Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   California ballot for pot legalization to be delayed until 2016. Supporters are urged to tell all pot smokers to remember to get to the polls tomorrow   (latimes.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, California, marijuana legalization, Ethan Nadelmann, California ballot, Drug Policy Alliance, drug policy reform, opinion leaders, legalization  
•       •       •

477 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Feb 2014 at 9:05 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



22 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-20 09:06:45 AM  
Who the fark is still opposing pot legalization/decriminalization laws at this point?
 
2014-02-20 09:11:46 AM  
1) I guess it will get more liberal voters to the polls for Hilary

2) Will the unfunny, stale pothead stereotypes go away when it's legal? Jeez, I don't make a joke about winos every time I see somebody drinking a cocktail.
 
2014-02-20 09:18:40 AM  
The people who would vote for legalization don't show up for the mid terms anyway.
 
2014-02-20 09:24:06 AM  

Epic Fap Session: 1) I guess it will get more liberal voters to the polls for Hilary

2) Will the unfunny, stale pothead stereotypes go away when it's legal? Jeez, I don't make a joke about winos every time I see somebody drinking a cocktail.


I really can't imagine a scenario where the Californians who would only vote if legalization was on the ballot make up the critical votes to keep the state voting for a Democratic Presidential candidate.  Obama won the state in 2012 with 60% of the votes cast to Mitt Romney's 37%.
 
2014-02-20 09:25:56 AM  

deanis: Who the fark is still opposing pot legalization/decriminalization laws at this point?


Buzz kills.
 
2014-02-20 09:30:02 AM  

deanis: Who the fark is still opposing pot legalization/decriminalization laws at this point?


Everyone who profits from the War On Drugs (TM).
 
2014-02-20 09:48:17 AM  

houginator: Epic Fap Session: 1) I guess it will get more liberal voters to the polls for Hilary

2) Will the unfunny, stale pothead stereotypes go away when it's legal? Jeez, I don't make a joke about winos every time I see somebody drinking a cocktail.

I really can't imagine a scenario where the Californians who would only vote if legalization was on the ballot make up the critical votes to keep the state voting for a Democratic Presidential candidate.  Obama won the state in 2012 with 60% of the votes cast to Mitt Romney's 37%.


I don't think it's about making sure the democrats show up to the polls for the presidential election.

I think it's more about ensuring that there are lots of democrats at the polls so that the pot legislation can pass. Would it pass in the midterms? Maybe. Maybe not.

Would it pass in 2016? I think it's much more likely.
 
2014-02-20 10:19:04 AM  

deanis: Who the fark is still opposing pot legalization/decriminalization laws at this point?


Head of the DEA, and a lot of local sheriffs addicted to that sweet, sweet, fed and forfeiture money.  It's kinda odd because there's still, meth, heroin, and a lot of hard drugs we aren't even considering legalizing.


Sail The Wide Accountancy:

I don't think it's about making sure the democrats show up to the polls for the presidential election.

I think it's more about ensuring that there are lots of democrats at the polls so that the pot legislation can pass. Would it pass in the midterms? Maybe. Maybe not.

Would it pass in 2016? I think it's much more likely.


I think it's also about letting Colorado and Washington iron out the wrinkles in the process first.  They'll have two full years of legalization to tell them what they should and shouldn't do.
 
2014-02-20 10:26:17 AM  

houginator: Epic Fap Session: 1) I guess it will get more liberal voters to the polls for Hilary

2) Will the unfunny, stale pothead stereotypes go away when it's legal? Jeez, I don't make a joke about winos every time I see somebody drinking a cocktail.

I really can't imagine a scenario where the Californians who would only vote if legalization was on the ballot make up the critical votes to keep the state voting for a Democratic Presidential candidate.  Obama won the state in 2012 with 60% of the votes cast to Mitt Romney's 37%.


I think it's the opposite, actually; the presidential election will drive more liberal voters to the polls to vote for legalization.  The left is notoriously apathetic for midterms.
 
2014-02-20 10:34:15 AM  

HeartBurnKid: I think it's the opposite, actually; the presidential election will drive more liberal voters to the polls to vote for legalization.  The left is notoriously apathetic for midterms.


Old people that routinely show up to cast their ill informed votes are a big reason why America can't pass decent legislation anywhere. Nothing against old folks, but jesus, stop watching so much Fox News.
 
2014-02-20 10:39:03 AM  

pueblonative: deanis: Who the fark is still opposing pot legalization/decriminalization laws at this point?

Head of the DEA, and a lot of local sheriffs addicted to that sweet, sweet, fed and forfeiture money.  It's kinda odd because there's still, meth, heroin, and a lot of hard drugs we aren't even considering legalizing.


Sail The Wide Accountancy:

I don't think it's about making sure the democrats show up to the polls for the presidential election.

I think it's more about ensuring that there are lots of democrats at the polls so that the pot legislation can pass. Would it pass in the midterms? Maybe. Maybe not.

