California - Putting It Bluntly

California - Putting It Bluntly

In about a month you're going to be facing a choice at the polls....



Yes. That's right. Prop 19. It's time to vote for the legalization of weed. But it doesn't just make smoking it legal, it also permits cultivation for personal use in plain English. That alone should be reason enough for you to vote for it. Even more so because there's actually a fighting chance this will actually pass.

Gee, I can't wait for California voters to make another good referendum vote. I sure am looking forward to this outcome. Though, as soon as this passes, Obama will probably bring a lawsuit against California to balance out the whole Arizona lawsuit.

This is really the one issue that will actually get the youth to the polls, at the very least. Which is a good thing considering more younger people relate and vote with democrats on average and it's looking like the republicans are mounting to change the balance. With Obama's staff changing the way it is, I really do wonder how his next two years will actually be like.



I have to say that it's about time and I'm perfectly okay with this choice. Think of the tax income that can be achieved by legalization? Who isn't looking forward to the world's first one trillion percent taxation on a product. But then there's part of me that I'd honestly rather they just get rid of the three strikes law first. Need a reason why?

# On November 4, 1995, Leandro Andrade stole five videotapes from a K-Mart store in Ontario, California. Two weeks later, he stole four videotapes from a different K-Mart store in Montclair, California. Andrade had been in and out of state and federal prisons since 1982, and at the time of these two crimes in 1995, had been convicted of petty theft, residential burglary, transportation of marijuana, and escaping from prison. As a result of these prior convictions, the prosecution charged Andrade with two counts of petty theft with a prior conviction, which under California law can either be a felony or a misdemeanor. Under California's three strikes law, any felony can serve as the third "strike" and thereby expose the defendant to a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life in prison.

I'm sure you're thinking "Oh no, a criminal for life was taken off the streets. Truly a tragedy worth whining about." Just think of it this way, if he hadn't gone to life in prison, he could be on the streets right now stealing 'The Hangover' DVDs and abusing the free refills at burger king.



This whole case is reason enough to display that 3 strikes is the dumbest most arbitrary thing in the entire world and serves only to hurt people who make good targets for police. You know, like minorities.

I'll probably never get the American obsession with weed and in trying to control it or ban it. I mean, really? Being high, for many people, is far better than being drunk. But speaking of drinking, do you know what's really comical? Miller and Bud aren't having none of this bullshit and the California beer distributors are backing the oppositions by throwing them money.

Last week a trade association for California beer distributors donated $10,000 to oppose Prop 19, the November ballot initiative that would legalize and tax marijuana. The move certainly has a lot of people talking.

“Unless the beer distributors in California have suddenly developed a philosophical opposition to the use of intoxicating substances, the motivation behind this contribution is clear,” said Steve Fox of the Marijuana Policy Project. "Plain and simple, the alcohol industry is trying to kill the competition."

Another marijuana advocate at Stop the Drug War questioned why the official opposition is aligning itself with alcohol. "We understand why Big Alcohol wants to protect its turf and keep Californians drinking; but why does the No on Prop. 19 campaign -- which is calling itself "Public Safety First" -- share this goal?"

But the California Beer & Beverage Distributors says it's not about any of that. "It's not a competitve issue for us," explained the spokesperson Rhonda Stevenson, who noted that they have no opinion on the issue either way, to LAist over the phone. "That's up to Californians to decide."

At issue for the organization is safety of their workforce and the langauge of the proposition, which Stevenson called "poorly written." She said that the state's regulation of alcohol has been working successfully for 75 years and if Prop 19 passes, there would be no regulatory structure for the drug, instead creating a patchwork of laws throughout cities and counties. "There's not a way not to implement this in a succint matter," she said.

The organization is also worried about industry safety -- fork lift and truck drivers working high, for example -- because you would no longer be able to test for the drug.

Clearly this Bud's not for you. I guess they really just don't want any competition in the vices of society. It's strange because my seething hatred for humanity comes bubbling out when I drink. Hell, half of these blogs where I rant on are while I'm drunk.. Okay - MOST. Most of my blogs are a product of a drunken stupor. Considering I blog every day, that's a scary statistic.

But on the flip side, when I smoke I can barely grasp the hate. I know a lot of people that are the flip side in that alcohol is a much nicer feeling for them. It makes them feel really happy and relaxed. I know people who are the exact opposite though, so I guess your mileage will vary depending on your genetics or something.



Then I love that bullshit line about how it risk the safety of the workers. Who goes to work on drugs that actually has a job that is risky? And it's not like you can't fire someone just because it's a legal substance if it impairs with their working ability. What the fuck?

