The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: fightingquaker13 on September 24, 2010, 01:28:48 AM
-
I have ranted over the stupidity of prohibition for a while now. This seals the deal. Prop. 19 in Ca. would decriminalize weed. Who is lobbying against it? Why your friendly folks at Budweiser of course. ::) After all, pot is just plain wrong. beer on the other hand is...well....its, its just, DAMNIT THEY'RE HIPPIES! ::) ??? Anyway, here we have it. The ultimate hypocrisy. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I'll settle on laughing my azz off.
FQ13
This from the Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/this-buds-not-for-you-bee_n_732901.html
California Pot Initiative Opposed By Beer Industry
First Posted: 09-21-10 10:22 AM
The California Beer & Beverage Distributors is spending money in the state to oppose a marijuana legalization proposition on the ballot in November, according to records filed with the California Secretary of State. The beer sellers are the first competitors of marijuana to officially enter the debate; backers of the initiative are closely watching liquor and wine dealers and the pharmaceutical industry to see if they enter the debate in the remaining weeks.
The opposition to pot among beer makers, however, is not unanimous among the CBBD's membership. Sierra Nevada and Stone Brewing Co., microbrews that began in California but have become popular national brands, both lashed out at the CBBD after news of the distributor's donation was reported on Celebstoner.com, a popular website focusing on marijuana-related news, and Alternet.com.
"Stone is not a part of this campaign in any way. This issue has caught us off guard," said a statement from the San Diego-based microbrewery, calling itself "merely a non-voting Allied Member of the CA Beer & Beverage Distributors (CBBD).As such, Stone Brewing does not/cannot participate in the political action decisions of the CBBD."
A statement from Sierra Nevada said that the company has "requested the CBBD to remove our name from their list of members, and also to disassociate the brewery from this and any future political actions."
The last thing a California microbrew needs is to be associated with the effort against legalizing marijuana. "We regret any implied association with this action by the CBBD, and maintain our independence and neutrality regarding matters of politics," the Sierra statement said. "The CBBD does not represent Sierra Nevada's political interests in any way, and does not represent the brewery's stance on the issue."
The CBBD did not return calls for comment; it donated $10,000 to Public Safety First, a committee organized to oppose the proposition, on Sept. 7, 2010, though the contribution was only recently made public. The alcohol industry has long seen illicit drugs as a threat to sales, as consumers may substitute pot for booze. A night spent on the couch smoking marijuana and watching television is a night not spent at the bar.
Public Safety First is largely funded by a different industry whose interests are threatened by the legalization of marijuana: law enforcement. Police forces are entitled to keep property seized as part of drug raids and the revenue stream that comes from waging the drug war has become a significant source of support for local law enforcement. Federal and state funding of the drug war is also a significant supplement to local forces' budgets.
The California Narcotics Officers' Association has donated $20,500; the California Police Chiefs Association has contributed $30,000. The Placer County Deputy Sheriff's Association, the California Peace Officers Association, the California District Attorney Association and the Peace Officers Association of Los Angeles County have all contributed, as well. Los Angeles Sheriff Lee Baca has been an outspoken opponent. Earlier this months, current and former heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration held a press conference in Washington to oppose the proposition and urge the White House to sue to stop it if it passes.
The pro-legalization forces, however, have caught at least one break: The prison guards are staying neutral. One of the most potent political forces in California is the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. The prison guards spent more than a million dollars in 2008 to defeat a proposition that would have sent some nonviolent drug offenders into treatment rather than to prison -- a law that would have cut down on overcrowding and overtime.
So far, the prison guards' bosses have gotten involved -- the California Correctional Supervisors Organization has given $7,500 -- but the guards themselves are on the sidelines.
Advocates for Proposition 19, meanwhile, are running the campaign on a shoestring budget. Wealthy individuals who generally bankroll the legalization movement such as Peter Lewis, the head of Progressive auto insurance, are sitting out.