Would it pass in 2016? I think it's much more likely.

I think it's also about letting Colorado and Washington iron out the wrinkles in the process first.  They'll have two full years of legalization to tell them what they should and shouldn't do.


Yeah, I see it more of a tactic to delay the inevitable and give them a few years to figure out the best way to regulate its public use and distribution.  Really I see this whole decriminalization/legalization thing slowly happening state by state until finally the federal government gives in.  Reason being, as each state sees the tax revenue being made by their bordering states and siphoning money from them, they will pass their own laws decriminalizing/legalizing it.  Eventually the federal government will want a piece of the pie too since "sin taxes" are  the only ones that seem to get bi-partisan support.  Kind of like here in Alabama with the Sunday blue laws.  They were all about prohibiting sales of alcohol on Sundays because of "morals" until they did a study on tax revenue lost to Tennessee.  Now it's OK.  Then once our city did it, the county joined in with surrounding cities and counties to follow.

It's the same old story; when morals and money collide, money wins.
 
2014-02-20 10:44:03 AM  

Reagan's real son: The people who would vote for legalization don't show up for the mid terms anyway.


Well, I would. And I did show up to vote yes when it was on the last ballot.
 
2014-02-20 10:47:33 AM  

deanis: Who the fark is still opposing pot legalization/decriminalization laws at this point?


The DEA as per normal, they know their jobs are going to be cut and no one in-state is going to lift a finger to help them with investigations when it's legal.
 
2014-02-20 11:14:49 AM  

Reverend J: deanis: Who the fark is still opposing pot legalization/decriminalization laws at this point?

The DEA as per normal, they know their jobs are going to be cut and no one in-state is going to lift a finger to help them with investigations when it's legal.


One would think there is enough drug usage to combat that 100% of DEA agents could keep busy while completely ignoring marijuana.

I'd be interested in a statistics breakdown not in terms of how much pot is seized vs. other drugs but rather what percentage of pot is seized by actions targeted towards pot.  I'm guessing the DEA has already been mostly focusing effort on other drugs, and simply stumbling across pot and working it where this happens. And, so long as it is illegal, they should be continuing to work it where they find it until such time as an executive order tells them not to.  It isn't up to the station and sector levels of law enforcement to decide to stop enforcing the law of the land on issues in the first place.

I think it may be a bit of myth, perhaps even one believed by the agents themselves, that pot really is their bread and butter and in need of mounting any defenses of that portion of the drug war.  In the long run they lose credibility by doing so, when they could easily point to harder drugs and have a much larger portion of the population support their actions.  And even if they received cuts, there would never really be a need for reductions in force beyond a decrease in new hires.

This goes double for other law enforcement agencies, who certainly have no shortage of criminal activity to go after. The for-profit prison industry, otoh, is another story. But many publicly run prisons have the same cops who work the streets getting stuck doing jail duty, and most of those cops would rather be back on the street than relegated to guard duty in the first place.

I am making the argument that in terms of the continuation of the agency and them still having jobs, their concerns are misplaced. I think the folks like Leonhart are true believers who honestly consider themselves to be heroes in some moral crusade, and not merely liars trying to protect their jobs. Leonhart's job isn't going anywhere even if pot was legal tomorrow.  Additionally, government pay scales are based on what the job description entails.  The government is unlikely to decide one day that a DEA agent is no longer performing the duties of a GS-13 description overnight, and they cannot say "dea agents no longer effect arrests and perform investigative work and court work, and now we are going to call them GS-10s, so pay-cuts all around!".
 
2014-02-20 11:52:09 AM  

Smackledorfer: One would think there is enough drug usage to combat that 100% of DEA agents could keep busy while completely ignoring marijuana.


I think pot is just an easy target. I would imagine it's by far the most prevalent drug, and it has a strong smell so it's easier to detect.

If the DEA loses pot as a schedule 1 drug they might not have much left to go after, and I'd imagine if drug dealers aren't making money from pot anymore either they might have to find something else to do as well. Pot very well could be the cornerstone of the entire war on drugs.

Colorado and Washington should be very interesting indicators in this regard. Arrests for illegal substances should plummet on the pot alone, but having a secondary effect of making it harder for illegal drug dealers to make a living could drive down the arrests even further.
 
2014-02-20 12:19:52 PM  

MayoSlather: I think pot is just an easy target. I would imagine it's by far the most prevalent drug, and it has a strong smell so it's easier to detect.


Agreed.

MayoSlather: If the DEA loses pot as a schedule 1 drug they might not have much left to go after,


I would argue that from a numbers perspective, despite the huge money spent in the war on drugs, that there would still be more than enough drugs left after pot for DEA to keep busy.  But I don't mind agreeing to disagree.

