California Proposition 19: Control & Tax Cannabis

[theory]

Pretend you live in California.

What's your take on Proposition 19?

I don't have to pretend, of course. I am progressive and I will be voting yes.

The basics -

Proposition 19 (http://www.taxcannabis.org) will:

• Control cannabis like alcohol: Allow adults 21 and older in California to possess up to one ounce of cannabis

• Give the state and local governments the ability to tax the sale of cannabis to adults 21 and older

• Generate billions of dollars in revenue to fund what matters most in California: jobs, healthcare, public safety, state parks, roads, transportation, and more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19
http://www.taxcannabis.org

[Qfwfq]

And how will those jobs be filled if all your citizens are sucking down bong hits behind the YMCA?

I'd vote yes for the simple fact that when kids try to buy cannabis they aren't offered chemicals instead.

[A Schnitzel]

I'd prefer it if they just lowered the drinking age.

[giegs]

Naturally. It would make for interesting problems with bordering states though.

[Neville]

I bet Californians fuck this one up too.

[Anonymous]

Hell yes. I don't want to have to blow $100 on getting a cannabis card.

[theory]

I bet Californians fuck this one up too.

Please elaborate.

[C.J.Woolf]

Will the LDS (aka Mormon) church drop millions on the killjoy side of this one, like they did on Prop 8?

[Anonymous]

Will the LDS (aka Mormon) church drop millions on the killjoy side of this one, like they did on Prop 8?

The problem with that is that it's not a moral issue for a lot of people now. With people for whom it is a moral issue, I think it's in the same moral category as eating dogs; it's revolting and bad for no rational reason. They'd have to cater to people with that attitude. The question is if those people are still in the majority.

[C.J.Woolf]

The problem with that is that it's not a moral issue for a lot of people now. With people for whom it is a moral issue, I think it's in the same moral category as eating dogs; it's revolting and bad for no rational reason. They'd have to cater to people with that attitude. The question is if those people are still in the majority.
Yes, I imagine it is harder to whip the social conservatives up into a lather over pot than over Teh Gay.

[oxyjen]

Wasn't California so desperate for money that the great Ah-nuld said that state workers getting paid 60k a year normally would have to work for minimum wage?

Their budget situation is so dire that this may actually have a shot at passing.

[Chunes]

Yes, I imagine it is harder to whip the social conservatives up into a lather over pot than over Teh Gay.

I think you'd be surprised..

[Qfwfq]

Please elaborate.

I think Neville is referring to proposition 8.

[earwax]

Can a state legalize something that the Federal government considers illegal?

[C.J.Woolf]

Can a state legalize something that the Federal government considers illegal?
Damn good question. My guess is the feds could continue to interdict interstate traffic of cannabis, but turn a blind eye to cannabis that is grown and distributed in California.

[Neville]

Can a state legalize something that the Federal government considers illegal?

Yes, but federal supersedes state law so it still remains illegal on the federal level. It all depends on if the feds choose to enforce it.

[Bugs701]

Yes, but federal supersedes state law so it still remains illegal on the federal level. It all depends on if the feds choose to enforce it.

Actually, it's a constitutional issue. A federal law holds sway within a state only if it deals with an area that the constitution specifically authorizes the federal government to regulate. Most commonly the Interstate Commerce clause is (ab)used to justify federal law superceding state law. I have not followed the issue much, so I'm not sure, but I think this is one of the reasons that state medical marijuana laws have managed to hold up.

[gregkdc]

Will the LDS (aka Mormon) church drop millions on the killjoy side of this one, like they did on Prop 8?

I don't think so I haven't heard anything about it living here in "happy valley". When Prop 8 was gaining momentum the Mormons were scared that if enough Sates allow Gay/Lesbian marriage then it would eventually be mandated by a federal law that all states allow such marriages. At this point they would be putt over a barrel because they would now have to explain why they don't allow homosexuals to go to the temple when it is there right to be married (doing so would defile the temple and they would have a large number of people leave the religion).

When you consider all of the backing pro-homosexual groups get form the ACLU etc. it makes sense, it is just a corporation trying to protect its interests. No body really cares if you are prejudice towards drug users. I have often argued that the church is BS to people who can’t fathom the idea of the church excepting gays because some day they will, just like they did with African Americans.

Last Utah has a very lucrative business of taxing alcohol with its liquor stores. If anything Utah/the Mormons would benefit greatly from taxing another drug.

[Harion]

yes! teh perfect answer!
with free market you drive the prices down
putting illegal dealers (those still outside California when this happens) out of business
California the mecca of weed!

California can say goodbye to its financial woes
a tourist blowing all their money in California when they're high sounds good enough for Arnold, so why couldn't it be good enough for you?

[Cam'ron]

If this passes I'll vacation in California twice a year.

[socrateez]

Actually, it's a constitutional issue. A federal law holds sway within a state only if it deals with an area that the constitution specifically authorizes the federal government to regulate. Most commonly the Interstate Commerce clause is (ab)used to justify federal law superceding state law. I have not followed the issue much, so I'm not sure, but I think this is one of the reasons that state medical marijuana laws have managed to hold up.
That is true. It is also true that Federal interpretation of Interstate Commerce is abused.
As long as the feds have Cannabis in the scheduling at 1, they have a end run around state authority...yet again. But yes, it is all whether they want to enforce it. The Feds turn a blind eye to its own laws? Hmn.
All the current research on Cannabis indicates the information used in its scheduling were misinterpreted, lied about, fabricated, and misused. At minimum, it should be rescheduled. Hell, Marinol isnt even schedule 1 and its synthetic THC! One of the requirements of schedule 1 is that the substance in question has no medical value. Since marinol is a medication and isnt schedule 1, what gives? Just one of many arguments I could make, but yeah I'm for legalizing it.