I'm sure some of you are wondering if the federal government is going to let this happen. I'm was pretty sure that Holder said he wasn't going to prosecute this shit when he came into office, but who really knows?

California's proposal to legalize marijuana has provoked every former director of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to join in urging the White House to block the proposition if it is approved on the November ballot.

Proposition 19 is billed as a measure to raise revenue and cut the costs of enforcement. An analysis by the California attorney general's office cites "additional revenues from taxes, assessments, and fees from marijuana-related activities allowed under this measure."

But former DEA Administrator Peter Bensinger disputed the premise, telling reporters Monday it will not increase revenue since "anybody that sells marijuana and then pays tax is going to declare themselves a violator of federal law" and subject to prosecution.

Bensinger and the eight other people who have led the DEA since its founding in 1973 wrote a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, urging him to use the federal "supremacy clause" to pre-empt such lawmaking by state and local jurisdictions.

The Justice Department recently used such a pre-emption to persuade a court to strike down Arizona's immigration law. Bensinger acknowledged that his group had not heard a response from Justice Department officials to the letter dated August 24.

"All of us are very gravely concerned with Proposition 19," he said, "which if passed would legalize the distribution, sale and cultivation of marijuana in direct conflict with the Controlled Substances Act, federal law, and treaty obligations approved by the U.S. Congress."

I'm a bit surprised that the feds aren't blocking this by tying marijuana laws to something like transportation funding, the way they enforce the national drinking age. But I guess that California is fucking huge, so it's not as easy to push around as states that don't have 1/8th of the US population.

Then again, maybe it's cause of the Choom gang, yo.



You see, Obama loosened up on DEA marijuana enforcement. Or at least the claim was that he did...

Earlier this month, nine former administrators of the Drug Enforcement Administration sent a letter calling on Obama and Holder to sue if Prop. 19 passes, blocking the statewide legalization of possession and personal growth and the allowance of individual counties to license commercial sale and production of marijuana.

But it does seem like the drug czar is standing firm on that Just Say No stance..

At this point, it seems the Obama administration will sue California, but that's just an educated guess: the Justice Department has declined to comment. Obama's drug czar, former Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske, has weighed in firmly against legalization on a national scale, and he submitted an op-ed to the L.A. Times co-authored with several former drug czars (some of whom have taken a very hard line against medical marijuana) warning that Prop. 19 would increase social costs by leading to more marijuana use.

So it's basically boiling down to the fact that all the college students will hate Obama if the feds do take action against this, and if he doesn't then he'll be viewed as The President That Let Weed Be Legal. Which I guess is a tough place to stand. Elected officials need to just bite the bullet and go with the truths that they already know..

I mean, we already have a Governor who just doesn't give a fuck anymore. Over the weekend Arnold made carrying less than an ounce of weed on your persons an infraction instead of a misdemeanor.

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am signing Senate Bill 1449.

This bill changes the crime of possession of less than an ounce of marijuana from a misdemeanor punishable only by a $100 fine to an infraction punishable by a $100 fine. Under existing law, jail time cannot be imposed, probation cannot be ordered, nor can the base fine exceed $100 for someone convicted of this crime.

I am opposed to decriminalizing the possession and recreational use of marijuana and oppose Proposition 19, which is on the November ballot.

Unfortunately, Proposition 19 is a deeply flawed measure that, if passed, will adversely impact California’s businesses without bringing in the tax revenues to the state promised by its proponents.

Notwithstanding my opposition to Proposition 19, however, I am signing this measure because possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is an infraction in everything but name. The only difference is that because it is a misdemeanor, a criminal defendant is entitled to a jury trial and a defense attorney.

In this time of drastic budget cuts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement, and the courts cannot afford to expend limited resources prosecuting a crime that carries the same punishment as a traffic ticket.

As noted by the Judicial Council in its support of this measure, the appointment of counsel and the availability of a jury trial should be reserved for defendants who are facing loss of life, liberty, or property greater than $100.

For these reasons, I am signing this bill.

Sincerely, Arnold Schwarzenegger

And you people wondered why I voted for Arnold? Well.. because I didn't want to vote for the dead midget, porn star.. Though I think the weed attorney dude would have done this but it would have been more expected. Ahead of your time, my friend. Ahead of your time.

I would applaud your actions, but fuck it man, Archer is on.

V- Day For Pot

V- Day For Pot

Driving up Robertson from Culver City to the Beverly Hills area you'll be surprised by the number of green cross and 420 related humor that makes up a lot of the stores along that way. It really has gotten to the point that they out number the Jewish centers along there.

