Prop 19

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by obeygiant, Oct 2, 2010.

?

Proposal 19

  1. yes

    36 vote(s)
    85.7%
  2. no

    6 vote(s)
    14.3%
  1. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #1
    Schwarzenegger Signs Bill: Pot Now $100 Fine


    tokeofthetown.com

    Yay! *cough* I hope Prop 19 goes thru as well.
     
  2. rprebel macrumors 6502

    rprebel

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Location:
    Where the bluebonnets bloom
    #2
    Yeah, it's legal, but is ain't a hundred percent legal. I mean you can't walk into a restaurant, roll a joint, and start puffin' away. You're only supposed to smoke in your home or certain designated places.:D:D

    Road trip to Cali, anyone?
     
  3. steve2112 macrumors 68040

    steve2112

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Location:
    East of Lyra, Northwest of Pegasus
    #3
    Well, this is a step in the right direction. I don't use it myself, but I do think marijuana should be legal. It's such a huge waste of resources to go after users. This got me to thinking though. Even if it were made totally legal in a state, wouldn't federal laws override it? Wouldn't the feds have to change the laws for it to be totally legal?
     
  4. obeygiant thread starter macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #4
    ^^

    I think Obama did something about that, but only for medical pot users:

    In November 1996, voters approved Proposition 215, which legalized the cultivation and possession of marijuana in California for medical purposes. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005, however, that federal authorities could continue to prosecute California patients and providers engaged in the cultivation and use of marijuana for medical purposes. Despite having this authority, the U.S. Department of Justice announced in March 2009 that the current administration would not prosecute marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with state medical marijuana laws.



    Prop19 Summary:
    Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Fiscal Impact: Depending on federal, state, and local government actions, potential increased tax and fee revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually and potential correctional savings of several tens of millions of dollars annually.

    WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS

    YES:
    A YES vote on this measure means: Individuals age 21 or older could, under state law, possess and cultivate limited amounts of marijuana for personal use. In addition, the state and local governments could authorize, regulate, and tax commercial marijuana-related activities under certain conditions. These activities would remain illegal under federal law.

    NO:
    A NO vote on this measure means: The possession and cultivation of marijuana for personal use and commercial marijuana-related activities would remain illegal under state law, unless allowed under the state's existing medical marijuana law.

    ARGUMENTS

    PRO:
    COMMON SENSE CONTROL OF MARIJUANA. Stops wasting taxpayer dollars on failed marijuana prohibition. Controls and taxes marijuana like alcohol. Makes marijuana available only to adults. Adds criminal penalties for giving it to anyone under 21. Weakens drug cartels. Enforces road and workplace safety. Generates billions in revenue. Saves taxpayers money.

    CON:
    Opposed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) because allows drivers to smoke marijuana until the moment they climb behind the wheel. Endangers public safety. Jeopardizes $9,400,000,000.00 in school funding, billions in federal contracts, thousands of jobs. Opposed by California's Sheriffs, Police Chiefs, Firefighters and District Attourneys. Vote "No" on 19.
     
  5. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #5
    Alright! Cool! Umm... what? Man I'm so hungry.:cool::eek::confused:
     
  6. DeepIn2U macrumors 68040

    DeepIn2U

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    #6
    Oh YEAH!! Happy New Years in Cali would be nice - but is this law limited to dwellers in California only?!
     
  7. Ttownbeast macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    #7
    Hooray I no longer need to get a passport! We have our own Amsterdam! :D
     
  8. redAPPLE macrumors 68030

    redAPPLE

    Joined:
    May 7, 2002
    Location:
    2 Much Infinite Loops
    #9
    YES!

    Every thread should have an official thread photo. this would be it for this thread.
     
  9. jmann macrumors 604

    jmann

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    Location:
    bump on a log in a hole in the bottom of the sea
    #10
    So glad to hear this. Let's hope the same thing happens for prop. 19.
     
  10. Metatron macrumors 6502

    Metatron

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2002
    #12
    Why I appose this from a personal point of view, I support this as a fair use of state's rights. This was the way laws were intended to be made. People who want to smoke pot can move to Cali, otherwise, stay in your own state.

    However the double standard by the Feds is maddening. Cali will approve Prop 19 and Feds will do nothing, but Arizona residents are being murdered and voted to stop illegal immigration and the Feds throw a fit.
     
  11. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #13
    No thanks. I always found pot to be boring and unproductive. But I am glad to see this. Good job, Arnie.

    Because immigration is federal jurisdiction.
     
