California Mothers for Marijuana Legalization and Prop 19

California mothers speak out for Prop 19 and marijuana legalization.

With a group of mothers around her, attorney Hanna Liebman Dershowitz uttered some words likely not yet heard in this wild election season: Legal marijuana is "safer for our children."


“When I think of what type of world I want my children to grow up in, they grow up in a world with marijuana legal and controlled and not this out-of-control system that we have today," the mother of two said Tuesday in West Hollywood at a press conference aimed to inspire people to vote for Proposition 19. "So it might be counterintuitive, but legalizing marijuana would be safer for our children."

Meg Whitman's claim that all law enforcement agents oppose the initiative is just not true. Here's a list of those who support Prop. 19.

Say Yes on 19. More at Just Say Now.

< Heads-Up: Medical Marijuana Issues on Local Colorado Ballots | AZ Execution Scheduled Using Foreign Made Drug >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    how cool (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Oct 20, 2010 at 04:49:23 PM EST
    that is downright inspiring

    motherhood.  long may she reign

    It's the truth... (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Oct 20, 2010 at 05:11:57 PM EST
    Back in the day it was a real chore to find somebody over 21, or with a good fake, to buy booze for ya, getting reefer was a walk in the park in comparison.  It's also baffled me how the "for the kids" drug war supporters can't grasp that truth.

    And as far too many mothers know, the biggest problem moderate & responsible marijuana use causes their children is potentially breaking out in handcuffs and/or legal trouble.

    Jerry Brown is firmly against Prop 19. (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 20, 2010 at 05:58:43 PM EST

    That doesn't impress me (none / 0) (#5)
    by Harry Saxon on Wed Oct 20, 2010 at 07:59:53 PM EST
    he was against Prop 13 but was able to work with it once it was passed into law.

    I expect the same thing when Prop 19 passes and he is elected governor again.


    he's the least of my worries (none / 0) (#6)
    by nycstray on Wed Oct 20, 2010 at 10:06:13 PM EST
    concerning 19. i suspect he won't mind the revenue . . .

    Dagnabit, and my goal was to impress you. (none / 0) (#7)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Oct 20, 2010 at 10:48:52 PM EST
    Have you been getting the same unseasonal rains up there in the San Joaquin Valley as we've been getting down here in SoCal?

    Rains in the Southern San Joaquin Valley (none / 0) (#8)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 05:10:20 AM EST
    aren't unseasonable this time of year, and so far we've gotten a quarter of an inch, not enough to leave a dusting of snow on the Sierra Nevada yet.

    Really? It's early for us. (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 11:39:16 AM EST
    The hills behind my home have been green by Thanksgiving only one time in the 10 years we've lived in our home. Typically it's Christmas or later before they get enough rain to green up. This this year they're green already...

    It sometimes rains before the raisin growers (none / 0) (#13)
    by Harry Saxon on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 12:52:24 PM EST
    are finished drying their crop, this year 15% was still drying when the rain hit, but they survived this year.

    I checked last October and 2008, and the records confirm my recollection that rain in October isn't unknown in the first week so here, but the real rainy season is December-March, with occasional rainy days in April.

    It's been perfectly lovely here since the last rain, we haven't had to run the AC or the heater since our last spell of 90+ weather, and we haven't had to water much since the last rain, which helps because we have water meters in our municipality unlike other places in the SJ Valley.


    Not Jerry too! (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 11:26:06 AM EST
    What is wrong with hot shot Cali Dems?  

    A lot. :-) (none / 0) (#11)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 11:39:41 AM EST
    Simple answers... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 11:44:59 AM EST
    to simple questions...as if I didn't already know:)

    Jerry Brown is a disaster (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 12:11:43 AM EST
    on all crime issues. He was terrible as  Attorney General of California. I feel sorry for California when he's Governor.

    well of course ms. whitman (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Wed Oct 20, 2010 at 06:33:52 PM EST
    is going to claim that. whether it's true or not is irrelevant to her. realistically, how many potential voters are actually going to ask her for proof of her claim, rather than just accepting it at face value? don't bother answering, the answer is: exactly none.

    Meg Whitman's claim that all law enforcement agents oppose the initiative is just not true.

    realistically, it sounds kind of reasonable. in the ordinary course of things, how many members of law enforcement (who get paid, because things are illegal) would you guess, would say that pot should be legalized? in the ordinary course of things, i'd say none.

    the primary reason it would be safer, for children and adults, if pot was legal, is because it would be one less thing for criminal gangs to fight over. thus reducing the possibility of being caught in the crossfire of gang warfare over territory. oh, that, and not having to worry about being arrested for possession.

    NPR piece on DUI-drugs (none / 0) (#14)
    by Xclusionary Rule 4ever on Thu Oct 21, 2010 at 06:30:35 PM EST
    NPR's piece on ATC yesterday was misleading.  It implied there would be an increase in DUI-drugs after Prop 19 passes.  Wrong for 6 reasons.

    I don't like the societal costs with legalization (none / 0) (#16)
    by thereyougo on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 10:29:53 AM EST
    OK granted, revenue is going to be good but will the courts be less clogged with offenders?

    And will there be more prisons to house them when they are convicted? Undoubtedly. So until someone can point to a crystal ball with answers, I don't see how it will be such a good thing.

    Kids stoned in class or a doctor, lawyer, who smokes is not the kind of person I would want to deal with as a consumer and taxpayer, but maybe I'm dealing with it already.
                                                           Should it pass, the federal government is going to go after California and challenge the legality since its illegal on the federal level. So it might be a moot point and continue to exist unregulated. I read Mexico's president is opposed to legalization, and recently they had a huge bong fire from some confiscated weed. I'm in a quandary, I like the idea of the revenue, but the increased consumption is not going to improve our society by having to deal with glassy eyed stoners.