Organized labor, however, is stepping into the breach. The Service Employees International Union, a major presence in California, has endorsed the proposition. The Teamsters in September made its first successful foray into organizing pot growers. The United Food and Commercial Workers is backing the initiative and organizing cannabis club employees in the Bay Area. The teachers union, citing the revenue that could be raised for the state, is also backing the initiative.
On Saturday, Roger Salazar, a spokesman for Public Safety First, was confronted on CNN over his group's alliance with the beer distributors. He blamed it on the forklift operators. "Let's keep in mind the beer and beverage distributors are the folks who deliver beer and beverage products. The truck driver, the forklift drivers, you know, the warehouse workers. You know, these are folks who have traffic safety and employee safety issues, first and foremost," Salazar said, though the beer distributors are the only distributor of any product to oppose the proposition.
Mason Tvert, head of the organization SAFER, which makes the case that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, told Salazar that driving or operating a fork lift while high would still be illegal if the proposition becomes law -- just as alcohol is legal but it's against the law to drive while drunk.
"With all due respect to this gentleman, he is a political consultant being paid by the booze industry to protect their turf," said Tvert. "We also need to consider the fact that this gentleman mentions all the jobs that are created by the alcohol industry. These are all jobs that can be created by the marijuana industry as well. And at the same time, we're giving Californians the ability to use a substance like marijuana that doesn't contribute to domestic violence and sexual assault and overdose... and all the other problems that alcohol contributes to."
Stephen Gutwillig, the state director for the Drug Policy Alliance in California, noted the irony of cops working together with the beer lobby. "Who knows better than law enforcement the violence, death and disease booze inflicts on our society? The Feds clock it at $200 billion a year, including alcohol's direct involvement in up to 30 percent of violent crime every year. Marijuana consumption has none of those associations. The cop-run No on 19 campaign getting in bed with the alcohol lobby would be amusing if the implications weren't so nauseating," he said.
UPDATE: Rhonda Stevenson, a spokesman for the CBBD, said that the lobby does not oppose legalizing marijuana in principle, but objects to the specific proposition. She added that Sierra Nevada and Stone do not contribute to their Political Action Committee, so none of their money has been invested in opposition to the initiative.
"First and foremost, we are not opposed to the legalization of marijuana. We have no position on that...That's for the voters to decide. Second of all, we do not think of [marijuana] as a competitive product in the marketplace," she said. "That's not the issue. Our issue is it's a poorly written initiative. When prohibition was repealed, there was already a regulatory system in place to deal with the distribution or sale of alcohol. Under this initiative, there is not going to be anything in place state run. It's going to be 500-some different counties and cities" involved in regulating the sale and distribution of marijuana.
Indeed, when California legalized medical marijuana, regulation moved in fits and starts in different parts of the state. Oakland, where medical pot was more pervasive, moved to regulate dispensaries long before Los Angeles did, for instance. Different communities had different responses to legalization. If marijuana is legalized for recreational uses, as well, it's reasonable to assume that there will be accompanying regulatory failures and successes in various parts of the state. Localities, however, will be able to rely to some degree on the experience over the past 14 years with medical marijuana.
Ryan Grim is the author
-
Trust me, no good will come from legalizing pot.
There will be a increase in gang violance, if it becomes legal.
-
Trust me, no good will come from legalizing pot.
There will be a increase in gang violance, if it becomes legal.
Wouldn't it be the reverse? I mean, why buy from a thug when you can get it at Circle-K?
FQ13
-
Wouldn't it be the reverse? I mean, why buy from a thug when you can get it at Circle-K?
FQ13
one would think so, but thats not what will happen.
Right now gangs make $$$$ off pot( more so in socal) They want to keep making $$$$. So they will turn to other things.
Other drugs means, fighting other gangs for control of said drugs. Robberys are another option. So are kid napings( look what the sames gangs do in latin america) Theft of all kinds will also go up.
