You know why the Sheriff's association is against this? They'll have far less people to jail meaning less money flowing to their departments. So it's not surprising they would oppose the measure...it's just easy to see through.

Gosh, if them sheriffs lost all-of-that "War on Drugs" money-- why, they couldn't afford th' night vision goggles and the surveillance drones! We can't let that happen!

Of course they don't want it legalized. They'd rrather keep busting people for the victimless crime of possessing a plant rather than dealing with the real issues that are facing our communities. Shameful.

These anti-91 clowns are gonna get...

*puts on sunglasses*

...smoked at the polls.

*YEEEEEAAAAAHHHHHH*

Police haven't a leg to stand on if they base their opposition on public safety arguments. Marijuana already exists in abundance in Oregon, only its illegality causes violence and spoiling our public lands. After all, you don't see Dos Equis and Corona shooting it out in Mexico over distribution of beer and you don't see Ernest & Julio Gallo planting vineyards in the national forests.

Medical marijuana has been legal since 1998, growing to over 60,000 patients, yet our roadways are safer than ever. There are 314,000 monthly adult marijuana smokers in Oregon and 108,000 who smoke 20+ days a month. If there was going to be some devastating social effect from marijuana use, we'd have seen it by now.

State and Local Law Enforcement will receive 35% of the tax revenue from the regulation of marijuana as well as the reduction of workload having to deal with most pot smokers and growers. If it's not public safety and if it's not reduced funding, then the only reason they have left to oppose legalization is simply personal bigotry against the use of marijuana.

Captain Bringdown and the Buzzkillers.

"Devastating social effect"

You mean like a tragically low high school graduation rate or a tragically high heroin overdose death rate? Or employers that can't find qualified workers for the higher paying jobs?

What devastating social effect would convince you? And would you ever be convinced that it was due to marijuana use? I'm not saying that marijuana is a killer or that it is as bad as alcohol or tobacco or that it is responsible for all of society's problems.

But to think that there is no downside to legalization is to turn a blind eye to the differences between people that deal with day to day challenges and those that turn to a mind altering substance of whatever type to deal with reality.

@Jimmy: For me there are two main arguments against legalization.

The first is the idea that it might encourage use of harder drug use. I think that's very unlikely; it's actually more likely that it will reduce hard drug use, by reducing encounters with drug dealers and pushers. But I've not seen hard numbers yet (drug dealers aren't easy to keep reliable records on, who knew?), so it's technically possible.

The second, more likely, problem is drugging and driving. The penalties for drinking and driving are pathetically weak in Oregon (you don't even lose your license for the first offense!), and random checks are pathetically illegal, so drink-driving is a huge problem. Drug-driving will be just as bad. I'd like the police to spend less time opposing legalization, and more time figuring out how to fix that problem.

Well they have seen it ruin families and destroy lives when they busted in doors and arrested people and then seized their property. I have actually heard this argument for why pot is dangerous.

That sheriff is a grower. Open and shut case, Johnson.

@Stu: First offense DUI in Oregon suspends your drivers license for 90 days to a possible three years. You're also subject to paying increased auto insurance, diversion programs, and installing an ignition interlock device in your car for one year. Not pathetically weak penalties, in my opinion.

the sheriffs want pot to continue to be a gateway drug. A gateway...to their jails.