on dope because you do exhibit a reluctance to abide by the laws we have in effect. The motive of protecting our liberty certainly does sound better than protecting your Proposition 19. Here’s another smelly red herring for you; the people that are breaking the laws now are not going to start abiding by the laws if you make their dope legal. They’re outlaws why should they.

Norge, Dude, I’d fell sorry for you if there was a law against impersonating a literate, thinking person.

I honestly can't think of a single federal law that doesn't infringe on the constitution. Interstate commerce my a$$!

One, the "War on Drugs" is an unmitigated success! This is becasue it was never intended to, or capable of, stopping drug use. It was, and is, a way to grow a Federal bureaucracy. It was , and is, racist. Go back and look at what was said & done to fund & establish the BNDD; if you have a conscience, it will make you want to puke. The "War on Drugs" has done what it was menat to do: created lots of Federal law enforcement jobs.

Two, the depressingly large numbers of angry, arrogant fools like John Bostick running loose in America is why I have a concealed handgun permit...

This article has sure drawn the drug addicts out to defend their right to do what ever they want to. They are getting to show their contempt for the laws, the law enforcement, and the administration of this country. They are getting to show their hatred for the average citizens of this country that are willing and able to abide by the laws. This country has a severe problem alright and it’s not the laws we live by. I believe these warp-minded people represent a substantial percentage of our population. That’s what our problem is. If we are a point in time where these types are the majority the entire system should stay in the toilet because that’s where it belongs. I believe we should have mandatory drug test prior to being able to cast a vote at any level in our government. That alone might give us the opportunity to salvage a workable government. The rest of you wouldn’t even be satisfied if we furnished you your drugs. You’d still hate us because we aren’t strung out with you. You’ll know who you are, the rest of us know who you are too.

This article has sure drawn the drug addicts out to defend their right to do what ever they want to. They are getting to show their contempt for the laws, the law enforcement, and the administration of this country. They are getting to show their hatred for the average citizens of this country that are willing and able to abide by the laws. This country has a severe problem alright and it’s not the laws we live by. I believe these warp-minded people represent a substantial percentage of our population. That’s what our problem is. If we are a point in time where these types are the majority the entire system should stay in the toilet because that’s where it belongs. I believe we should have mandatory drug test prior to being able to cast a vote at any level in our government. That alone might give us the opportunity to salvage a workable government. The rest of you wouldn’t even be satisfied if we furnished you your drugs. You’d still hate us because we aren’t strung out with you. You’ll know who you are, the rest of us know who you are too.

John Bostick,

Incredible. You actually think that anyone who disagrees with you is a drug addict. Again, I invite the reader to compare my erudition to yours in any post you or I have ever written in any thread on this web site to make his or her own determination about which of us is most likely to be suffering the effects of long-term drug use. So perhaps your years as an "undocumented pharmacist" have taken their toll on your own reasoning capability. (See how I did that? I used your own reasoning against you, "Anyone who doesn't reason like I do must be high." Not so much fun now, is it?) I have never done drugs, and since the military checks all of us both randomly and periodically, the fact that I retain my commission after 26 years is pretty solid evidence that I'm not a user. Those guys usually don't last very long - certainly not long enough to become field-grade officers with 26 years under their belts. Of course I can't prove that I am what I say I am without divulging my identity here, but I think any fair-minded person who reads a few of my posts will conclude that I'm the real thing.

As for your arguments: they're still wrong because they are oversimplifications of the issue. I will repeat myself here since you obviously don't seem able to grasp even the simplest part of my premise. I am not suggesting that people should break the law. I am not suggesting that people should take recreational drugs. I am not suggesting that recreational drug use is good. I do not, "exhibit a reluctance to abide by the laws we have in effect." I have abided by those laws every single day of my life. I understand how laws come into effect, and I understand the implications of the 17th Amendment. Based on your writing samples in several threads over time I seriously doubt there's anything of any significance you understand better than I do in those threads where I post, including this one.

