No on 19??

[Drums]

Ok, someone explain why they'd go that way. Bigsampson is a grower, so he'd lose 4. Chubbs probably would as a dispensary owner as well. So, other than dispensary owners and growers, is there a reason why the average smoker would vote no?

[Calig909]

Well, some people believe in medical cannabis, and not in recreational cannabis, I can understand why those people would vote no. and because of the issues with federal law still.

I mean, Utah if you have a seed its a felony charge. and with california having it legal for recreational use, the regulations that are put in place might not stop 21 year olds from utah picking up bud, and trying to take it home with them. the DEA raids and busts people doing state traffiking, and people start to bitch and moan, that california's laws are not respecting federal laws.

I mean lets be real, we live in california and we still know of dispensaries getting raided. I could (I'm not going to) make the strong argument that 19 shouldn't pass in california untill more states ratify the legal use of marijuana for medical purposes so that the federal government is more inclined to not treat marijuana the way that they currently do.

I don't see any reason for a californian pot smoker would go against it for california's sake, but in a federal sense i see a decent argument.


After getting my rec and reading my prop 215 and SB 420, I am 100% for anything to get the ball rolling, but at the same time, I'll only be "SO" hurt by it not passing. It's not like It's gonna stop me from smoking pot. Don't get me wrong, I'm voting yes, and want it.

[Drums]

Well, some people believe in medical cannabis, and not in recreational cannabis, I can understand why those people would vote no. and because of the issues with federal law still.

I mean, Utah if you have a seed its a felony charge. and with california having it legal for recreational use, the regulations that are put in place might not stop 21 year olds from utah picking up bud, and trying to take it home with them. the DEA raids and busts people doing state traffiking, and people start to bitch and moan, that california's laws are not respecting federal laws.

I mean lets be real, we live in california and we still know of dispensaries getting raided. I could (I'm not going to) make the strong argument that 19 shouldn't pass in california untill more states ratify the legal use of marijuana for medical purposes so that the federal government is more inclined to not treat marijuana the way that they currently do.

I don't see any reason for a californian pot smoker would go against it for california's sake, but in a federal sense i see a decent argument.


After getting my rec and reading my prop 215 and SB 420, I am 100% for anything to get the ball rolling, but at the same time, I'll only be "SO" hurt by it not passing. It's not like It's gonna stop me from smoking pot. Don't get me wrong, I'm voting yes, and want it.>>>

I realize your heart wasn't in it,:cool:but you really didn't make a strong case against it. No, now that I think about it, I say that most pot smokers who are against this are making big $ off the status quo. I have no problem with people wanting to make $, but I'd rather they not blow smoke up my butt <cough> and just admit it. I'm still not 100% sure *I'm* for it, but my reasons would be moral rather than financial.

[Calig909]

Morally there is nothing wrong with it in my book. But I'm super liberal on drug usage. I believe that people should be able to get purified (Clean) versions of whatever drugs they want. But i believe that if you take away part of the sin and excitement from things it takes away part of it's 'coolness'. Quoting you, you said yourself a part of the enjoyment of smoking pot is the fact that you know you could get introuble, and you sneak around and it's a deviant activity. I say take the deviance out of it, and part of the issue goes away.

Financially, I get no gain off of the status quo, nor do i get any loss from it. I'm sure some people make money, like dispensaries, but not enough people i would imagine compared to people in california who believe in free recreational use.


I think my case is strong though. Reading through my legal rights as a new mmj patient I was told to understand that im only protected from local and state authorities in regards to my possession of mmj. If the feds/DEA whoever come and hassle me about my stash, I am at risk of prosecution. Now, in reality, the feds are PROBABLY not going to stop a legally prescribed patient with the legal amount who is carrying his documentation, but they could. And i assumed that risk. (I assumed the risk when it was illegal for me too lol...) If it's legal in california, it's still not legal in the US, and it still is a federal crime. MMJ clubs, or any place that allows the consumption of cannabis in california are still against federal law. And Even if it's legal in november, there is a chance that there will still be DEA raids on california cannabis clubs, which is ironic, but still a plausible scenario. I think there is a serious argument to say that it will be a federal issue where other states are going to complain that their citizens go to california and bring pot home with them.

unfortunately, as a liberal I stupidly in this case have to accept and agree with federal law, and understand that i am in a legal purgatory in a sense by having a rec. and if its legal in california everybody who uses cannabis in california is in that same legal purgatory between state and federal law.