Think of the gang as employers. They want to make X ammount of money, if you increases costs or increases restrictions. The employees( every one else) are the ones that are going to lose.
-
one would think so, but thats not what will happen.
Right now gangs make $$$$ off pot( more so in socal) They want to keep making $$$$. So they will turn to other things.
Other drugs means, fighting other gangs for control of said drugs. Robberys are another option. So are kid napings( look what the sames gangs do in latin america) Theft of all kinds will also go up.
Think of the gang as employers. They want to make X ammount of money, if you increases costs or increases restrictions. The employees( every one else) are the ones that are going to lose.
Ending prohibition of booze drastically cut crime rates. I have yet to hear a rational argument as to why the same wouldn't apply to pot. Now, as then, a violent gang can maintain an illegal monopoly. Legalize it and that ability vanishes. The gang will seek other sources of revenue, sure. But they will be less lucrative, and more likely to piss folks off. Peddling weed is a victimless crime. No one calls the cops. Kidnapping? Not so much. It seems we cripple the gang's cash flow, cut them off from community support, and reduce crime. History says this is the case.
FQ13
-
Weed is not a victimless crime. Saying it is, means you are either too dumb to realize the harm it does or don't care.
Saying crime went down when prohibition was lifted, is not exactly true. there are alot more factors to look at.
Crime rates are always the highest at when the extremes of economic cycles. There were also things like ww2, that basicly removed the young males for several years.
Look at the muder rates, betwen 33 and 35 they were at all time high. What year was prohibition revoked? 33
edit, it should also be noted that gangsters( the real ones) were into every thing, before and after prohibition. Sex, drugs, gambling... you name a illegal "vice" they were in it. Lets also not forget the protection deal.
-
Weed is not a victimless crime. Saying it is, means you are either too dumb to realize the harm it does or don't care.
I guess this depends on how we define victims. I exclude addicts, cops and dealers. They all know what they are buying into. Victims are the innocent one's caught in the crossfire who didn't sign up for that crap. Legalization reduces their numbers drastically. Look at the drug gangs in Colombia and Mexico. How long would they continue their current business practices if pot and coke were legal? Why shoot someone when you can sue them? Why corrupt a cop if what you are doining is legal? How many liquor store owners bribe/threaten the police or kill the competition? They don't need to.
FQ13
-
What about the friends and family members of the said addicts, cops and dealers?
are they not vics?
Actually there are a bunch of people that sell booze illegally. Same with cigs. Its not uncommon to hear about truck loads of cigs being stolen or car jacked.
-
What about the friends and family members of the said addicts, cops and dealers?
are they not vics?
Actually there are a bunch of people that sell booze illegally. Same with cigs. Its not uncommon to hear about truck loads of cigs being stolen or car jacked.
That's to avoid the taxes as well as illegal almost all profit sales.
Anyone got some popcorn? The corner's out and this thread is getting intereting watching FQ and TAB go at it with each other! ;D
-
I tend to be a little ambivalent when people talk about legalizing pot. We (Colorado) have "medical" mj which is creating a lot of headaches at this point. But if you start talking about legalizing coke or anything else (a lot of the meth comes from Mexico), you have totally lost me. Drugs of that nature are pure destruction and need to be eradicated.
-
I tend to be a little ambivalent when people talk about legalizing pot. We (Colorado) have "medical" mj which is creating a lot of headaches at this point. But if you start talking about legalizing coke or anything else (a lot of the meth comes from Mexico), you have totally lost me. Drugs of that nature are pure destruction and need to be eradicated.
As we know, they will never be eradicated. Try as you might, it just won't happen. So we are spending billions on a useless fight, creating a black market that encourages gang activity and finances terrorism.
And it is a victimless crime. It might not be smart to use drugs, it might be stupid and totally destructive all that is true. But many folks will say the same thing about a non-vegan diet, or drinking alcohol, or driving over 25mph, or having firearms, or suicide.
