Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

DrugReporter

Legal Pot in California in 2010? "Oaksterdam" Provides the Model

By Don Hazen, AlterNet. Posted June 15, 2009.


Pot entrepreneur Richard Lee envisions a professional marijuana industry much like the one that exists in Amsterdam.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

There is a buzz moving through the culture, as the public attitudes around cannabis use are rapidly shifting, that the legalization of marijuana in some states, particularly California, is a growing possibility.

Recent polling by Zogby in May demonstrated that a majority of Americans, say it "makes sense to tax and regulate" marijuana. The Zogby poll, commissioned by the conservative-oriented O'Leary Report, found 52 percent in favor of legalization, only 37 percent opposed. As Ryan Grim reports on the Huffington Post , a previous ABC News/Washington Post poll found 46 percent in support. In California, a Field Poll found 56 percent backing legalization and as a result California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called for an open debate on legalization, all which suggest that American society may be reaching a tipping point when it comes to legal pot.

An array of new circumstances -- Democrats in power, economic recession leaving states starving for revenue that could come from taxing cannabis sales, less funds for law enforcement and Mexican drug operatives moving into the US to grow huge amounts of untaxed pot, contributing to the horrible drug violence South of the Border -- support the growing public support for legalization of pot.

Anther element perhaps pushing changes to our pot laws is the gaggle of strange bed fellows who are outspoken on the issue. Former Secretary of State George Shultz and the late conservative economist Milton Friedman have been for legalization for years. But recently Fox News' latest conservative wild man Glenn Beck and CNN's much more reasonable Jack Cafferty have publicly questioned the billions spent each year fighting the endless war against drugs. They are joining the growing chorus that suggest it now makes more financial and social sense to tax and regulate marijuana.

At the epicenter of legal pot talk and strategic political action is Richard Lee, a highly successful pot entrepreneur, who over the past decade has turned the "uptown" entertainment area of downtown Oakland, California into what many call Oaksterdam, a play on Amsterdam, their sister city in Holland. A centerpiece of the Oakland transformation is Oaksterdam University which Lee founded to prepare people for jobs in the cannabis industry. As he told MSNBC, "my basic idea is to professionalize the industry, and have it taken seriously just like beer and distilling hard liquor." The University, along with half a dozen other "cannabis businesses," controlled by Lee bring thousands of visitors to Oakland daily.

California Pot Legalization Initiative

And it was Richard Lee who raised eyebrows among many last week, including some in the "drug reform establishment," when he announced an effort to qualify for the California statewide ballot in November of 2010, The Control, Regulate and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, the first major statewide initiative designed to legalize marijuana for personal use.

Lee and TaxCannabis2010.org, the newly minted organization he started to push the initiative, calls for the legalization of small amounts of marijuana for personal possession by adults 21 and older, and allows cities and counties the option of regulating sales and cultivation. The legal amount would be 1 ounce for personal possession, with cultivation allowed in a space no larger than 5 feet by 5 feet.

Lee feels very strongly that the tide has turned among the public as the polls indicate. "This will be a landmark opportunity that will generate interest and funds nationwide," he said. If successful, the initiative will be viewed as a watershed "a first step in changing federal law."

Lee's group plans to send the initiative to California Attorney General Jerry Brown in July for the summary and title oversight required by law. Signature gathering will begin in August, with 650,000 signatures required by January to make the November 2010 ballot. An efficient political operation, with paid signature gatherers, as well as thousands of volunteers is expected.

Recently I spent a morning in Oakland with Lee touring the array of facilities that make up his Oaksterdam network, including his ownership of seven buildings in a few block radius. The fact that Lee is at the center of the legalization action is not a surprise, given his drive, passion and obvious business skills. In fact, it is tempting to say after spending time with the whip smart political advocate and businessman, that I have seen the pot future and it is Richard Lee and Oaksterdam.