What if a citizen of utah smoked cannabis in california, and then through urine testing got introuble for having an illegal substance in utah? two states have to collaborate their court systems, along with federal courts, to deem if it's illegal for him to use a substance illegal in his state, but legal in another. this is completely hypothetical i know, but find a way to make the scenario plausible of someone getting introuble for using pot in cali, when they live in a different state, and you can see the discrepancy of federal and local laws.

Federal laws would have to change, and other state laws would need to make an appendage to their laws IMO for this law to function to it's full capacity.

I feel almost as if it needs to be pot for all, or just keep the status quo. It puts california (and other MMJ states) In an untaxable bubble of legal pot for it's people, but it makes it easier for federal authorities (who have the final say in my book).

Like i said I'm still voting yes, the feds can fix their own shit after my pot is legal in california, I can just see another side to it. or atleast what i think is an honest other side to it.

[dahcwon]

>>>

I realize your heart wasn't in it,:cool:but you really didn't make a strong case against it. No, now that I think about it, I say that most pot smokers who are against this are making big $ off the status quo. I have no problem with people wanting to make $, but I'd rather they not blow smoke up my butt <cough> and just admit it. I'm still not 100% sure *I'm* for it, but my reasons would be moral rather than financial.

I truly believe even if prop 19 passes some group of people will bitch, moan, and cry about it until the federal government step in and does somthing. We're just watching the beginnings of the next prop 8 style legal battle.

[Calig909]

Yeah, probably.

Like i said, since i'm a medical paitent, I'd rather see it done right, then see them fuck up. so I'm voting yes to get it rolling and will advocate for legalization of course. But unless losing means it's not legal for me as a medical user (which i know isn't happening), A part of me is slightly disconnected.

[Drums]

What I find strange is how conservatives and liberals have flip-flopped on this. I mean, I'm as conservative as it gets for the most part, and as a conservative I'm *supposed* to believe in individual rights/personal freedom/etc, yet many (most?) conservs are against 19. Meanwhile, liberals are *supposed* to let the Gvt decide what's best, yet they, for the most part, want the GVT out of this.

Here's my latest conspiracy theory : the decriminalization thing got a big push from Budweiser, growers, Mexican cartels, and anyone else who wants A) less penalties, B) status quo afa the $. I'm just making this up after some Cotton Candy, so I may decide I'm nuts later.

[Drums]

I truly believe even if prop 19 passes some group of people will bitch, moan, and cry about it until the federal government step in and does somthing. We're just watching the beginnings of the next prop 8 style legal battle.

Well that's a whole other thing, and I think it's pretty scary. Regardless of how you felt about Prop 8, the *will of the people* was that it pass, yet one man stepped in and said "no...all 7mil of you are wrong". The precedent that set is astonishing, and one that'll probably keep happening. Why bother voting if it'll all wind up in a courtroom where a judge can run the whole country rather than that whole House of Representative thing? It was Thomas Jefferson's greatest fear, and he warned against it 200 years ago: a nation of judges.

[Calig909]

I think you might.

Liberals and conservatives are such blanket statements and that they are retarded and void these days, for the most part. It just sucks because our fellow americans are generally too fucking dumb to understand this.

Unfortunatly conservatives almost means morally conservative, and that moral backing is based generally on 'christian' beliefs.

And Liberals are voting to change what the government believes is what's best for it's people. so i dont think the liberals have really flipped flopped. Liberals are preaching regulation and taxation.

[dahcwon]

I've been voting for the last 8 years and I never seem to vote for people that win. Now on the other hand when it comes to the different props each year most of the ones that I agree with do pass. So why not vote? The worst thing that will happen is you'll get really pissed off at the political system, but wait everyone is already pissed off and feed up with political system.

[Drums]

I've been voting for the last 8 years and I never seem to vote for people that win. Now on the other hand when it comes to the different props each year most of the ones that I agree with do pass. So why not vote? The worst thing that will happen is you'll get really pissed off at the political system, but wait everyone is already pissed off and feed up with political system.>>>

Oh, I'll keep voting. I'm just saying that, when a judge overturns the vote, you wonder why you even bother. That's not *democracy* at all. You watch. If 19 passes, someone...probably the Feds, will lob a lawsuit to block it, and a judge will decide.

[dahcwon]

>>>

Oh, I'll keep voting. I'm just saying that, when a judge overturns the vote, you wonder why you even bother. That's not *democracy* at all. You watch. If 19 passes, someone...probably the Feds, will lob a lawsuit to block it, and a judge will decide.

Yes that is exactly what will happen, and that is just what we want to happen because then prop 19 will stay in the news around the nation.