All of those have been or are considered destructive by some segment of the population. And all of them could have bad effects on the family of the person who partakes of one of these "destructive" activities, but that does not make them a victim of a crime.
While all of those things might be stupid or destructive to the person who partakes, they should not be illegal. (believe it or not, suicide is illegal, but attempted suicide is not....go figure) Each person is able to make their own decision and has the right to destroy themselves if they choose. You might not think that decision is smart or like what they are doing at all, but that does not give anyone the power to take away their free choice in how to live their lives.
We can start a discussion about should 5 year old kids be allowed to have free access to coke and I'd say that an age of consent has been legally established and that would be the age folks can make their own choices. And I know that then has the unintended consequence of forbidding under age folks of buying McDonalds or eating candy bars or any of the other stupid and destructive foods that I don't approve of.
So, let's just keep this to able minded adults.
-
People like TAB and Ichiban do not seem to have learned anything from Prohibition.
FQ is right, after 70 (Ish ) years of abject failure, any one who supports the continued war on some drugs is insane, and fiscally incompetent.
-
Do not take my desire to see the eradication of hard drug use as an endorsement of the current anti-drug policies - which are stupid, ineffective, costly, and more about empire building than drug control. As far as a "victimless crime" goes, well, let's just say that maybe we've seen the situation from different angles. No man is an island - your actions and decisions affect others whether you want to acknowledge it or not.
-
Tom, every one drinks, very few people get high.
-
Tom, every one drinks, very few people get high.
According to the studies, 31 percent of people in their mid thirties smoke dope at least occasionally. The numbers probably go up as the age group gets older. Hell, there is a "head shop" next to the liquor store I just stopped at for a six pack! I'm an old guy and I grew up smoking dope, drinking excessively and chasing skirts! All the things I was expected to do!
I'm just pointing out one little fact, I'm not getting into this argument.
If you have gangs in the area, MOVE to another area or shoot the little fuckers!
-
According to the studies, 31 percent of people in their mid thirties smoke dope at least occasionally. The numbers probably go up as the age group gets older. Hell, there is a "head shop" next to the liquor store I just stopped at for a six pack! I'm an old guy and I grew up smoking dope, drinking excessively and chasing skirts! All the things I was expected to do!
I'm just pointing out one little fact, I'm not getting into this argument.
If you have gangs in the area, MOVE to another area or shoot the little fuckers!
No matter where you move, gangs can still get you. Shooting them will mean you will be taking it in the rear from thier gang in jail.
-
I'm at least thirty miles into the boonies from the nearest small city and 70 miles from Providence, also a small city.
We have no gangs where I live unless you consider the busloads of elderly people going to Foxwoods.
TAB, I've lived all over the country in the last 53 years. I would never in a million years live where you live. The cities of this fine country are toilets of humanity that I choose to avoid. We have choices and mine is to keep my distance.
-
You have to live where you can work. There are tons of great places I'd love to live, but there is no work.
I can think of two small towns that I'd move to right now if I could get a job.
-
You have to live where you can work. There are tons of great places I'd love to live, but there is no work.
I can think of two small towns that I'd move to right now if I could get a job.
You're a talented kid with a working spouse. Make it happen somehow! I drive about twenty miles to work myself but have traveled as much as 75 miles (one way) in the past. Some folks do it daily and have for years.
Most of the people that work in the Boston area have at least an hour commute. They can't afford to live there....
I also have it on good authority that a cannabis farm is good for at least 100K a year!
;D ;D
-
I'm at about 45 miles each way right now. My wife is at 2. we pretty much have to live with in 30 mins of where she works doing to being on call. Reality, I need a population of about 10k so I can work.
Even then I will be having to take work away from the guys already there. What I really need to find is a place that is growing fast with alot of "well off retiring couples" For the last 5 years that was bend OR. That was until the houseing crash. Now its has unemployement of about 25%.
-
I'd look at the Livingston/Bozeman area if you don't mind the cold.
FQ13