No change in marijuana laws coming, White House says

[RainDog]

168. Jeff Mirons, who has studied this issue, disagrees with you

He said that the overreach - i.e. a poorly constructed proposition, was the problem. This may be another way of stating what you're saying but his emphasis is on the provisions, not the persons.

Medical marijuana has been around since 1996. So, since 1996 the problems you mention have existed? It seems to me the reality is that, since the Ogden Memo, dispensaries, etc. have proliferated - in fact, I know this is true because it's cited as a reason for more dispensary raids.

One problem people have repeatedly talked about in regard to CA's marijuana reform is that the laws did not clearly articulate standards for operations, etc. This has long been the comparison to the CO amendment.

I agree with you, however, that marijuana businesses do not present themselves in such a way that appeals to the soccer mom vote or many other voters (including me, former soccer mom.) I don't think stoner humor, per se is funny and I dislike the stoner stereotypes because they're inaccurate - but they have made some people a lot of money - people who are smart business people, like Tommy Chong. He wouldn't have been so successful if he were actually the stoner stereotype he presents in his humor. At the same time, most people can distinguish between hyperbole and reality.

But I'm not a stoner so stoner humor doesn't do it for me. So, I understand your argument about the off-putting cannabis culture that is presented as what this issue is about. For me, it's about other things having to do with compassion, the purpose of criminal law and its application, the racism that has been the foundation of cannabis prohibition since its inception, and the rejection of science over propaganda.

I suppose we'll see what happens between now and 2014 and beyond, but honestly, I don't think it's sticking your neck out when the numbers support a change in position across the nation and not just within the state of CA.