So it's news that Washington D.C. just legalized medical marijuana. They also are going to use federal funds for a needle exchange program and slash anti-drug advertising budgets.

U.S. House and Senate negotiators agreed on Tuesday on the final details of the FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which contains at least three BIG victories for reformers:

* Washington, DC will finally be allowed to implement the medical marijuana initiative that voters overwhelmingly approved in 1998 but has been blocked by Congress each year since then.

* Funding for the White House "drug czar's" ad budget has been slashed by more than a third of its size last year. Studies have repeatedly shown that these ads actually cause teens to use more -- not fewer -- drugs.

* Washington, DC will be able to use federal funds to implement syringe exchange programs.

I guess I'm not in the majority. I really don't care about the whole legalization of weed news in this piece as much as I think the needle exchange program is better news. But then again, I'm not part of the majority who wants to get high while watching South Park any time soon. Besides that, congress will more than likely overturn it.

The funny aspect of all this is that they're cutting the funding for anti-drug commercials because it actually increased the rate at which kids did drugs. I'm not against weed legalization. It's really not an issue I think about because it's the most boring of all issues. There is really no good argument against it. Medical marijuana can have medical benefits but let's not kid ourselves here. People want to legalize weed because they want to get fucking stoned as all hell.



I think what annoys me the most is that if you're not a minority and you are under the age of 25, legalization is probably the only relevant political issue in your life. Well, that and tuition fees and cigarette tax and I think this is really sad. Especially those middle class kids who complain about this are so pathetic.

If you're not willing to put in the effort and take the risks, can't you just pick another hobby or type of recreation that's not illegal? There's only about six thousand to choose from. Or you can just go on and on about 4:20 and Big Government and Your RIGHTS, cause that's more than likely what you will be doing anyway.



Legalized weed would be nice. But if that is the most important political issue to you then you should shove that bong up your ass and kill yourself. I do wonder which state will give into the "evil temptation of marijuana next" My vote is Iowa. They are pretty progressive all things considered.

I really don't care about letting middle-class white kids smoke their herb legally. I'm more pro this because I would like ending the war on drugs sooner. It's a pointless losing battle. But again, legal weed wont stop armed police shooting elderly black couples because they got the address wrong. At best, it'll just decrease nonviolent drug offenses. That and a shift towards treating addiction as a health issue rather than a criminal one in D.C. will be a good thing.



Congrats on the needle exchange. At least this isn't more advocating towards the national recognition of New Columbia. Can't believe .002% of the population complain about not having senators.

Drugs Finally Win The War On Drugs

Drugs Finally Win The War On Drugs


First more from the horrific war going on down in Mexico. this new NY Times article article seems like the cartels are now pulling Joker's tactics and executing cops to flush out the heroes. basically another city falls to drugs in the war on drugs

With Force, Mexican Drug Cartels Get Their Way
Eduardo Verdugo/Associated Press


A soldier inspecting the S.U.V. where three police officers were killed last week in Ciudad Juárez. -

por qué tan serio?

Published: February 28, 2009

CIUDAD JUÁREZ, Mexico — Mayor José Reyes Ferriz is supposed to be the one to hire and fire the police chief in this gritty border city that is at the center of Mexico’s drug war. It turns out, though, that real life in Ciudad Juárez does not follow the municipal code.

It was drug traffickers who decided that Chief Roberto Orduña Cruz, a retired army major who had been on the job since May, should go. To make clear their insistence, they vowed to kill a police officer every 48 hours until he resigned.

They first killed Mr. Orduña’s deputy, Operations Director Sacramento Pérez Serrano, together with three of his men. Then another police officer and a prison guard turned up dead. As the body count grew, Mr. Orduña eventually did as the traffickers had demanded, resigning his post on Feb. 20 and fleeing the city.



Roberto Orduña Cruz, left, was escorted by a police officer after resigning on Feb. 20 as police chief of Ciudad Juárez. Drug cartels vowed to kill an officer every 48 hours until he resigned.

Replacing Mr. Orduña will also fall outside the mayor’s purview, although this time the criminals will not have a say. With Ciudad Juárez and the surrounding state of Chihuahua under siege by heavily armed drug lords, the federal government last week ordered the deployment of 5,000 soldiers to take over the Juárez Police Department. With the embattled mayor’s full support, the country’s defense secretary will pick the next chief.