I AM saying that there is a balance between individual liberty and the need for a certain amount of conformity within a community. Ben Franklin made much the same point, and the Constitutional Convention was largely a matter of determining the proper balance between the rights of individuals and the needs of communities for them to effectively exist. Since those guys generally disagreed with your premise that government should exercise a high degree of control over the lives of citizens I suppose you're going to accuse all of them of being drug addicts too.

The question, again, is not whether I advocate recreational drug use - again, I do not. Perhaps that bears repeating so you'll get it this time: I - DO - NOT. The question the thinkers on this thread are discussing is whether the costs of the drug war in general and MJ prohibition in particular are worth the costs. That's one problem with people on your side of this argument, and the problem of statists in general - you only consider the benefits and ignore the costs. Free health-care for everyone would be great - let's just raise taxes! Gun violence is bad - let's just ban guns! Drug use is bad - let's just ban MJ! All of those are fine sentiments but all those "solutions" come at heavy prices - and are unlikely to work. We're struggling with the question of which side of the "individual rights vs collective needs" line this falls on, and we're considering the cost BOTH ways. In terms of likely percentages of drug use, prison costs, creation and sustainment of black markets, empowerment of violent cartels, etc. This question is a lot more complex than you're treating it with your simplistic assertion that (I'm paraphrasing), "Drugs are bad and druggies are bad people and NO cost is too high to reduce it and ANY solution we propose has no deleterious consequences worth considering. Anybody who disagrees with me is just a druggy that wants to corrupt kids." If you're not going to add anything to the discussion but pointless invective and no consideration that both sides have costs, please stop interrupting - the adults are talking.

I think most everyone here would concede that:

1) Recreational drug use is not healthy, although we may disagree about just how bad it is. I personally think it's pretty bad.

2) Citizens should respect the law, even when we disagree that a particular law is unnecessary, for the sake of the communities in which we choose to live.

3) The words "legal" and "Illegal" are not synonyms for "right" and "wrong."

4) Government that over-reaches encroaches on individual liberty, and it should refrain from doing so whenever possible.

5) Enforcement of laws has real costs, both in terms of public funds and lost liberty.

6) Reasonable people may disagree about where the line should be drawn, and can do so without calling names and attributing bad motives to their opponents.

By the way, please look up the term "red herring." You've used it incorrectly twice and it's making you look silly.

It's been scientifically and statistically proven that marijuana is a "gateway" drug. It causes damage to cellular DNA. If you want heroin, meth or cocaine usage to skyrocket just legalize grass. Be prepared to pay an awful price!

Jay, I didn't know the , the Controlled substance act of 1970 was part of the Constitution. James Madison call your office.

I've been a Correctional Officer for 22 years. I agree with Army Officer. The Constitution was written to protect our Freedom's; not run our lives. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Some drugs cure illness. Some drugs ease pain. Some drugs relieve fears. All drugs can end a life. Alcohol can end a life. Some house hold cleaners can kill you when mixed with the wrong chemicals. Manure can be used to make a bomb. Inmates file toothbrush handles on cement floors to a razor sharpness in order to shank someone. My point is...Everyone and Everything can do or be made into something that can cause harm. Choice. We all have a Choice. Do you want the Government to make your Choice or do you want to make your own choice?

I am almost at a loss here. First I would like to say that if you are going to attempt to argue anything on the internet you should at least double check what you write. The inordinate number of misspellings in this thread is amazing. Some are obvious finger slips on the keyboard. Most however are not.

To the uninitiated here I can tell you that the worst crime committed by someone high on pot is in all likelyhood shoplifting a twinkie. Marijuana has never in any study been shown to produce aggressive behavior; do the research and you will see this is true. I smoked pot in my youth and would still smoke it today if it weren't "illegal" I could sit back and relax after a stressful day and leave the stress behind.

If any one of you thinks the "doctor working on your child" is going to go out and get high just because it is Legal well then you are living in a fantasy world (tell Frodo I said Hi!)people aren't going to start getting stoned and going to work because pot was legalized. These people are already "stoned" at work and legalization only allows them easier access to what they are already buying. Besides Doctors and nurses have access to much better drugs than pot.