Lee is not exactly a household word in political and drug reform circles. But based on his current media attention -- including Geraldo, MSNBC, and tons of print articles, he very soon will be the person most associated with pot legalization in America. Lee is no "Johnny come-lately," either. Over the past decade, he has taken major strides in building a cannabis business empire in the entertainment section of Oakland which includes new bars, restaurants, a rash of new highly designed condos, the popular Paramount Theatre, and the spectacular renovation of the famous Fox Theater, which lay dormant for many years. Lee joked that he heard that when the Allman Bothers Band played in Oakland recently, that the Fox enjoyed the pungent smell of pot smoke, a welcome sign for the area to be pot friendly. Much of the downtown growth effort comes from initiatives begun when Jerry Brown, now Attorney General and candidate for governor, was Mayor.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: marijuana, obama, pot, drug war, legalize, oaksterdam, richard lee

Don Hazen is the executive editor of AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from DrugReporter! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Smoke Dreams
Posted by: macdon1 on Jun 15, 2009 1:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is hypocritical to discuss legalizing marijuana in California when the state persecutes, prosecutes and abuses their legal medical marijuana patients. Many of these people are seriously ill, including my own daughter, and they are facing draconian prison sentences. Charlie Lynch operated a 100% legal dispensary in Morro Bay CA with the approval of the chamber of commerce and the mayor and a redneck sheriff was able to bring in the DEA and prosecute him and basically ruin his life. He has lost everything. So this talk talk is basically smoke dreams...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It is a religious discrimination Posted by: Sister_Lauren
not the people but
Posted by: richholland on Jun 15, 2009 2:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
big bussiness is the engine that changes things in USA,. changes good or bad number one the profit.

take a good look at the dutch situation although pot is legalised it is not free.

and prizes went up, 5 seeds for $ 60,before legalisation $ 5, 10 seeds if quality good.
in the coffeeshop no beer, no wine, no tobacco.

freedom could be grow your own weed.
no people in jail for smoking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do Not Tax or Regulate Personal Cultivation. Got it?
Posted by: bcainw on Jun 15, 2009 4:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We DO NOT want "Government Dispensaries" becoming our NEW Marijuana dealer. Got it?
=========================================

Why is it that neither Richard Lee, High Times, NORML, MPP or DPA will talk about the one real solution . . .

Allowing all adults to simply grow whatever they want without and taxation, regulation or other forms of government interference. The drug cartels would be out of business in a week; the sick would have access to cheap medicine (free to $30 an ounce) and about 27 Billion dollars would stay in the US each year.

That in essence is the MERP Model which is supported by Bruce W. Cain, John Sinclair and many others. Note that John Lennon, of the Beatles, came to John Sinclair's aid in 1971 after he was put in jail for 10 years for 2 joints. For more:

goto newagecitizen.com

Then click on "MERP Headquarters"

Then read all the articles and watch all the videos concerning MERP. If you don't have the time just read this one article for an overview:

How to Make Marijuana Free and Legal for For All Adults Within A Year:
Introduction to Your Involvement in the MERP Movement to Re-Legalize Marijuana Throughout the United States and the Planet
http://www.newagecitizen.com/MERP/RelegalizeNowObama00.htm

Under MERP personal cultivation is treated like a sacred inalienable liberty. The government cannot tax, regulate or interfere with personal cultivation. MERP does not preclude the government from issuing commercial licenses or taxing commercial sales. But it can do nothing about personal cultivation which will insure modest prices which is what is required if we REALLY want to destroy the Mexican Drug Cartels and insure that medical patients -- many who are unable to work and living in poverty -- have free (Marijuana grown outdoors) or cheap access to their medicine (Marijuana grown indoors).

Some call MERP radical but it is really no more radical than the way we treat beer and wine: you can produce both at home without taxes, regulation or other forms of government interference.

Richard Lee's upcoming initiative is more like the current hard liquor model: personal cultivation would still be treated as a serious crime -- just as with the moonshine distillers in the southern states (e.g., Tennessee).

Under Richard Lee's "hard liquor" model you will still be harassed and go to jail for merely cultivating you own Marijuana. Sorry Richy baby, but this is not acceptable.

Before launching your initiative you need to rewrite it to meet the criteria of the MERP Model. Otherwise I think it should be rejected.

As a "Ken Kesey Unitarian" (e.g., Read "Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test") and unabashed "intellectual hippie" I see through your self serving agenda and I REALLY don't like what I see. The hippies had it right when they attempted to break away from government "control" by establishing their communes and insisting on having full access to "Mother Nature's" favorite plant.

