>Not sure who or what you are arguing against. I think Al and I would both agree the narco traffickers do not favor any legalization of anything., ( though weed would concern them less than coke or heroin )
>Currently I am sure there are politicians who benefit financially- if only indirectly - from the current legal status quo.

Agreed - and that is a huge part of the problem I think. Anyone who's job is dependent upon having another person locked up stands to loose. I could go on a HUGE rant about the for-profit prisons - which I think is one of the most disgusting things in this country. I'm sure all of the shareholders and lobbyist (and thus some of the politicians) for those companies would be against anything that would set someone free.

>My point was our current drugs laws were not based on an assessment of medical or social dangers but were political. Joe Kennedy owned a chunk of Seagrams. He was one of the bootleggers who had other ambitions and was happy to have a legal monopoly rather than bootlegger profit he had to share with Costello and some even more unsavory characters. ( who as recently as 1963 would remain very bitter that debts they thought they were owed had not been paid. )
>
>Not everyone with a strong opinion on weed has a financial dog in the fight though there are cultural and generational prejudices. Prohibition was certainly a cultural crusade and the Dems were always the "wet" party as they represented urban more recent and less Protestant immigrants who did not see a demon in rum.
>
>But of course Prohibition led to financial opportunity, just as it has with dope.
>
>Don't want to get into more of this here, but I hope someday you and I can have a chat. I think you might find some of the things I could share with you - especially about the particular chunk of this history that involves the last three decades of the last century - as kind of interesting. I had good seats for a lot of that - on both sides of the proscenium.

We'll have to do that sometime. Heck I'm just across the pond - come on over..haha

>>I think that's a rather short-sighted and somewhat absurd concern. Starting January 16, 1920 when Prohibition got going - who ended up with all the proceeds from the booze sales? That's right - the criminals. As matter of fact it turn the Italian Mafia in the USA to the largest criminal organization the planet has ever seen. So Prohibition ended in 1933 there was not some sort of catastrophic moral breakdown of the whole American society was there? All the violence and the other zillions of problems caused by the Prohibition went away. Sure - BECAUSE of Prohibition the Mafia ended up quite a bit more powerful at the end of it - but imagine if Prohibition was still in effect. The "lead or gold" logic comes into play if it's illegal - that's when there will be payoffs and bribes etc...
>>
>>
>>
>>>>What is "oro o plomo" ???
>>>
>>>The choice of the gold or the coffin ( believe it is literally the lead shroud )
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'm concerned about lawmakers who push for decriminalization or legalization. How many will start getting "oro o plomo" offers?
>>>>>
>>>>>>I imagine the people of Mexico are probably happy about this - seeing how 1/3 of their drug cartel's money comes from weed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bill lives in the wide-open spaces of Kansas. He should have plenty of room for a new cash crop ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>From what I've read they are addressing things like DUI as part of the implementation. As far as the tax revenue is concerned, those two states have already seen that it works just from taxing the medical marijuana sales. I think if a person wanted to make some serious $ this will be the next USA gold rush - happened in 2 states it will happen in more and there are many more states that have set to bring the medical marijuana up this year. tik..tok..tik..tok.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Oh - William Kuhn - I TOLD YOU SO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I am all for it as long as side effects on others like DUI are controlled.
>>>>>>>>>Will be interesting if this will be turned into major tax venue or if x homegrown plants per person will be the norm.
>>>>>>>>>And if Monsanto will create and own special strains ;-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Another step in a rather long journey. Interesting that out of all the campaigning, debates, etc that the 'war on drugs' never seemed to come up this election....so the conclusion I come too is that neither side wanted to discuss it. I say it's high-time that the topic be brought to the forefront..so now perhaps with these two states doing this it will actually force the topic to be talked about. Personally I think the feds need to step out of the whole thing and just let each individual state deal with it the way they want. The days of the refer-madness-scare tactics are over I'd say.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2012/11/marijuana_legalization_initati.php