Chihuahua, which already has about 2,500 soldiers and federal police on patrol, had almost half the 6,000 drug-related killings in all of Mexico in 2008 and is on pace for an even bloodier 2009. Juárez’s strategic location at the busy El Paso border crossing and its large population of local drug users have prompted a fierce battle among rival cartels for control of the city.

“Day after day, there are so many horrible things taking place there,” said Howard Campbell, an anthropologist at the University of Texas at El Paso who studies Mexico’s drug war. “The cartels are trying to control everything.”

Nothing is surprising in Chihuahua anymore. Gunmen recently shot at one of three cars in Gov. José Reyes Baeza’s motorcade, killing a bodyguard and wounding two agents. The drug cartels routinely collect taxes from business owners, shooting those who refuse to pay up. As for the Juárez mayor, who has made cleaning up the notoriously corrupt police department his focal point, the cartel recently threatened to decapitate him and his family unless he backed off.

The handwritten threat that it issued went further than that. Like many people in Juárez, Mayor Reyes has homes on both sides of the border, splitting his time between El Paso and Juárez. The note threatening him made it clear that the assassins going after him would have no qualms about crossing into the United States to finish off the mayor and his family.

“We took the threat seriously,” said Chris Mears, a spokesman for the El Paso Police Department. “I’m not going to tell you what actions were taken, but we’ve taken actions.”

In an interview in his wood-paneled office overlooking the United States, Mr. Reyes, 46, whose father was mayor in the early 1980s, said he was not going to allow criminals to run the city, despite the inroads they are making. He said he initially opposed his police chief’s decision to resign because he did not want the outlaws to feel empowered. He acceded only as a life-saving gesture, he said.

“I’m not going to give in,” he vowed in an interview, welcoming the arrival of soldiers so that the traffickers will feel the heat even more.

Right now, the Juárez police are no match for the outlaws. Last year, the senior uniformed officer was killed, one of 45 local police officers killed since January 2007, and a former police chief pleaded guilty to charges of smuggling a ton of marijuana from Juárez to El Paso. Mr. Orduña, who lived at the police station to avoid being killed, had replaced another chief who fled to El Paso after receiving threats last year. If the army had not come in, the mayor would no doubt have had a difficult time finding somebody to head the department.

Introducing a nationwide police recruitment campaign, the mayor has raised salaries and benefits enough that he is attracting new recruits to replace the many officers being fired for their links to organized crime.

“I know the dangers and I accept them,” said José Martín Jáuregui López, one of the 289 cadets now being trained at Juárez’s police academy. “There are a lot of people afraid for me: my mom, my relatives. But this is what I want to do.”

As a sign to the traffickers that he was not running from them, Mr. Reyes appeared Friday to be like any other mayor, giving a speech at the opening of a shopping center, signing a memorandum of understanding with a developer, reassuring residents that he would keep loiterers from gathering in front of their homes.

But the bodyguards holding assault rifles who clung close to him made it clear that Juárez remained a city under siege.

“There’s no square inch of the city that has been untouched by the violence,” said Lucinda Vargas, an economist who works by day to remake the city as executive director of Juárez Strategic Plan, but retreats to El Paso at night. “There’s a lot of evidence that Juárez, in a micro sense, is becoming a failed state. But I still think we haven’t failed yet and that we could still rescue ourselves.”

and now let's take a look at what's going on in the US as more and more people realize that this war is lost, it's stupid policy, and we can't afford this dumb shit any longer.

quote:

CBS NEWS: "Time For Marijuana Legalization?"
Apparently, it was nothing personal after all. Apparently, it was strictly business all along.

After generations of defending capital punishment and marijuana possession laws on moral, ethical and religious grounds, after years of declaring that the death penalty acted as a deterrent against violent crime and that pot smokers were more dangerous to society than, say, alcohol consumers, all of a sudden thanks to our economic crisis more and more mainstream powerbrokers are considering dramatic changes to our criminal justice system.

The New York Times today has a late-arriving piece by Ian Urbina which posits that lawmakers in several states are considering abandoning the death penalty because it’s just too expensive and cuts into other law enforcement priorities. State officials are beginning to acknowledge that they can more productively spend their budget funds on cracking unsolved cases or ensuring better police protection than on keeping pot smokers in prison or fighting for decades with capital defendants. This, Urbina writes, is forcing a sea-change around the nation.
[continues]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009...in4828659.shtml



So now the only question is really how long will it take for US policy to catch up with reality? Also, if Mexico legalized drugs, would the now entrenched and powerful cartels just start killing grocery store owners who sold it?