You need to also consider that as the economy tanks Marijuana can also be grown for hemp flour, hemp oil: both of which are some of the most nutritious foods on the planet. People will need to grow hundreds of plants for this purpose. Under Richy's plan this will never happen.

Richy. Wipe those "dollar signs" away from you eyes and rewrite you initiative to conform with the MERP Model. Otherwise you will be seen for what you are: a betrayer of the American People.

Yours in Peace and Freedom,

Bruce W. Cain

Note: always available for an interview
Contact me at: newagecitizenx@comcast.net

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: California law Posted by: Sister_Lauren
don't forget savings
Posted by: jstepp590 on Jun 15, 2009 5:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not just the money we would make on taxes but also the money we spend incarcerating almost 800,000 people per year for these charges.

Whether it's legalized or not won't stop me smoking it so I don't care about that. I do care about 800,000 lives ruined every year though. I also care about our government being bankrupted over it. Decriminalize it if nothing else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: don't forget savings Posted by: aahpat
» RE: wasted lives Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: don't forget savings Posted by: Shrapnel
A legalization regime
Posted by: aahpat on Jun 15, 2009 5:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Americans who have held sway in drug war policy for the past forty years fear drug use. Right or wrong they fear others intoxicating and they are the people who have the ear of politicians.

Any legalization regime that makes it through the state houses and congress will be tempered by those fears. Even pot will be extremely, in many states, prohibitively regulated.

Getting America past the flat out prohibition of today and into the start of a legalization regulatory regime would be more than I would expect to see in my lifetime here in puritanical America. A state regulatory regime in 2010 in California, in any form, would be a dream come true.

Unlike prohibition, regulations can always be disputed and debated.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: They may have fears Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: A legalization regime Posted by: Shrapnel
Far, far, far more important
Posted by: Koondog on Jun 15, 2009 6:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
than legalizing marijuana would be the reintroduction of hemp as a legal crop. There are so many valuable agricultural uses for hemp it isn't funny and so many ways hemp could save trees, be used in biofuels, reclaim soil depleted land, provide cheap, super nutritious food, etc., etc,. etc. The list goes on. Right now hemp oil and hemp protein powder supplements are produced in Canada. And don't forget, hemp was outlawed in 1937 as a result of Big Oil money but ordered back into cultivation during WWII because so many hemp products were vital to the war effort. Legalizing pot will have bigger and more far ranging effects on the economy, no question about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Far, far, far more important Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
It's still wouldn't be enough incentive
Posted by: LMNOP on Jun 15, 2009 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to return to America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hell, we can't even get medical weed...
Posted by: ellie on Jun 15, 2009 6:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in most states... even for patients who are very ill and/or conventional meds don't seem to work or are contraindicated by other medical conditions...

a doc told me that in this state, even the rx version of thc (marinol or sativex) is only allowed to be prescribed by cancer docs dealing with chemo treatment in stage 4 cancers (end stage, meaning death is probable within months) and they have to get permission from the medical board before writing the script and the pharmacy has to file with their board for approval to order in and dispense too which can take weeks or even months... this doc told me of several cases where the patient was already dead and buried before the approvals came in...

we are surrounded by 2 states that allow medical marijuana, but a bill has been tied up in the state legislature since 2004...

and this guy wants to set up a mini amsterdam in calif???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: hell, we can't even get medical weed... Posted by: JenniferBedingfield
» RE: Native American Ceremonial Plants Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» BTW lauren Posted by: bizeeb
» RE: BTW lauren Posted by: bornxeyed
JUST LEGALIZE IT!
Posted by: Steven Eisenhauer on Jun 15, 2009 7:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
OUR REASONABLE CALL FOR JUSTICE IS LONG OVER DUE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not talking green?
Posted by: linecrosser on Jun 15, 2009 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why not? That's has got to be the biggest benefit of legalization, the hemp industry. I'd love to see hemp replace tobacco, and I live in Virginia where tobacco is king. I like the idea of working with big business, so they don't feel so scared of losing their position in the business world. Get the paper industry, chemical, oil, clothing, food, etc, bring them all in. Lets get this done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Legal Pot in California in 2010? "
Posted by: xvictor on Jun 15, 2009 8:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If true, I'm packing my bags and move to California!!!

KAHLEE4NIA, HERE I COME!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pot is illegal??
Posted by: aaweeble1 on Jun 15, 2009 8:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wut? Pot's illegal? Since when??