[Drums]

Yes that is exactly what will happen, and that is just what we want to happen because then prop 19 will stay in the news around the nation.>>>

Well, maybe not the best example then, but no, that's *not* what I want to see. I want democracy to work. The people take the time to go vote on something, and the most votes should win. Pretty simple. And yet we can't seem to make even that work.

[dahcwon]

>>>

Well, maybe not the best example then, but no, that's *not* what I want to see. I want democracy to work. The people take the time to go vote on something, and the most votes should win. Pretty simple. And yet we can't seem to make even that work.

Well I wish it could be that simple, but democracy is broke. All the big businesses pay lobby groups to make sure that their voice is heard, and we all know money talks and everything else is just bullshit made up to confuse the masses.

[Drums]

Well I wish it could be that simple, but democracy is broke. All the big businesses pay lobby groups to make sure that their voice is heard, and we all know money talks and everything else is just bullshit made up to confuse the masses.>>

Uh, "big business" and "big union."

[dahcwon]

>>

Uh, "big business" and "big union."

Now if this turns in to a big mess with tons of media coverage it will get more people talking about marijuana, then maybe our voice will be louder the "big business" and "big union."

[Drums]

I notice that the one guy who said "vote no on 19" hasn't commented here.

I just read the Prop, and there's a couple serious flaws that may doom it. It does little or nothing afa people driving while stoned, hence MADD's opposition. Also, it makes it so that people could come to work stoned. Nice theory, but maybe not optimal for surgeons, air-traffic controllers and gas truck drivers. I think it would cause CA to violate federal workplace safety regs, which could cause CA to lose a TON of jobs. So, if it loses, I'd like to see a better written proposal next election that would address these issues.

[dahcwon]

Well the reason their is nothing in prop 19 about driving while stoned is because driving under the influence of any substance weather the substance legal or illegal is still a crime. It don't matter if it's xanax, marijuana, meth, or even alcohol, it's all considered driving under the influence and you would get charged with either DUI or DWI.

I really hate to be point this out but people all over the world goto work "high" every single day on one thing or another, if nothing else their "high" on coffee. I see more jobs for California, tons of tourist, and over the course time really great marijuana at dirt weed price's. Beside every law is flawed when it gets wrote into uses, then we fix it over time on an issue to issue bases.

[Drums]

Well the reason their is nothing in prop 19 about driving while stoned is because driving under the influence of any substance weather the substance legal or illegal is still a crime. It don't matter if it's xanax, marijuana, meth, or even alcohol, it's all considered driving under the influence and you would get charged with either DUI or DWI.

I really hate to be point this out but people all over the world goto work "high" every single day on one thing or another, if nothing else their "high" on coffee. I see more jobs for California, tons of tourist, and over the course time really great marijuana at dirt weed price's. Beside every law is flawed when it gets wrote into uses, then we fix it over time on an issue to issue bases.>>>

You'd have to read the voter's guide to really see the argument. They articulated it much better than myself. I think if they had just addressed this from the start this would be a slam-dunk. As it is, it's a compelling enough argument to at least scare a lot of no votes up.

[dahcwon]

So after re-reading the whole section on prop 19 in my voter's guide I realized the point that M.A.D.D. is trying to make about the bus and truck companies, but right in prop 19 it says " However, it does not specify that employers would retain existing rights to address consumption of marijuana that impairs an employee's job performance", so if it does not specify, then it does not change that part of law. Prop 19 also state that "In addition, the measure would not change existing laws that prohibit driving under the influence", so if your a stoned bus or truck driver its still a crime.

I wrote a research paper on Prop 19 last semester, and I'm currently doing an updated research paper on the unforeseen effects once big business takes over California's biggest cash cow, cannabis. So keep the questions coming because this is really helping farm different points of view, thanks.

[Drums]

So after re-reading the whole section on prop 19 in my voter's guide I realized the point that M.A.D.D. is trying to make about the bus and truck companies, but right in prop 19 it says " However, it does not specify that employers would retain existing rights to address consumption of marijuana that impairs an employee's job performance", so if it does not specify, then it does not change that part of law. Prop 19 also state that "In addition, the measure would not change existing laws that prohibit driving under the influence", so if your a stoned bus or truck driver its still a crime.

I wrote a research paper on Prop 19 last semester, and I'm currently doing an updated research paper on the unforeseen effects once big business takes over California's biggest cash cow, cannabis. So keep the questions coming because this is really helping farm different points of view, thanks.>>>

Cool. The thing that disturbed me in the voter guide was that the pro 19 people didn't counter the anti 19 concerns. It seems their argument is: "hey, prohibition doesn't work...let's change it." If the anti-19's arguments are valid I'd sure like to see them addressed.

