Is that a slice of cake? Cake feet? What? And no, I’m not high on our glorious state’s legal cannabis.
1 Like
- With which argument?
- As a general rule, reform opponents (like most of us) don’t react well to new facts that contradict their existing belief system. Part of the issue is the 50 years of intense brainwashing propaganda that has been continuously spewed at us by the media military industrial complex. For many folks, the notion that cannabis could be even slightly more beneficial than not (say, 51/49% advantage) is a hurdle they just can’t pass. Legalization, and the lack of subsequent bacchanalian riots in the streets, is probably doing more to open peoples’ eyes than I ever could.
- As I hope I made clear in my above rants, legalization proponents often have more to fear from well-meaning supporters than from opponents. Supporters are the ones pushing for extra taxes because they feel like “I’m happy to pay taxes on my weed” without realizing they are: a) selling out less affluent patients; b) inadvertently supporting the toxic false frame that cannabis is so dangerous it needs an extra special tax; and c) inadvertently putting cannabis into a special taxable category when it should really be treated like every other botanical medicine or consumable plant – none of which are taxed at all. Supporters, or at least, pro-legalization millionaires & billionaires, are behind most of the major cannabis initiatives – those same ones that create whole new legal regimes that are often more “land grabs” for power than actual cannabis freedom for the people.
- The idea that “any legalization initiative is better than no initiative” ignores the way new rules and laws disproportionately target the poor and non-white. A 60-page initiative filled with unnecessary rules and regulations will inevitably be used against these vulnerable populations (plus adults in the 18-20 category). Affluent white adults may convince themselves that AUMA is better than nothing because they are less likely to be the victims of the police state that will, inevitably, find ways to continue to victimize cannabis users under the new regime.
2 Likes
Ed Rosenthal, the “Guru of Ganja,” on the AUMA
There’s an interview with the “Guru of Ganja” in the current issue of Dope Magazine (pp. 64-65) that includes the following:
Q: What is your personal opinion about the Adult Use of Marijuana Act?
A: That’s a scam. It is not a legalization measure at all. The big
wearers of that are the distributors. That is where all the money will
flow into, the distributors. Away from the manufacturers and the
retailers. And it doesn’t guarantee that people can grow their own. That
people can transfer freely, like among friends. Or can grow
collectively. If it ends up on the ballot, people should not vote for
it.
Q: Do you think that something else needs to be put on the ballot?
A: I don’t know if it can be done this year. But we would be better off
maintaining the situation that we have, rather than putting that (Adult
Use of Marijuana Act) on the ballot. Because once it is on the ballot it
cannot be changed, except by a vote of the people. Which is just not
adequate. But word will spread as time goes on
I think you’ll agree that the media part of that goes waaaaay further back than 50 years.
4 Likes
Oh good.
Some good points, there.
DUI laws are something I am concerned about. THC stays in the bloodstream a long time. It isn’t a stretch to think that a driver could test “high” - even if they had not consumed any THC in days.
You’re right. “Legal” is a relative term.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