RT
Online Privacy when it Counts

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Toxic spy link do not click Posted by: Sister_Lauren
» RE: Pot is illegal?? Posted by: AlteredStates
legalization means more control
Posted by: peteralter on Jun 15, 2009 9:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a person who has never smoked a cigarette, never mind done any OTHER drug, I know it takes a lot of thinking to understand that legalization would actually give more control of its distribution and its use in our society. But, it should. Take alcohol. Not everyone becomes an alcoholic because it has been legalized. Same for cigarettes. Knowing that the majority of Americans know that prohibition has brought on crime and gangs, and a lot more addiction. Pro-legalizers I know do not believe we will be able to prevent all people from being addicted. But, we are sure that through careful education programs, regulations of advertising, control of quality, and distributions things will get better over time. Of course, it will take decades because ill-advised laws have enhanced the powers of criminal powers. These people will find other means, other countries to make their millions. Look at the tobacco industry. At the end, the real war that should be fighting is the war on greed, which is at the center of most of these extreme human behaviour. Americans voted for change. Past policies did not work and are not working. Canada supports legalization too BTW. As for Mexico, if there were jobs and a good standard of living in Mexico, do you think they would be risking their lives to work for peanuts in the US or to sell drugs?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We LOVE to choose sides and pick fights
Posted by: willymack on Jun 15, 2009 9:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here in the USA, don't we? Here's an issue that's cut and dried (pardon the pun). The simple fact of the matter is whether we like it or not, people are going to smoke pot, law or no law, just as there'll be people who think disco DOESN'T suck.
Things like cold, hard FACTS have never been an impediment to our people squaring off with one another and engaging in acrimonious debates over the merits or demerits of this or that.
All kinds of things come into play here, and all kinds of characters emerge from the woodwork to further muddle the picture with their take on the subject.
It then boils down to a "for" or "against" argument with us vs them overtones.
The basis for the acrimony is the false premise that there are (always) two sides to every argument, and that since everyone is entitled to his opinion, both sides must be valid, therefore TRUE.
The corrosive nature of this mindset is exploited by those only too willing to use it for their own selfish ends. The phony "war on drugs" is no exception.
Let's face it; people are making MONEY from the "war on drugs". They're the WRONG people, and they're certainly not good people.
There's really only ONE side to this issue and one true solution, and that involves ending the costly and futile "war on drugs", and pulling the rug out from underneath the crooks profiting from it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The hemp prohibition is a strong lesson that shows what will happen when gun control gets its way.
Posted by: John More on Jun 15, 2009 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The government's been fucking and raping us for decades one prohibition after another and now they're after our guns just like they were after our pot decades ago. Prohibition has never worked before and never will.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cannabis, another opiate for the masses, sold today is not the same as it was in the sixties
Posted by: masthead on Jun 15, 2009 10:37 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
today it's powerful stuff, which some dealers lace with more harmful drugs, with crap that could screw up your brain permanently. there's plenty of other things to get high on that cost nothing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» even if that were true, so what? Posted by: P.E.A.C.E.
If Alternet is so progressive, then why haven't the strongest arguments been considered
Posted by: P.E.A.C.E. on Jun 15, 2009 12:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Arguing for Cannabis legalization concedes rightful jurisdiction over natrual resources that are both unique and essential. I refuse to obey a "law" that insults the sacrifices for freedom made by previous generations, by threatening the freedom of future generations.

"We The People" are being illegally prosecuted for growing "every herb bearing seed" - in violation of the First Amendment "freedom of religion"-- how can intelligent, freedom-loving people not understand that? Isn't a federal, Constitutional defense stronger than a medical marijuana, Prop 215 defense?

Cannabis is nutritionally unique and essential.
Cannabis is the only crop that produces food and fuel form the same harvest.
Cannabis is the only crop that produces enough atmospheric monterpenes to stop global broiling and global warming.