Some positives to it being legalized: TAX REVENUES!!

And think of how much we would save from not incarcerating people for drug offenses(possession and distribution, not driving under the influence)

The ability to control the quality of the drugs. If one of my children (this is just an analogy) were to use drugs I would feel much better knowing they weren't going to die from some moron cutting their dope with arsenic or Comet or god knows what. The amount of money our gov't wastes on this "war on drugs" is ridiculous. The US hasn't "won" a war since World War II. Do you honestly think they will win this one? Several previous posts were right on the mark about Prohibition. Go do some research and you will find that Al Capone and all the other gangsters were just two-bit crooks until The 18th amendment came along. Let's not forget that you could go to your doctor with any of a very long list of ailments and get a prescription for alcohol.

Time to get off your hobby horses and look at the big picture here folks. But what do I know, I'm just a common sense kinda guy.

Let me interject my personal moment of drug-hazed insanity to this circular argument. Sorry, if I misspell a word, or sound otherwise incoherent, but its because of the MJ smoke, compounded by the incense, on top of the tobacco, washed down with Ripple...So much so I can hardly see the screen 12 inches away, Oh, er, its just out of foccus... There is a much more insidious form of DOPE available to every one. Yes, right in your town! sold by legal businesses!! Alcohol sold Over-The-Counter to anyone who walks thru the door. Vanilla Extract, Yikes! Outlaw that, & no more lemon merique pie, hell, no vanilla ice cream, that'll make me scream, :'), But I digress. We should have a moratorium on eating, I say close the doors of every grocery store chain, yeah, that'll teach us outlaws a thing or three...

...yea, putt thatt in ur Pipe & smok it, heay, where ist my pipe??, it was here a min-ute ago, ooh, yeap, hfound it, but ill have tyo put outt this fire out too reach it. Happyy trials to U.

Holy cow! Enough already!

I want the "gubmint" OUT OF MY LIFE---- out of my bedroom, out of my business, out of my children's lives, off of my property, out of my car, out of my personal life....and on and on and on it goes.

What more can I say except "STAY OUT"! And that includes those of you who think "there oughta be ANOTHER law" because you wish to impose your morality, thinking, or sense of right and wrong on me or anyone else. These same people think they can do this using the power of the state to force their thinking upon all others but have the audacity to call themselves lovers of freedom or patriots in the purest sense.

Have you no idea at all what kind of power you are willing to give the state? Are you really so certain that the state's power won't grow until it tells you that your church is off limits, or your kids are primarily the wards of the state, or what you can and cannot eat/wear/do? Is there no end to your minding everyone else's business except your own? Reasonable, intelligent adults KNOW that the only behavior that they can control is their own (and their little children). Laws will never change human nature; it may corral it, may alter manners a bit, and might even stunt it--- but it will NEVER succeed in conquering it. Get over it and STAY OUT!!!

Marijuana will be legal someday, because the

many law students who now smoke pot will one

day be Congressmen and they will legalize it

to protect themselves. I don't smoke pot,

and I'm glad because then I can champion it

without any special pleading. The reason I

don't smoke pot is because it facilitates

ideas and heightens sensations---and I got

enough s--t flying through my head without

smoking pot.---Lenny Bruce (1925-1966)

Just some info; the Supreme Court for almost 200years said citizens had the right to use drugs under the right of "Life, Liberty ,& the Pursuit of Happiness" . You know that one right? The other Founding Document , The Declaration of Independence. Stop wasting taxpayers money on stupid enforcement, marijuana is as much a hallucinogenic as nutmeg. Prisons are not filled with inmates who smoke marijuana get caught and are locked up. As a CO o have seen Drunks locked up in connection with vehicular manslaughter , never a pothead. I'm not a drinker or a smokers, but I do know that studies indicate that out of all professions, doctors abuse narcotics more than any one else. The laws are already in place to deal with that. The thing is if you get caught with a small amount of marijuana, you get a summons to show up to court on a specific date,same as open containers in NYS. All BS to generate REVENUES for the state