Support for Prop 19 Declining

[gilliam]

A new poll from the Public Policy Institute of California shows that Proposition 19, the marijuana-legalization initiative, is no longer flying high. Among likely voters, it loses 49–44 percent, an eight-point drop in support since September. Support has declined among most demographic groups, especially Latinos (42 percent today, down from 63 percent). Several months ago, state Democratic chair John Burton said that the measure would help Democrats by boosting turnout among younger voters. A majority of voters under 35 still back it, but their elders are outvoting them heavily. If Jerry Brown wins, pot won’t be the reason.

nationalreview.com/corner/250659/support-prop-19-declining-john-j-pitney-jr

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

That is interesting. I wonder what the opposition’s argument is.

In terms of addiction, impairment of judgment, and long term health risks, I understand that pot is comparable to alcohol. Would prop 19 opponents also support a new prohibition?

All else being equal, my take is this: I know several people who, when drunk, take on completely different personalities. Some become scary to be around; at least one has been known to be violent while intoxicated. On the other hand I have never seen–nor heard of–a violent pothead.

 

[gilliam]

The argument that because one bad thing is allowed you should allow another bad thing is not a very good argument and has been shot down since biblical times.

 

[limabeanerson]

A little bit off topic but I have a question regarding Prop 19 (and similar props that will undoubtedly come up down the road)…

Does the Catholic Church have an official requirement or recommendation on how we, as Catholics, should vote on legalizing marijuana?

What are the reasons to vote against Prop 19?

*I’ve got a few co-workers that are big time “Pro prop 19” people and I don’t know to much about marijuana so I can’t really agree or disagree with them. I know they only give their point of view when talking about it though so it would be interesting to hear the other side.

**I’m not in California or any state with similar things on the ballot.

 

[gilliam]

A little bit off topic but I have a question regarding Prop 19 (and similar props that will undoubtedly come up down the road)…

Does the Catholic Church have an official requirement or recommendation on how we, as Catholics, should vote on legalizing marijuana?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Respect for health

2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.

Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.

2289 If morality requires respect for the life of the body, it does not make it an absolute value. It rejects a neo-pagan notion that tends to promote the cult of the body, to sacrifice everything for it’s sake, to idolize physical perfection and success at sports.
By its selective preference of the strong over the weak, such a conception can lead to the perversion of human relationships.

2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm#2288

So it all boils down to whether you are actually, really, truely, using it for therapeutic reasons or recreational ones. My understanding of the proposition is that it proposes the use be recreational.

My further understanding is that the vast majority (93%) of those who have perscriptions (in states with medical marijuana laws) is to 17-35 year olds for “cronic pain” which cannot be detected medically and normally does not naturally occur in very large percentages amongst 17-35 year olds.

 

[bkayw]

"on the other hand I have never seen–nor heard of–a violent pothead. "

I started smoking pot, which led to speed, to cocaine, and then to LSD. Thankfully in those days, we didn’t have meth to experiment with.

My nephew started with pot and eventually he ended up in prison for a year for possession of meth with intent to distribute.

 

[Mumbles140]

That is interesting. I wonder what the opposition’s argument is.

In terms of addiction, impairment of judgment, and long term health risks, I understand that pot is comparable to alcohol. Would prop 19 opponents also support a new prohibition?

All else being equal, my take is this: I know several people who, when drunk, take on completely different personalities. Some become scary to be around; at least one has been known to be violent while intoxicated. On the other hand I have never seen–nor heard of–a violent pothead.

Marijuana may not be physically addictive, but it sure is mentally addictive. I had fraternity brothers who would smoke more than 3 times a day. Issues with legalization include making it harder to bust illegal dealers (since it will be harder to catch someone ‘illegally’ using it), its proven record of being a gateway drug to serious users (searching for a ‘better’ high), and driving issues.

For driving, remember that you can’t have a Breathalyzer for marijuana. It stays in your system for roughly a month, in your hair for longer, and the only ‘instant’ test is a field sobriety test. This makes enforcement of driving under the influence nearly impossible. Any sort of blood/hair/saliva test would come up positive if someone used it anytime in a preceding period, which makes it difficult to nail down for a certain time.