If Alternet is so progressive, then why haven't the strongest arguments been given the consideration they are due?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Legalization Without Taxations
Posted by: bongjamesbong2001 on Jun 15, 2009 1:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Lee has built up quite a duchy there in Oakland, and gotten a lot of money put into it. It's not surprising that he wants it all taxed so he can claim legitimacy for it all. To read this "puff piece", it would seem that Mr. Lee and taxation are the answers, but that is not necessarily the case.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy," so wrote Chief Justice John Marshall, back about 1828, for the US Supreme Court. The idea was not new then. Muslims have been taxing non-Muslims into oblivion for 1400 years in Muslim countries, following the dictates of the Qu'ran, their holy book. So it could well be for taxation and cannabis. You get greedy legislators mixed up in the taxation bill, and soon you have a whole bunch of cannabis tax prisoners taxed OUT of the cannabis market and their liberties and into the next State Prison. Isn't that already what's happening in states like Iowa, where every cannabis arrest is accompanied by a charge of failing to pay the cannabis tax (even if doing so would cause you to get arrested on a possession charge--an obvious violation of the US CONSTITUTION)? Why pay tax on something you grow in your living room for your own personal consumption? So some guy can claim legitimacy for a dubious business complex that teeters on being forfeited every day?

The real question is, IS the legislature already skimming off more money through fines and bail and forfeitures than it would be getting by taxing? With the current system, the NATIONAL POLICE STATE PAYS FOR ITSELF and provides the powers that be with the muscle to throw around. A TAX STATE would involve lots of expensive accountants and would not give the bullcops the power to make as free as establishment wants with their constituents. Prison is the endstation anyway, why make it more complicated to get there than is needed? THIS is the way the Establishment thinks.

We don't need a cannabis tax. I want to grow it and toke it without some accountant AND a cop sticking their noses through my front door. Getting rid of 80% of our prisons and cops is the most efficient way of reducing taxes and restoring State budgets to the point where they can provide citizens with services instead of punishment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

couple thoughts...
Posted by: mtatasmith on Jun 15, 2009 8:43 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Personally I wouldn't mind if it were taxed like alcohol and I wouldn't mind if I had to buy a licence to smoke it or grow it (for personal use)- sort of like owning and using a gun OR like Hunting, Fishing or Drivers Licences. Buy one and renew every couple of years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

thank you
Posted by: xmvince on Jun 16, 2009 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After much struggle and debate I am glad to finally see this. I will be looking forward to 2010 and definitely taking a trip out to Cali as I will be turning 21 in May 2010 :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FIX THE ECOMONY - STOP THE HYPOCRISY!
Posted by: Voicedude on Jun 16, 2009 4:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
California was the first state to decriminalize pot in the late seventies. Now with essential state services being cut to the bone (police, fire, education, etc.), perhaps now an honest discussion is truly open: The hypocrisy of comparing pot to illegals like coke, crack and meth while cigarettes and alcohol is legal; the major cost of prosecuting this minor crime, the medical benefits; the numerous uses of hemp; etc. But when we're all broke, suddenly a dialogue opens. Well - whatever. I'll take it. Whatever gets us to the right place.

They'll legalize, and then control and tax the crap out of it. So what? It's the same thing they do not only with cigarettes and alcohol, but also gas, milk, bread and more. (In case you didn't know it, most of the cost of bread is taxes, folks!) Plus they'll slap the same legal limitations on it that they've already got on both cigarettes and alcohol, and I'm all for that too! Keep it away from kids and off the road.

In short, it's time for my state to lead once again. Especially with how bad we behaved with Prop 8.
We really don't have a fiscal choice, and the rest is long overdue...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marijuana issue drives me insane!
Posted by: Aquinas on Jun 20, 2009 4:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can't discuss the "weed" without foaming at the mouth. It really bugs me, that the people can't deal with such arrogance as the Legislatures display by "selectively" "pronouncing" certain plants to be illegal. Has no one ever stopped to consider how damnably arrogant it is, for any group of people, to wander through nature's domain and solemnly declare "this one" or "that one" is now illegal?
Think about it for a minute and see if it doesn't drive you buggy.

I think people could understand if alcohol were declared illegal, as it has a very bad history, but even alcohol occurs naturally in certain fermenting crops. I can't get over the supreme arrogance of any individual looking at a naturally growing plant and declaring it illegal henceforth. If this arrogant trend continues, can we look forward to someday having a room full of potted plants, through which our wise legislators can parade, while pointing out which one they consider illegal ?

That's the closest thing to behaving like a god that I can think of.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement