This headline reads from Saturday March 13, 2012 front page: "Pot backers' ballot effort in disarray."
Ya think? Do you honestly believe a bunch of pot-heads could properly organize? Don't be mad at the claim. Calm down and pass the bong.
The most eye-opening item was the discovery that in CA politics, you need $2 million dollars to properly put an initiative on the ballot. Because in esssence, it costs $2 million to hire professional petitioners to gather the necessary 700,000 signatures for an item to qualify.
That homeless-looking man standing in front of your local Safeway, Vons, Pavilions, Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Kroger, Ralphs, Albertsons, CVS asking you for your signature to right some injustice in the world? He's not standing out in the cold to "go green" but to GET green. Money. He could not care less about the cause, someone is just paying him to care.
I remember not too long ago, I had the privilege of engaging one of these signature-gatherers as I was leaving the grocery store. I ended up signing just 1 of the 5 because I fundamentally disagreed with the other 4. Something tells me I shouldn't have even signed the 1. As we parted ways, I asked him who has him out here doing all this. He empthatically replied, "Democrats!" There was a hint of resignment in his tone, as though he knows he's just one lapdog jumping through hoops in an endless labor of meaninglessness.
Presently, the multi-million dollar earning pot dispensaries aren't putting up significant amounts of money to support legalization because legalization means cutting into their lucrative business. Makes sense. Stifle the competition. What happened to the purity of the cause? As it turns out, once again, it's all about the green.
Backers of marijuana legalization have until April 20th to qualify for the ballot. Seriously. SERIOUSLY. 4-20. You can't make this stuff up. If they're even a few signatures short, mark my words, those pot-heads aren't going to file on time.
Now I'd be okay with marijuana "legalization" only under the following iron-clad conditions:
-an employer can fire you, without recourse, even if it's "medicinal," if you are a user of pot. It should be 100% within the employer's right to object to pot or a pot-user at his or her workplace.
-a landlord can evict you, without recourse, even if it's "medicinal" if you are a user of pot. Pot sweetly stinks up the joint. 100% Landlord's call.
-it is still illegal to be high on a public sidewalk, public park, or in public in general.
-it is illegal to light up in a public place, like a Starbucks. You can't even smoke in a bar or restaurant, be consistent with pot.
-add DUI-M, same as DUI
-apply the same standards with pot possesion as we do with guns and "gun free safe zones" as it relates to schools. Again be consistent.
-minimum age for growing/possession is 18.
If even the slightest objections to the above conditions, then I am wholesale against legalization. Period. Legalization means further proliferation and a loss of productivity among otherwise normal, sober citizens. Stop comparing its effects as "less harmful" to cigarettes or alcohol. If you can function as a regular user of pot, good for you. Have a cookie.
Or a brownie.
If you can keep your pot enjoyment to yourself without affecting my well-being, health, safety, then have at it!
True