My biggest issue with it is that there is no ‘buzzed’ with marijuana. I may have a few beers, start feeling a little more ‘jolly’ and know that I need to take a break. From my understanding, marijuana goes from ‘feeling nothing’ to ‘high’, and that is dangerous.

I am in the mid-Atlantic area, so it is unlikely (I hope) that I’ll ever be faced with this on the ballots, but I still think it sets a bad precedent. If I vacationed in California and had the urge to use it, could I be fired from a job out here if I test positive for a legal usage? It’s a slippery slope that I don’t want to venture down.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The argument that because one bad thing is allowed you should allow another bad thing is not a very good argument and has been shot down since biblical times.

Is alcohol a bad thing? In moderation?

I’ll be surprised if you say yes. And if you say no, there goes that argument.

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense.

Fair enough. But that would include tobacco cigarettes as well by your strict definition, and - while that’s certainly not an unfair assessment - many Catholics vehemently insist that smoking really isn’t that sinful.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve never tried tobacco or marijuana and have no intention of trying either. So nothing’s at stake here for me. In fact, I find recreational use of marijuana to be distasteful, and I would love if it I could solidly show that it’s wrong. I just haven’t yet found a good argument that wouldn’t also rule out cigarettes and therefore be unconvincing to most people…

For driving, remember that you can’t have a Breathalyzer for marijuana. It stays in your system for roughly a month, in your hair for longer, and the only ‘instant’ test is a field sobriety test. This makes enforcement of driving under the influence nearly impossible.

My biggest issue with it is that there is no ‘buzzed’ with marijuana. I may have a few beers, start feeling a little more ‘jolly’ and know that I need to take a break. From my understanding, marijuana goes from ‘feeling nothing’ to ‘high’, and that is dangerous.

I am in the mid-Atlantic area, so it is unlikely (I hope) that I’ll ever be faced with this on the ballots, but I still think it sets a bad precedent. If I vacationed in California and had the urge to use it, could I be fired from a job out here if I test positive for a legal usage? It’s a slippery slope that I don’t want to venture down.

Now these are significant arguments, especially the DUI one.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

"on the other hand I have never seen–nor heard of–a violent pothead. "

I started smoking pot, which led to speed, to cocaine, and then to LSD. Thankfully in those days, we didn’t have meth to experiment with.

My nephew started with pot and eventually he ended up in prison for a year for possession of meth with intent to distribute.

So how do you feel about drug policy in Portugal?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

 

[Catholic1954]

A new poll from the Public Policy Institute of California shows that Proposition 19, the marijuana-legalization initiative, is no longer flying high. Among likely voters, it loses 49–44 percent, an eight-point drop in support since September. Support has declined among most demographic groups, especially Latinos (42 percent today, down from 63 percent). Several months ago, state Democratic chair John Burton said that the measure would help Democrats by boosting turnout among younger voters. A majority of voters under 35 still back it, but their elders are outvoting them heavily. If Jerry Brown wins, pot won’t be the reason.

nationalreview.com/corner/250659/support-prop-19-declining-john-j-pitney-jr

Thanks be to God and the Archangel Michael!!

 

[JHow]

… If Jerry Brown wins, pot won’t be the reason.

I need to check my voters-guide, but I thought both Brown and Whitman opposed Prop. 19?

Also, maybe one of our legal minds (from the gay marriage threads ) can weigh in and explain how Prop 19 would get around federal laws if it did pass? That part was never clear to me.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I need to check my voters-guide, but I thought both Brown and Whitman opposed Prop. 19?

Also, maybe one of our legal minds (from the gay marriage threads ) can weigh in and explain how Prop 19 would get around federal laws if it did pass? That part was never clear to me.

I’m not a “legal mind,” but I do know that President Obama has instituted a policy instructing federal authorities not to waste money on enforcing the federal “war on drugs.”

