Photo illustration by Michael Uribes / The Collegian
This November, Californians will have the opportunity to vote on an historic proposition. If passed, Proposition 19 would spurn federal law by permitting recreational use of marijuana in California.
Prop 19 has sparked furious debate on both sides, and it has also caught the attention of young voters.
“Prop 19 caught my attention and made me want to vote this year,” said Kevin Chan, a kinesiology major. “I did a term paper my senior year in high school on how marijuana is less harmful than tobacco and alcohol. You can overdose on alcohol and tobacco. It’s been proven it’s physically impossible to overdose on marijuana.”
According to Chair of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union Drug Task Force, Paul Hager, in order to overdose on marijuana a person would have to smoke 40,000 times the amount of marijuana a normal smoker would to overdose, by which point a person would have succumbed to asphyxiation. The ratio to overdose with alcohol varies between one to four, and one to ten, by comparison.
For years, the legalization of marijuana has been a topic of great debate. In 1994, Californians decided to legalize cannabis for medicinal use by passing Proposition 215 .
“I believe that legalization should be allowed,” said a social worker major who wished to remain anonymous. “As a patient with a medical card and numerous back surgeries, I have experienced the healing effects of marijuana.”
“[Since I’d like to] work as a state employee, I now have to take four medications to suppress the pain and deal with side effects as opposed to the natural pain relief I received from marijuana years ago.”
An opponent of Prop 19, California public school superintendent John Snavely, warns that the legalization of marijuana could cost K-12 schools as much as $9.4 billion in federal funding according to the Voter Information Guide.
“Supporters say it would provide money for the state, but it would still require money for regulation, and I don’t believe it is ok to legalize a substance that alters your mind,” said Kirsten Primrose, a liberal studies major.
Another argument against the bill is that the California Highway Patrol would not have the ability to administer a drug test until after an accident has occurred, according to the Voter Information Guide, causing the organization called Moms Against Drunk Driving to oppose the measure.
Prop 19 supporters say billions of dollars in revenue will be generated to help decrease the state deficit.
“It makes sense to help the economy, but I don’t think the sacrifice of human health is worth the risk,” said Alyssa Hudson, a biology major. “It’s an addictive drug and once it’s readily available to the public it will be too widespread.”
Prop 19 also states that the regulation of marijuana will be similar to alcohol, requiring a 21 or older age limit for purchasing.
“With restrictions similar to alcohol like the 21 or older policy, I believe it will keep marijuana out of the hands of minors more so than if we continue prohibition against it,” said Bridget McClain, a business major. “A lesson from history shows us how well prohibition worked out before [with alcohol]. I think it’s better to take regulation from the hands of drug cartels, and help the state deficit.”
Supporters of the bill state that California’s number one cash crop is marijuana. According to drugscience.org, marijuana production and sales generated close to $14 million last year.
“I like the fact that Prop 19 decriminalizes marijuana and frees up police to make arrests for serious and violent crimes,” said Andrew Flores, a double major in biology and business administration.
At Fresno State’s University Student Union, 150 random students were surveyed to find voting patterns on marijuana policy. Over this two-day process, 84 students who were polled believed that marijuana should be legalized, making up 56 percent of the vote, while 30 students believed it should stay illegal, making up 20 percent of the voters. The remaining 36 students were either undecided at this time or not voting at all, making up 24 percent.
In an ABC7/Survey USA poll issued on Sept. 2, if the election were held today, 47 percent would be in favor of legalization.
“We’re seeing that Californians are ready to embrace some modest, common-sense reforms to our failed marijuana laws,” said Dan Newman, a spokesman for Yes on Prop 19.
“Whether people are for or against this regulation, they should still go out and vote to let their voices be heard,” said Hudson. “I know I will.“
Universer • Oct 3, 2010 at 5:05 am
“I don’t believe it is okay to legalize a substance that alters your mind,” said Kirsten Primrose, a liberal studies major.
Kirsten, that is a genuinely stupid thing to say or believe or think. You’re a college student? Seriously? Unless you likewise contend that alcohol, tobacco, NyQuil and chocolate should also be completely illegal — altering your mind as they do — you are sadly ill-informed at best, ignorantly hypocritical at worst.
