California's Prop 19 is the most interesting "election" this year.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Cartels aren't importing the $350 an ounce stuff, they are importing the brick that currently is already $35 an ounce.

No pot is selling for $35 an ounce right now, not retail anyway. Not even the cheapest stuff. Nowhere close.

- wolf
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
The state courts will certainly uphold the law. But the federal courts will affirm that the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution makes federal law trump state law on drugs. So the Fed could arrest those who openly sell marijuana.

What's interesting, though, would be the status of those who merely possess and/or use MJ in CA. I doubt the Federal government could legally arrest a CA resident for smoking a joint - there's no interstate commerce issue in that.

But possession of MJ could be dicey - the federal laws probably deem that possession of more than a certain quantity (probably 1 ounce) makes you a "dealer" ==> interstate commerce. So growing your own in CA would be risky - who would bother if they couldn't grow (say) a full year's supply?

Just a few points of clarification. If this passes, there is no issue with it being "struck down" by any court. It really isn't even possible. A state can de-criminalize anything it wants to de-criminalize under its own laws. If we pass this law, pot will be legal under CA law unless or until that law changes. The reason I am clarifying is to point out that this isn't a "pre-emption" issue. Pre-emption would arise if we wanted to ban or regulate something that isn't banned by the Feds. Nothing in the pre-emption doctrine says that we must ban whatever the feds choose to ban.

Of course, the fed will continue to ban it as all court precedent supports the ability of the fed to do so under the commerce clause. The issue here will be one of enforcement. On this one I'm just not sure. Does this administration have a political interest in vigorous raiding of California pot growers? Does it even have the resources? The fact is, federal enforcement is usally aimed at very large operations and cross-border smuggling. They rely on states to pursue drug prohibition through their own laws and their own enforcement, which is where the vast majority of arrests are made. I dunno. I can see the feds getting involved and raiding some very large growers and/or high volume non-medical sellers. I don't see any issue with small to mid scale growing and certainly not with personal possession.

- wolf
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,231
6,338
126
The assholes are the ones who are motivated to vote. It's some of the best joy there is in fucking other people. Marijuana is a known asshole killer and a dangerous threat. People with the 'whatever attitude' need to be beaten. Righteous indignation is asshole bigot gasoline.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
The other is the notion that drugs beyond booze render society unable to be productive over the long term and create dependence on government to 'support' the life of the druggie... as they'd become.

No they don't. I've known MANY successful, productive potheads. You'd be surprised how many normal everyday people, managers, business persons, retail clerks, students, etc ... smoke weed. Also you're ignoring the fact that people already are living the life of a "druggie", and some are already dependent on the government. Legalizing it isn't going to create what already exist.

but in court the State has rights too... do they trump mine... I think so.

I don't, of the people by the people, for the people. The Constitution is not the government granting us rights, the Constitution protects our rights from the government.

I use that term to include all stuff that alters the mind... including medicine. But medicine is regulated... You can't drive with Oxy in the system... legally.

Depends. It would be a situational thing, and more than likely involve a field sobriety test. There are a lot of chronic pain patients that have been taking opiates for years and don't get high, and drive to work everyday. Simply taking opiates doesn't mean you're going to be a pile of comatose gel.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
well, I guess we know where that bullshit mexican brick is going :D

South Texas man, Brownsville, San Antonio, and Dallas are some of the first stops for most of it. Same brick they get everywhere else, just by the time it gets to them it's passed through a lot of hands and been "taxed" a few times. To be fair though $35 would be a special friends price, normally it's $45-50, and $35 for a half. There's some of the $350ish an ounce stuff around, but most here see it as a waste when for just less than twice that you can get a pound.
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
South Texas man, Brownsville, San Antonio, and Dallas are some of the first stops for most of it. Same brick they get everywhere else, just by the time it gets to them it's passed through a lot of hands and been "taxed" a few times. To be fair though $35 would be a special friends price, normally it's $45-50, and $35 for a half. There's some of the $350ish an ounce stuff around, but most here see it as a waste when for just less than twice that you can get a pound.

Seriously dude, I've seen that $50/oz shit and THAT is like pissing money away. Does nothing but fuck up your lungs.