[Neville]

Actually, it's a constitutional issue. A federal law holds sway within a state only if it deals with an area that the constitution specifically authorizes the federal government to regulate. Most commonly the Interstate Commerce clause is (ab)used to justify federal law superceding state law. I have not followed the issue much, so I'm not sure, but I think this is one of the reasons that state medical marijuana laws have managed to hold up.

And that whole supremacy clause too. The feds know their shit man.

The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to come in effect only when the Federal Government has acted in a given field. In the case of Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that "A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the supremacy clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:

[1]Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible, or

[2]"...state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress...

The medical marijuana laws hold up because the justice department backed off.


That is true. It is also true that Federal interpretation of Interstate Commerce is abused.
As long as the feds have Cannabis in the scheduling at 1, they have a end run around state authority...yet again. But yes, it is all whether they want to enforce it. The Feds turn a blind eye to its own laws? Hmn.
All the current research on Cannabis indicates the information used in its scheduling were misinterpreted, lied about, fabricated, and misused. At minimum, it should be rescheduled. Hell, Marinol isnt even schedule 1 and its synthetic THC! One of the requirements of schedule 1 is that the substance in question has no medical value. Since marinol is a medication and isnt schedule 1, what gives? Just one of many arguments I could make, but yeah I'm for legalizing it.

Happens alllllllll the fucking time.

[echoes]

Yes, I imagine it is harder to whip the social conservatives up into a lather over pot than over Teh Gay.

what if I told you marijuana...makes you gay?

I can see the add now *boy takes a bong hit and looks up to see a shirtless muscle bear in his room, his pecs shining with gun oil.*

muscle bear: those lips weren't just meant for sucking bongs! On you're knees, boy!

Then the camera can pan out to a somber narrator outside the bedroom winder, forced to witness the tragedy of another lost soul being introduced to the mind blowing pleasures that only another man can give him.

Would that "lather" up those conservatives? I'm pretty hot and bothered over this dire issue.

[socrateez]

Damn. Ive been smoking for 30 years. I never knew it would turn you gay.:sadbanana: I must have incredible tolerance.

[C.J.Woolf]

what if I told you marijuana...makes you gay?

I can see the add now *boy takes a bong hit and looks up to see a shirtless muscle bear in his room, his pecs shining with gun oil.*

muscle bear: those lips weren't just meant for sucking bongs! On you're knees, boy!

Then the camera can pan out to a somber narrator outside the bedroom winder, forced to witness the tragedy of another lost soul being introduced to the mind blowing pleasures that only another man can give him.

Would that "lather" up those conservatives? I'm pretty hot and bothered over this dire issue.
Where were you when they were making Reefer Madness? :grin:

[fripping]

the intrade likelihood keeps going down, but at least it will pass in my heart. just like oregon octa 2010.

[C.J.Woolf]

the intrade likelihood keeps going down, but at least it will pass in my heart. just like oregon octa 2010.
An interesting post in the blog FiveThirtyEight: (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/07/broadus-effect-social-desirability-bias.html)


This November, Californians will vote on Proposition 19, which would legalize, tax and regulate marijuana for recreational consumption. Six polls have been conducted since the measure made the ballot in March. Three -- one from Public Policy Polling and two from SurveyUSA -- used automated scripts ("robopolls") to conduct their interviews. The other three, from Field, PPIC, and Reuters/Ipsos -- used live human operators.

The methodologies split in the support they show for the initiative. The three automated surveys all have Prop 19 passing by a double-digit margin. The human-operator polls, meanwhile, each show it trailing narrowly.
People tend to tell a human pollster the socially acceptable answer, while they will tell a machine what they really think -- which is the way they will vote, given a secret ballot.

In other words, this is probably good news.

[fripping]

god willing.

[echoes]

How steep are the planned taxes? I remember hearing some people suggest they tax it as heavily as cigarettes. which would lead to people just buying it off the streets again. I know a lot of smokers who refuse to pay the small premium the clubs add on.

[Ferrus]

I'd prefer it if they just lowered the drinking age.
As I take it though that would mean your state won't get any shiny new roads.

[socrateez]

An interesting post in the blog FiveThirtyEight: (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/07/broadus-effect-social-desirability-bias.html)


People tend to tell a human pollster the socially acceptable answer, while they will tell a machine what they really think -- which is the way they will vote, given a secret ballot.

In other words, this is probably good news.
That is an interesting predictor. Could also be an interesting way to manipulate poll results.

[NoahFence]

Damn. Ive been smoking for 30 years. I never knew it would turn you gay.:sadbanana: I must have incredible tolerance.

Maybe you started gay and it turned you straight.

Now THERE'S an advertising campaign...:think:

[socrateez]

Maybe you started gay and it turned you straight.

Now THERE'S an advertising campaign...:think:
:p
"Smoked straight"...The story of a young gay man who discovers the healing power of heaven through Cannabis.

I wonder if we could get christian conservatives behind that?