So at least until 2013, the federal government won’t interfere. I find in myself a certain contempt for recreational use of marijuana, so I do want it to be illegal, but in this case, Obama is nonetheless right. The tenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is supposed to be the supreme law of the land (if only…) makes it impeccably clear that this is something that it is inappropriate for the federal government to handle.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

Is alcohol a bad thing? In moderation?

Fair enough. But that would include tobacco cigarettes as well by your strict definition, and - while that’s certainly not an unfair assessment - many Catholics vehemently insist that smoking really isn’t that sinful.

Or coffee. Ask a Mormon. Mormons drink milk. They won’t touch a Coca-Cola.

Now these are significant arguments, especially the DUI one.

If a cop really wants to make a bust when he smells it, he can dig through your ash tray for any remnant.

 

[ManOnFire]

If the pleasure received from smoking pot isn’t addicting, then it should be easy to give it up permanently.

 

[stringbeanduck]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

Drugs is subjective depending on the criteria. And just because a substance is illegal, legal, or who’s legal status unknown doesn’t mean the use of it for recreational purposes is or isn’t gravely disordered.

Therefore careful consideration must be taken before saying whether or not a substance is a* drug* defined in 2291 or an every kind of excess defined in 2290.

2291 operates under the assumption that the usage of a drug in question: “inflicts very grave damage on human health and life.”

Marijuana is a substance that can be used in moderation with no known permanent dangerous side effects just like alcohol, tobacco, caffeine. It can also be used without completely separating one’s self from reality. If you think about it, it really doesn’t fit under 2291, like other drugs that are illegal.

My point being is it you shouldn’t let the drug’s current legal status bias your thinking on whether or not it falls into 2291.

 

[stringbeanduck]

I’m not trying change your overall opinion on marijuana, but I do want address this statement, because this is a common misconception about marijuana.

My biggest issue with it is that there is no ‘buzzed’ with marijuana. I may have a few beers, start feeling a little more ‘jolly’ and know that I need to take a break. From my understanding, marijuana goes from ‘feeling nothing’ to ‘high’, and that is dangerous.

Actually different types of marijuana causes different “highs” if you will. That’s because depending on the strain, it’s age, and quality of growth, marijuana varies greatly on THC and other cannabaniod content. As a result How “high” you get is going to depend on how much smoke/vape/eat. Some strains you’ll need to use more to reach a certain “high”, others less will be needed. Marijuana users will often try to buy the same type of pot so they can be accustomed to it and thus know much to use to obtain level of “high” they wish. If marijuana was regulated this would be easier to do, because a pot user doesn’t know what weed he’s getting when come from illicit sources like Mexican cartels. Although if his supply stays constant I suppose he’ll learn how much to use, but even so most illicit weed is inferior to medical(legal) pot grown in America, This is because when grown legally,a person can put the time into growing decent strains in a good control setting.

 

[Barbkw]

“If the pleasure received from smoking pot isn’t addicting, then it should be easy to give it up permanently.”

Amen to that!

 

[Christopher68]

I am voting yes on Prop 19. Prohibition was an abject failure when it was tried, just as the government’s war on drugs is a failure today. And to those who say this would give tacit approval to marijuana - I don’t know anyone who is planning to start smoking if Prop 19 passes - if you do then you’re hanging out with the wrong people. You need to realize that people make bad decisions every day and they will continue to do so whether or not the activity in question is legal or illegal. Someone who eats a dozen Twinkys per day is doing a grave disservice to their health - do we legislate against that too??

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

If the pleasure received from smoking pot isn’t addicting, then it should be easy to give it up permanently.

No one said that it wasn’t addictive, just that it was no more addictive than alcohol.

 

[mrS4ntA]

"on the other hand I have never seen–nor heard of–a violent pothead. "

I started smoking pot, which led to speed, to cocaine, and then to LSD. Thankfully in those days, we didn’t have meth to experiment with.

My nephew started with pot and eventually he ended up in prison for a year for possession of meth with intent to distribute.

The gateway argument is a fallacy. If it wasn’t, you could equally argue that nicotine or alcohol lead to those things, as well. And neither are illegal (right now, they were in the past).