<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Californians Back Pot Legalization 54% to 43%</title>
	<atom:link href="http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2013/02/27/californians-back-pot-legalization-54-to-43/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2013/02/27/californians-back-pot-legalization-54-to-43/</link>
	<description>Legalize marijuana</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 08:08:40 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dead Lenny</title>
		<link>http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2013/02/27/californians-back-pot-legalization-54-to-43/#comment-7065</link>
		<dc:creator>Dead Lenny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:06:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/?p=3932#comment-7065</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;When a &lt;strong&gt;well-crafted&lt;/strong&gt; legalization initiative next appears on the ballot in California ...&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Aye, there&#039;s the rub, and one of the reasons Prop. 19 failed.  It was a piss-poor piece of legislation which would have ended up corporatising marijuana as a product, with such convoluted regulations for growing that only huge companies (*ahem Altria, RJR/Nabisco, Monsanto etc*) could afford the army of lawyers needed to legally grow.  The mom-and-pop growers would be run out of business.  (Growing for personal use?  Make me laugh.  The state would welcome growing at home about as much as people operating their own stills.)

IMHO, prices would have probably &lt;em&gt;risen&lt;/em&gt; under Prop. 19, for the same reason a pack of cigarettes is $6.00: California would put such high tariffs on marijuana that any hope of getting the criminal element out of the business would fall by the wayside.  There&#039;s too much money to be made by circumventing the state tax laws completely.  Remember, there is no aspect of life too small the state of California won&#039;t see fit to micromanage...  And tax to death.

Quality would probably take a dive, too.  No more &quot;two hits and you&#039;re lit&quot; kush on the market.  Why, that stuff could be dangerous!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>&#8220;When a <strong>well-crafted</strong> legalization initiative next appears on the ballot in California &#8230;&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Aye, there&#8217;s the rub, and one of the reasons Prop. 19 failed.  It was a piss-poor piece of legislation which would have ended up corporatising marijuana as a product, with such convoluted regulations for growing that only huge companies (*ahem Altria, RJR/Nabisco, Monsanto etc*) could afford the army of lawyers needed to legally grow.  The mom-and-pop growers would be run out of business.  (Growing for personal use?  Make me laugh.  The state would welcome growing at home about as much as people operating their own stills.)</p>
<p>IMHO, prices would have probably <em>risen</em> under Prop. 19, for the same reason a pack of cigarettes is $6.00: California would put such high tariffs on marijuana that any hope of getting the criminal element out of the business would fall by the wayside.  There&#8217;s too much money to be made by circumventing the state tax laws completely.  Remember, there is no aspect of life too small the state of California won&#8217;t see fit to micromanage&#8230;  And tax to death.</p>
<p>Quality would probably take a dive, too.  No more &#8220;two hits and you&#8217;re lit&#8221; kush on the market.  Why, that stuff could be dangerous!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sandorszabo</title>
		<link>http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2013/02/27/californians-back-pot-legalization-54-to-43/#comment-7064</link>
		<dc:creator>sandorszabo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2013 03:02:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/?p=3932#comment-7064</guid>
		<description>Due to the &quot;drug war&#039;s&quot; function in maintaining a US military presence in South America, it&#039;s highly unlikely that Atty. General Eric Holder will pass on Colorado&#039;s attempt to regulate and tax the sale of marijuana.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Due to the &#8220;drug war&#8217;s&#8221; function in maintaining a US military presence in South America, it&#8217;s highly unlikely that Atty. General Eric Holder will pass on Colorado&#8217;s attempt to regulate and tax the sale of marijuana.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BSbafflesbrains</title>
		<link>http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2013/02/27/californians-back-pot-legalization-54-to-43/#comment-7063</link>
		<dc:creator>BSbafflesbrains</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:55:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/?p=3932#comment-7063</guid>
		<description>Let&#039;s hope pot for the people evolves into other areas.  You may have to retire this category of news soon. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s hope pot for the people evolves into other areas.  You may have to retire this category of news soon. :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.431 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2013-05-22 04:21:01 -->