Rather have an OZ of OG vs a pound of brick.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
That would be interesting, the commerce clause seems to cover almost everything under the sun. But, if you couldn't legally sell the MJ outside of California because it is illegal everywhere else, could it be considered interstate commerce. I would bet that even illegal commerce is covered under that clause, along with everything else we do in our lives.

Yes, it would be. Even if drugs produced/sold in CA MIGHT ONLY IN THEORY cross state lines, then the Feds could (and probably would) claim jurisdiction for sales (and possession of more than a nominal quantity) within CA.

Think about it: Nothing would prevent someone from another state from crossing into CA, legally buying pot there, and then driving back across the border. And CA would become a tourist haven for those wishing to legally use MJ. Would it be legal to use pot in CA hotel rooms? In the apartment of a CA "friend?"

The Feds would have a field day with these little details, and Californians would almost certainly be held hostage by federal law.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Maybe not where you live, but don't pretend to tell me what's going on where I live.

Sorry, I didn't think we were discussing Texas nor had I even noticed your location tag since the thread is about California. I can only trust whatever you say about what's going on where you live.

- wolf
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Seriously dude, I've seen that $50/oz shit and THAT is like pissing money away. Does nothing but fuck up your lungs.

Rather have an OZ of OG vs a pound of brick.

Actually down here you can get some pretty decent bud (not always bricked up), and it most certainly doesn't just "fuck up your lungs", or so I am told ;)
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
Actually down here you can get some pretty decent bud (not always bricked up), and it most certainly doesn't just "fuck up your lungs", or so I am told ;)

That's like giving a guy some MD2020 when his daily drink is 150 yr old scotch =P
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,642
62
91
Yes, it would be. Even if drugs produced/sold in CA MIGHT ONLY IN THEORY cross state lines, then the Feds could (and probably would) claim jurisdiction for sales (and possession of more than a nominal quantity) within CA.

Think about it: Nothing would prevent someone from another state from crossing into CA, legally buying pot there, and then driving back across the border. And CA would become a tourist haven for those wishing to legally use MJ. Would it be legal to use pot in CA hotel rooms? In the apartment of a CA "friend?"

The Feds would have a field day with these little details, and Californians would almost certainly be held hostage by federal law.

I pointed this out to my roommates a while back, jokingly said I was going to buy property in Weed, Needles, Felicity, Blythe, Baker and Floriston if Prop 19 passes.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Yes, it would be. Even if drugs produced/sold in CA MIGHT ONLY IN THEORY cross state lines, then the Feds could (and probably would) claim jurisdiction for sales (and possession of more than a nominal quantity) within CA.

Think about it: Nothing would prevent someone from another state from crossing into CA, legally buying pot there, and then driving back across the border. And CA would become a tourist haven for those wishing to legally use MJ. Would it be legal to use pot in CA hotel rooms? In the apartment of a CA "friend?"

The Feds would have a field day with these little details, and Californians would almost certainly be held hostage by federal law.


To further add to your point. Look at what happens when a state wants to actually enforce a Federal law that is being ignored by the Feds! LoL.

Oh and the idea that weed would be a tax savior for CA is stupid. If pot is legalize then everyone and their mother will be growing plants in their backyard. Pot is not hard to grow at all being that it is after all a weed.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
To further add to your point. Look at what happens when a state wants to actually enforce a Federal law that is being ignored by the Feds! LoL.

Oh and the idea that weed would be a tax savior for CA is stupid. If pot is legalize then everyone and their mother will be growing plants in their backyard. Pot is not hard to grow at all being that it is after all a weed.

It won't be a fiscal savior, but some revenues will be collected, and some costs will be avoided. The fact is, growing your own stuff requires non-trivial effort. The incentive to do so, accordingly, depends on the price if you would buy rather than grow. The more who grow, the lower the price goes, but at some point, it reaches an equilibrium where whoever isn't already growing has no incentive to grow, and this is the market of people who will buy.