Anonymous • Oct 2, 2010 at 2:12 am
Marijuana Researcher’s Joke
Do you know how much marijuana it takes to kill a lab rat?
About 25 pounds… Wrapped tightly into a bundle and dropped 20 feet.
A SQUARES WORST NIGHTMARE • Oct 1, 2010 at 7:09 pm
if you dont like it dont do…. quit holding people down…. where is our dr.king when we need him…. i think pot smokers should be considered a different race that deserve equal rights. i am a pothead and i am successful. unlike some squares that feed their beliefs off of government bullshit and haven’t even tried it….
Vote Yes! • Oct 1, 2010 at 1:45 pm
It’s true that weed can be slightly addictive but no more than food, alcohol, or cigarettes. It depends on the person using it as always; some middle class/wealthier people use pain killers habitually and definitely some could be considered addicted. As long is it is for 21 and over, like alcohol, let’s legalize it. Hemp is illegal to grow in the U.S. but in Canada it is used for fabric that’s better for the environment than cotton.
Anonymous • Oct 1, 2010 at 11:54 am
Don’t like Proposition 19? Don’t want this coming to YOUR state? Then, your state legislature better beat them to the punch and devise their own re-legalization plan. Devise one that isn’t “poorly written” . Otherwise, we end up with phenomenons such as Prop. 19.
The people want their Cannabis back.
Anonymous • Oct 1, 2010 at 11:08 am
Advocating a continued increase in mayhem & tyranny solely for the purpose of financial gain, like the prison guard’s union, the DEA, or the alcohol industry, is both despicable and unconscionable.
May I ask you all to please consider the following very carefully: It wasn’t alcohol that caused the surge in crime and homicide during alcohol prohibition in the 1920s, it was the prohibition of alcohol. That’s why many of us find it hard to believe that the same thing is not happening now. We clearly have a prohibition fueled violent crime problem. A huge number of these violent crimes are perpetrated by criminal syndicates and gangs who use the proceeds from the sales of illegal substances to further even more of their criminal activities.
The second biggest business during prohibition in Detroit was liquor at $215 million a year and employing about 50,000 people. Authorities were not only helpless to stop it, many were part of the problem. During one raid the state police arrested Detroit Mayor John Smith, Michigan Congressman Robert Clancy and Sheriff Edward Stein.
The Mexican cartels are ready to show, that when it comes to business, they also like to be nonpartisan. They will buy-out or threaten politicians of any party, make deals with whoever can benefit them, and kill those who are brave or foolish enough to get in their way.
If you support prohibition you’ve helped create the prison-for-profit synergy with drug lords.
If you support prohibition you’ve helped remove many important civil liberties from those citizens you falsely claim to represent.
If you support prohibition you’ve helped put previously unknown and contaminated drugs on the streets.
If you support prohibition you’ve helped to escalate Murder, Theft, Muggings and Burglaries.
If you support prohibition you’ve helped escalate the number of people on welfare who can’t find employment due to their felony status.
If you support prohibition you’ve helped evolve local gangs into transnational enterprises with intricate power structures that reach into every corner of society, controlling vast swaths of territory with significant social and military resources at their disposal.
Prohibition is nothing less than a grotesque dystopian nightmare. We have to regulate, and we have to do it now!
Dareu2go4it • Oct 1, 2010 at 7:14 am
Vote yess on Proposicion 19 and all yess on medical marijuana.
Yes on all pot and all illicit drugs.
We wantt all Amerikans to smoke pot. Make it readily availeble to all Amerikan people.
Good for thhem and their minds.
“India and China said YES on PROP 19 and YES on medical marijuana.” They said, “Turn them all suckers into potheads!!! Bwahaha!”
“Sooner or later, the world passes you by. China, India, Japan ”“ all these countries are all thinking about new ways to find clean energy,” Obama said.”
WHILE THE AMERICANS ARE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO GET HIGH AND HAVE POT AVAILABLE AT THEIR FINGERTIPS.
“You saw countries like China, India and Brazil investing heavily in their education systems and in infrastructure … And where we used to be ranked number one, … we now rank number 12,” President Barack Obama said…”
“So , slowly all the things that had made us the most productive country on earth were starting to slip away…,” he said.”