  12. obeygiant thread starter macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
  13. aloofman macrumors 68020

    aloofman

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Location:
    Socal
    #15
    True, but there are federal laws against marijuana use and trafficking too. Nothing in the recent loosening of pot laws in California prevents the feds from arresting people instead. The Obama administration has basically said that they won't interfere, but they could change their minds. And who knows what future administrations will do.
     
  14. RawBert macrumors 68000

    RawBert

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Location:
    North Hollywood, CA
    #16
    :D:D:D Le Big Mac.

    This brought us one step closer to full legalization. I can't wait for the day I can walk into a liquor store and see a selection of 150+ types of cannabis in tins, cigars, etc.

    This could be a huge cash cow for the people and government of Cali. Not to mention potato chip sales.
     
  15. patrick0brien macrumors 68040

    patrick0brien

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Location:
    The West Loop
    #17
    -rprebel

    You say it like that it strikes me how close to good 'ol tobacco it is becoming.

    Interesting.
     
  16. RabidBear macrumors member

    RabidBear

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Location:
    San Diego CA
    #18
    The biggest problem with Prop 19 is the Feds and local law enforcement.

    Federal Drug enforcement law still trumps state law. Can anyone see another Ariz style lawsuit from the Feds coming over this. The Obama administration has said it won't prosecute minor pot offenses but how long this lasts is up in the air.

    The local law enforcement is gonna be the real PITA. Let's say you smoked some weed a week ago. Tonight you go to a local bar to watch the band. A local sheriff see's you pulling out of a bar and elects to attempt to arrest you for driving drunk. Even if you pass the 'road side olympics'. He can still pull you down to the station for further testing with probable cause being nothing more than red eyes. Even if you didn't smoke that night. The follicle test will test positive. Now, you are dealing with your first DUI for something you did a week ago. You could rack up multiple DUI's before your system is clear.
     
  17. aloofman macrumors 68020

    aloofman

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Location:
    Socal
    #19
    Seriously? What is the legal limit for driving under the influence of marijuana? Zero? And wouldn't that be the situation now too? You could still get pulled over for DUI for being stoned. Nothing about the new ballot proposition would change driving under the influence.
     
  18. rprebel macrumors 6502

    rprebel

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Location:
    Where the bluebonnets bloom
    #20
    While I'm glad that I have provoked some thought from you on the matter...I was actually just quoting Pulp Fiction.:):cool:

    You are right, though. Marlboro Greens are on the way. It's only a matter of time.
    [​IMG]
     
  19. steve2112 macrumors 68040

    steve2112

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Location:
    East of Lyra, Northwest of Pegasus
    #21
    I find it interesting that California is on the verge of making marijuana legal while smoking tobacco is becoming all but illegal. They (and other states) have banned smoking almost everywhere except your house.
     
  20. OutThere macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #22
    I'm surprised possession was still a misdemeanor in California...it has been a $100 fine+civil citation for up to two offenses of less than 25g in NY state for a while now.
     
  21. aloofman macrumors 68020

    aloofman

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Location:
    Socal
    #23
    Actually it's still consistent. If the proposition passes, Californians would be able to possess up to an ounce and grow small amounts on their own property. But it doesn't let anyone smoke pot in public places. There probably would be private clubs that would carve out legal gray areas for smoking pot away from home, but for the most part, you could smoke pot in fewer places than tobacco smokers can.

    The authors of the ballot initiative has smartly narrowed the legalization to very limited situations. It pries open a little further what the medical marijuana efforts already have done.
     
  22. steve2112 macrumors 68040

    steve2112

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Location:
    East of Lyra, Northwest of Pegasus
    #24
    I just meant in an overall sense. Nationwide, it seems there has been a movement to make tobacco all but illegal while there is a growing movement to make pot legal. It seems like people want to criminalize tobacco, and de-criminalize pot. All across the country, smoking has been banned in restaurants/bars, public buildings, open public lands such as parks, and even in your own car if children are present, yet a growing number of people are for legalizing SMOKING pot. I just find it amusing.

    (Yes, I realize there are other ways to consume it, but that is the most popular way)
     
  23. aloofman macrumors 68020

    aloofman

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Location:
    Socal
    #25
    Maybe they're actually converging instead, but they've come from opposite ends of the spectrum. Smoking tobacco used to be done pretty much everywhere, but was legal and no one thought much of it. Pot has been pretty much illegal everywhere for a long time. Society gradually realized that second-hand smoke is annoying and unhealthy and people shouldn't have to put up with it. That was always true with pot too, but smoking pot generally couldn't be done in public anyway. Now we've gotten to the point where people mostly agree that you can't stop people from smoking either of them, but you can discourage them from doing so and prevent them from bothering others with it.

    Personally, I think both should be regulated as OTC drugs, but that will probably never happen.
     

Share This Page