Folley said:
You're right, this is the first law, and who's to say there will be any more following this one? If this law comes into power than we're not going to see the major reform that we all want for another 10 years at least
You're saying you might not get another chance at reforming this bill for another 10 years if it passes. Well who says you're even gonna get another shot at legalization full stop for at least that long? At least once it's legalized and people start openly talking about it, the debate about the finer issues will come out of the shadows. There's gonna be far more opportunity of debating and working out the kinks once law changes then there is of finding your "perfect bill" in the next ten years. How can you not see that?
The average guy who wants some chronic isn't going to have a prime quality commercial hydroponic setup, he probably doesn't even water his houseplants.
I just had to make another post to re-quote this, because it's spot on. Most people couldn't care less about growing it for themselves. Just like the average beer drinker isn't interested in spending his time fermenting hops. He just wants to go to the store or the local bar and grab a nice cool beer (brewed by a company who knows what they're doing).
Folley said:
and yeah, now we can't grow weed... but the penalties for doing so are very light. If we pass 502 those laws become very stiff
Like S.J.B said above, it does seem like you're putting the "right to produce and sell a drug" above the "individual's right to possess and consume a drug". As has been pointed out before, it's almost irrelevant to most people, because most people do not want to be "producers". I bet many of those voting against it aren't even gonna bother going to the trouble of growing their own plants on a sustainable basis.
I also noticed you wrote this in respone to 23536's comment about "100,000 dead mexicans". When you think of the big picture, about the horrible collateral devastation caused by the war on drugs, don't you think it's pretty ridiculous to be holding up a legalization drive by arguing about not being able to grow your own? Sure you should be able to grow your own and sell it, and by principle it's wrong to stop a person from doing so, but it's also damn less important at the moment than the priority of getting things out of the hands of the murderous cartels and being free to buy, possess, and consume it without having to skulk around shadily playing cat and mouse with law enforcement.
I wonder, if it was a member of your close family who got murdered by a ruthless drug cartel if you'd still be whining about not being able to grow your own. You'd probably be thankful that you had the chance to spark the revolution of drug reform (in the most consumptive country on the planet) which will bring an end to such a horrendous situation. Of course, when it's not happening to you....
23536 said:
That scenario asks Washingtonians to vote strategically and perhaps make some temporary sacrifices in order to more rapidly win the war. Maybe that's not a fair thing to ask, because nobody can guarantee them that their example will ultimately lead to victory.
I think it
is a fair thing to ask. Laws are being amended all the time. The point is to get the ball rolling while the chance is there, and the details can be sorted out later. No, there's no "guarantee" their example will ultimately lead to victory, but it certainly can't lead to a worse failure than the system already in place. To procrastinate endlessly just because you can't get it how you want it right now is a waste of everyone's time, and is holding up the entire process of drug reform. That's why those of us who want to see
all drugs legalized (not just cannabis - I don't even
like cannabis personally) for the benefit of everyone are willing to put up with this process of 'testing the waters' with cannabis legalization first, because we know that it is probably the most effective route to achieve our goals.