“People were anxious about the future of the country, he said, “…then you start thinking, well, maybe we’re not going to be the same land of opportunity 20 years from now or 30 years from now as we were.””
The USA WILL BE THE LAND OF POTHEADS AND STONERS.
Anonymous • Oct 1, 2010 at 11:05 am
Ruby, you appear to be living in some strange parallel universe, one where prohibition actually works, here is part of the testimony of Judge Alfred J Talley, given before the Senate Hearings of 1926:
“For the first time in our history, full faith and confidence in and respect for the hitherto sacred Constitution of the United States has been weakened and impaired because this terrifying invasion of natural rights has been engrafted upon the fundamental law of our land, and experience has shown that it is being wantonly and derisively violated in every State, city, and hamlet in the country.”
“It has made potential drunkards of the youth of the land, not because intoxicating liquor appeals to their taste or disposition, but because it is a forbidden thing, and because it is forbidden makes an irresistible appeal to the unformed and immature. It has brought into our midst the intemperate woman, the most fearsome and menacing thing for the future of our national life.”
“It has brought the sickening slime of corruption, dishonor, and disgrace into every group of employees and officials in city, State, and Federal departments that have been charged with the enforcement of this odious law.”
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/HISTORY/e1920/senj1926/judgetalley.htm
And the following paragraphs are from WALTER E. EDGE’s testimony, a Senator from New Jersey:
“Any law that brings in its wake such wide corruption in the public service, increased alcoholic insanity, and deaths, increased arrests for drunkenness, home barrooms, and development among young boys and young women of the use of the flask never heard of before prohibition can not be successfully defended.”
“I unhesitatingly contend that those who recognize existing evils and sincerely endeavor to correct them are contributing more toward temperance than those who stubbornly refuse to admit the facts.”
“The opposition always proceeds on the theory that give them time and they will stop the habit of indulging in intoxicating beverages. This can not be accomplished. We should recognize our problem is not to persist in the impossible, but to recognize a situation and bring about common-sense temperance through reason.”
“This is not a campaign to bring back intoxicating liquor, as is so often claimed by the fanatical dry. Intoxicating liquor is with us to-day and practically as accessible as it ever was. The difference mainly because of its illegality, is its greater destructive power, as evidenced on every hand. The sincere advocates of prohibition welcome efforts for real temperance rather than a continuation of the present bluff.”
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/HISTORY/e1920/senj1926/walteredge.htm
And here is Julien Codman’s testimony, who was a member of the Massachusetts bar.
“we will produce additional evidence on this point, that it is not appropriate legislation to enforce the eighteenth amendment; that it has done incredible harm instead of good; that as a temperance measure it has been a pitiable failure; that it as failed to prevent drinking; that it has failed to decrease crime; that, as a matter of fact, it has increased both; that it has promoted bootlegging and smuggling to an extent never known before”
“We believe that the time has come for definite action, but it is impossible to lay before Congress any one bill which, while clearly within the provisions of the Constitution, will be a panacea for the evils that the Volstead Act has caused. We must not be vain enough to believe, as the prohibitionists do, that the age-old question of the regulation of alcohol can be settled forever by the passage of a single law. With the experience of the Volstead law as a warning, it behooves us to proceed with caution, one step at a time, to climb out of the legislative well into which we have been pushed.”
“If you gentlemen are satisfied, after hearing the evidence supplemented by the broad general knowledge which each of you already possesses, that the remedy that will tend most quickly to correct the wretched social conditions that now exist, to promote temperance, find to allay the discontent and unrest that the Volstead Act has caused, is to be found in the passage of one of the proposed bills legalizing the production of beer of an alcoholic content of 4 per cent or less. We do not claim that it will do away with all the evils produced by attempted prohibition, but it would be a step in the right direction.”
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/HISTORY/e1920/senj1926/codman.htm
Anonymous • Oct 1, 2010 at 11:47 am
Uh,, Dare… Sorry to interrupt your “Sky is falling” rant, but I want to point out that you said that India will overtake us because we have legal Cannabis. India already has legal Cannabis in certain areas and at certain times. It’s used in religious festivals.
How could this be?