[dahcwon]

Well the voter guide was published by the state, so it shows the view of the state of California and not really either side of the real issues involved in legalization.

[Drums]

Well the voter guide was published by the state, so it shows the view of the state of California and not really either side of the real issues involved in legalization.<<<

Totally disagree. They'd print a rebuttle if it was made.

[Drums]

Well...if I was undecided which way to vote, Eric Holden's threat that the Feds would "vigorously enforce federal law no matter what CA does" sealed it for me. So I have a couple questions for my liberal friends:

1) Are you outraged that the Obama Admin has said to the State of Ca: "We don't care about the will of your people, we're the boss, and you're gonna get spanked "?

2) If you *are*, why weren't you when they said *the exact same thing* to the State of AZ over immigration enforcement?

[DuctTapeTheory]

1. No. I am not "outraged," nor am I surprised. It's not the "Obama administration." It's the federal government. The policies have been in place for years. There is simply no change to the status quo.

2. ...I do not support the anti-immigration b.s.

[Drums]

1. No. I am not "outraged," nor am I surprised. It's not the "Obama administration." It's the federal government. The policies have been in place for years. There is simply no change to the status quo.

2. ...I do not support the anti-immigration b.s.>>>

Well, it's not "anti-immigration b.s." first of all. 2nd, so you agree with the Feds stepping in in both cases then?

[DuctTapeTheory]

Your logic is flawed once again, Drums.

Not being outraged and "agreeing with the Feds stepping in" is not the same thing. Nor does one follow the other.

From a reasonable conservative:
Well, because the law as is written, could allow the police to stop anyone who might look like an illegal immigrant. Since most illegal immigrants in Arizona tend to be Mexican and speak Spanish, I have the feeling that there will be a lot of stops made because someone was “DWH” or “Driving While Hispanic.” (http://www.frumforum.com/gop-should-be-ashamed-of-azs-anti-immigration-law)

[Drums]

Your logic is flawed once again, Drums.

Not being outraged and "agreeing with the Feds stepping in" is not the same thing. Nor does one follow the other.

From a reasonable conservative:>>>

Yeah, that's me...always with the "flawed logic" huh?:mad: Ok, in plain English, why would someone support CA bucking the feds and not AZ. *Especially* since AZ is trying to-enforce federal law- and CA is trying to ignore it? And that "reasonable conservative" quote is absolute BS speculation. It doesn't change *anything*. AZ just wants their border protected. Far from being obviously reasonable, YOU call them racist. I'm not sure where you live, but I suspect you (and most others) have NO idea what the reality of an illegal invasion is like. (Yes, "illegal". I have no problem with legal immigration. I've got a TON of Mexican friends, and pretty much all of them are pissed at illegals). If you were here, and grabbed ANYONE off the street at random and asked if they had ever been, or knew someone else who had been in an accident with an illegal, I'd bet you $1000 they'd say yes (I was hit head-on by one who fled). EVERY one of my friends in the construction business is out of work now because their competition underbids them and uses illegal workers. I've been to the ER *twice* for several hours. The first time, I was the only person in there who spoke English, and I was the only one in there laying on the ground writhing in pain (kidney stones, but I didn't know that at the time.) I eventually LEFT and went to a Dr. The 2nd time involved my daughter, so I wasn't gonna leave. Same thing. Only one there that spoke English, waited 6 hours, and got a $3k bill that should've been a $300 bill but I had to pay for all my amigos that were giving false SS #'s and will never pay a dime. YOU will be paying for that. The woods around here are totally littered by illegal encampments. This doesn't even address the crime, and the actual freaking WAR going on here that gets NO press. When you see: "8 policeman beheaded in Juarez", trust me, you are only seeing a fraction of the reality. (hint: they don't count women & children in body counts, and you really only hear of *anything* when it's too public to hide. The Mexican Press is rightly terrified, and won't report most of what they know). Are you following the Austin case, where dude was jetskiing and got whacked, and the Mex police looking into in got whacked? Hear anything about the murdered AZ rancher lately? Yeah, me either

The real irony here is that I'm an old guy, so it only hurts me so much. It's your generation, and your kids, who are going to have to pay the bills we're racking up now. This shouldn't be a partisian issue. It costs *all* of us.

[DuctTapeTheory]

http://www.salon.com/entertainment/comics/cartoon_saturday/2010/10/16/test_drive_2010_conservative_open2010/cartoon.gif

[Drums]

Wow...as accurate as it is funny.