CA is currently considering a proposal to legalize and tax weed sales:

quote:

Fresno Bee: "It's time for state to legalize marijuana"
http://www.fresnobee.com/columnists...ry/1218175.html

But I believe that is meaningless unless the law is ALSO changed at the Federal level.

and Kellog's just took a massive hit by pissing off pot smokers and phelps fans. apparently firing phelps for the bong photo didn't go over well with the American public:

quote:

Dumping Phelps Over Bong Rip Damages Kellogg's Brand Reputation
Nicholas Carlson|Feb. 23, 2009, 8:47 AM|57

When Kellogg announced it would not renew its endorsement contract with Olympic medalist Michael Phelps after a photo of the athelete smoking pot surfaced, it may have cost the food company its sterling reputation, reports company reputation index Vanno.

Out of the 5,600 company reputations Vanno monitors, Kellogg ranked ninth before it booted Phelps. Now it's ranked 83. Not even an industry-wide peanut scare inflicted as much damage on the food company's reputation. A Vanno representative put together this chart:

The drug wars are killing people, costing money, not paying taxes, pissing out Phelps fans and legalization consensus is almost reached. I guess you can say that's an improvement in our society. Thank you Reagan.

I do wonder how much we'll save if we just legalize it. This is me speaking as a non-felon non-drug using citizen.



But then if it's ever legal it won't be cool to smoke it anymore and pot smokers will be just like alcoholic snobs: Tools of the patriarchy. I guess it can keep getting legalized in states, small countries, etc until about 40 years when it becomes legal on a federal level.

Then again, legalization of weed does shit towards stopping mass carnage in chihuahua. I do wonder what huge criminal organizations would do instead of drug trafficking if it became much less profitable due to wide spread legaization? Trafficking human organs is my guess.

here he is inspecting what appears to be a massive grow operation


look at those eyes. pure evil. Oh, you don't think so? Believe me. These fat cats run the drug world down in Mexico. Why do you think that there's the rumor of street tacos made out of dogs? Cats hate dogs. They're making a point by chopping them up at the taco stands. You don't fuck with the fat cat drug lords.


99 problems and the cat nip aint one!

So you want to know the regions they control, eh? Here's an article that may interest you.

According to the Mexican government there are seven drug cartels1 operating
in Mexico.

In recent years, the major cartels have formed alliances with one another; the
two rival alliances now compete for turf.

Mexico, a major drug producing and transit country, is the main foreign supplier
of marijuana and a major supplier of methamphetamine to the United States.
Although Mexico accounts for only a small share of worldwide heroin production,
it supplies "a large share of the heroin distributed in the United States."8 The State
Department estimates that 90% of cocaine entering the United States transits Mexico.
In the United States, wholesale illicit drug sale earnings estimates range from $13.6
to $48.4 billion annually

Mexico's cartels have existed for some time, but have become increasingly
powerful in recent years with the demise of the Medellín and Cali cartels in
Colombia. Closure of the cocaine trafficking route through Florida also pushed
cocaine traffic to Mexico, increasing the role of Mexican cartels in cocaine
trafficking

Mexican cartels have long grown marijuana in the United States, often on
federal land in California, but they are now expanding production to the Pacific
northwest and, to a lesser extent, the eastern United States.

So there you go knowledge is power. Remember that when you're down there for spring break and you want to get an 8 ball, you damn drugged up college drop outs! Oh wait.. you wont be able to make it to Mexico. Well, Juarez at least. The State Department has been calling for people to NOT go their for Spring Break.

"Recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the advisory reads. "Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez. During some of these incidents, U.S. citizens have been trapped and temporarily prevented from leaving the area."

Then again, that's a little out dated. Gee, thanks State Department.

If you are going down there, I wouldn't worry too much. Popular resort destinations are basically miniature green zones so don't worry about your trip to Cabo San Lucas. There's machine gun bushes just on the outskirts of the visitors centers. But when I think about it, I would unironically be incredibly happy if hundreds of drunk rich frat-boys were slaughtered at the hands of the very drug lords they get their cocaine from.

I mean, with stories like this, who doesn't want to go down there?

Juárez killings plummet after 3,200 troops arrive

Joggers find 3 decapitated bodies in Tijuana

Mexico morgues crowded with mounting drug-war dead

Mexico's economy is going to shit like p.much every country, this could get pretty ugly soon

I honestly believe that most of our politicians would rather see Mexico devolve into all out civil war than admit that our drug laws suck and the war on drugs is a waste of money.

Mexico lost to Australia in the Baseball classic last night. Talk about adding insult to injury.