The overall system would change, certainly, and I agree the dealer chain would change significantly, but the DEA is an 8,000 man operation, only half of which are agents. There will still be plenty of coke, meth, heroin, and the like to search after.  Further, in a way it would be easier to get those operations without the presence of pot to get in the way. You wouldn't be tripping over networks of pot dealers and shipments when looking into suspicious activity. You wouldn't be tempted, or forced, to take a lower level bust or pot seizure because it was a bird in the hand.

And like I said, we aren't talking about anyone getting fired if pot became legal. With government agencies and the level of training and organization involved, it is very rarely efficient to let people go. Even if significantly less work were present, it is doubtful we would see overnight reductions in force instead of simply having older agents retire out and a trimming of hiring.  In three years retirements alone will make a 10% reduction in force. Unless the goal was complete dismantling of the agency, it would be foolish to fire people today and hire more in a few years.  Go 5-7 years without hiring, then hire at 1% growth to 3% retirement. You'd get the same smaller agency and spend less money, while maintaining  moral and keeping on the better agents with experience instead of a quick flip for new guys.


But enough rambling on this for me I suppose.  I just don't buy the secret reasoning that the DEA agents making these statements are lying about their thoughts on the Devil's Weed simply to keep jobs, when the jobs would be kept either way - especially when the people making these statements aren't line agents, they are the higher level supervisory staff. In order to lie about how bad weed was (as opposed to simply being idiots about it) they would be putting themselves before their country, right? So why would they give a shiat about the agency when they'll keep their job either way (in fact that is often the problem with high end leadership in government agencies: they run out of places to climb to and become working retired)?  Even a full scale reduction and anything short of dismantling of the DEA would leave Leanhart employed until retirement.
 
2014-02-20 12:32:37 PM  

houginator: Epic Fap Session: 1) I guess it will get more liberal voters to the polls for Hilary

2) Will the unfunny, stale pothead stereotypes go away when it's legal? Jeez, I don't make a joke about winos every time I see somebody drinking a cocktail.

I really can't imagine a scenario where the Californians who would only vote if legalization was on the ballot make up the critical votes to keep the state voting for a Democratic Presidential candidate.  Obama won the state in 2012 with 60% of the votes cast to Mitt Romney's 37%.


Democrats/liberals turn out poorly in midterm elections.  This is well documented.  In general, this type of proposition will do better in a Presidential election than an midterm one.

However, in this particular case, I think the organizers just weren't ready for a big campaign this year and were smart enough to realize it.
 
2014-02-20 12:32:53 PM  
Lastly, these folks over the course of their career are going to encounter a very skewed subset of the drug using population.  The DEA isn't sniffing out the average pothead. They are encountering the stupidest and scummiest of the group and working their way up the black market food chain.  It comes as no surprise to me that after 20 years of going after marijuana these agents are left with a very inaccurate between marijuana use and scumbag criminal behavior.

Hell, I don't think anyone would make the argument that smoking cigarettes causes or is related to any degradation of morals and bad behavior, yet I think most of would agree that the average guy working the cigarette black market isn't someone you would be inclined to trust. By its very nature the illegal aspect of the thing will associate it with other criminal behavior.

Now, it doesn't take a huge amount of intellect to realize how this works, but I really don't expect much understanding from your average human being, especially when it comes to even basic statistics - that is as true of the cop-hater crowd as it is of the pothead-despising crowd. Neither person seems capable of looking beyond the salient or reinforcement bias and get a handle on the bigger picture.
 
2014-02-20 12:35:38 PM  

Geotpf: Democrats/liberals turn out poorly in midterm elections.  This is well documented.  In general, this type of proposition will do better in a Presidential election than an midterm one.


True, but I think the legalization crowd will still turn out for a midterm over it, and another political view would say the liberals in a solidly blue area would benefit more from using pot to push their politicians into place in a midterm than they would waiting until the big election and using turnout to benefit the pot referendum.

I'd be interested in seeing statistics in other states and medical marijuana bills in terms of relative turnout when these referendums are up for vote.
 
2014-02-20 02:06:45 PM  

deanis: Who the fark is still opposing pot legalization/decriminalization laws at this point?


The dispensories and suppliers.

They face little to no competition, oversight, and continue to charge black market prices. They are reaping a windfall that will go away once large companies enter the market. Prices will crash, profit margins shrink, and weed tax will be incurred.

Why do you think it didn't pass the first time in CA? (see above)
 
2014-02-21 01:33:32 AM  
Now that the Feds are allowing Colorado banks to handle dispensary money without running afoul of the money laundering laws, it should only be a matter of time before all the laws go down. Currently, the loosening of restrictions only apply to Colorado state banks, but do you think that Bank of America and Chase, once they see the huge amounts of money going through Colorado in a year or two, are going to want to stay cut out of the profits? They will lobby hard to be allowed their share of that sweet if stinky money, and when the banks can do it, everyone will.
 
2014-02-21 02:10:02 PM  
With cannabis legalization votes being the most contentious platform issue at hand these days, why do tard carts seem to want to use the lazy stoner stereotypes to get attention?   We are getting more shiat done than congress these days.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report