- wolf
 

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,418
1,599
126
Oh and the idea that weed would be a tax savior for CA is stupid. If pot is legalize then everyone and their mother will be growing plants in their backyard. Pot is not hard to grow at all being that it is after all a weed.

then we'd make a killing on sales taxes @ hydro & convenience stores!
 

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,670
1
0
To further add to your point. Look at what happens when a state wants to actually enforce a Federal law that is being ignored by the Feds! LoL.

Oh and the idea that weed would be a tax savior for CA is stupid. If pot is legalize then everyone and their mother will be growing plants in their backyard. Pot is not hard to grow at all being that it is after all a weed.
There's a big difference between the weed you can grow in your backyard and the good, genetically-engineered stuff that you can grow inside under lamps and with proper irrigation.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
No they don't. I've known MANY successful, productive potheads. You'd be surprised how many normal everyday people, managers, business persons, retail clerks, students, etc ... smoke weed. Also you're ignoring the fact that people already are living the life of a "druggie", and some are already dependent on the government. Legalizing it isn't going to create what already exist.



I don't, of the people by the people, for the people. The Constitution is not the government granting us rights, the Constitution protects our rights from the government.



Depends. It would be a situational thing, and more than likely involve a field sobriety test. There are a lot of chronic pain patients that have been taking opiates for years and don't get high, and drive to work everyday. Simply taking opiates doesn't mean you're going to be a pile of comatose gel.

I think, if I recall correctly, I was semi speaking from the pov of the State. I think I was addressing the Rational Basis under which the State can deny (across the board) what some consider rights.

I personally don't care if a person uses MJ or Booze so long as I'm not affected adversely by their consumption. I'd not outlaw it to insure that condition is maintained or mitigated. I don't know what people do in their homes and if they drink or smoke or what ever... I don't pay much attention to the 'polls' that are generated to edify regarding this... As I indicated in some post, I'll vote for the measure.

Regarding your last para, I think it is illegal to drive under the influence (meaning in your system) of booze beyond some value and or drugs regardless of their medicinal purpose that meet the stated criteria for that... You speak to the proof needed to arrest... I speak to the law as I understand it. Getting caught violating it takes the proof you mentioned. Well, the probable cause would lead to the testing. So, it seems to me that folks with long term use may not exhibit the behavior that would reach to the probable cause to be stopped... But, having 80 mg of Oxy in the blood system and if the authority has the right to demand a blood test I'm pretty sure you'd be in jeopardy...
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
There's a big difference between the weed you can grow in your backyard and the good, genetically-engineered stuff that you can grow inside under lamps and with proper irrigation.

I was curious a few months back, and did a little research on what was involved in growing the highest quality MJ available. I came up with a total expense of about $500 to produce several pounds of finished, top-quality MJ. And the "how-to" instructions on the web don't appear to be all that difficult.
 
Last edited:

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
I was curious a few months back, and did a little research on what was involved in growing the highest quality MJ available. I came up with a total expense of about $500 to produce several pounds of finished, top-quality MJ. And the "how-to" instructions on the web don't appear to be all that difficult.

What people claim you can accomplish at home, in some article, may not be the result you end up with. Good gardening requires more than just an investment - it's a science and an art.

- wolf
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Taxing it is a dream world canard. One major reason MJ was kept illegal was difficultly to tax combined with puritanism of the times. It's not like tobacco, shit grows anywhere and easily rolled to it's full effect. But then again prisons being emptier will balance out phantom revenue.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I was curious a few months back, and did a little research on what was involved in growing the highest quality MJ available. I came up with a total expense of about $500 to produce several pounds of finished, top-quality MJ. And the "how-to" instructions on the web don't appear to be all that difficult.

You got deep pockets. What we did as kids was throw the best bud seeds in a field and SOS a few months later. We impregnated the 405/corona del mar fwy which has irrigation. Back then they did not have GPS so we relied on triangulation. Essentially State paid for bud +1.
 
Last edited:

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
You speak to the proof needed to arrest... I speak to the law as I understand it. Getting caught violating it takes the proof you mentioned. Well, the probable cause would lead to the testing. So, it seems to me that folks with long term use may not exhibit the behavior that would reach to the probable cause to be stopped... But, having 80 mg of Oxy in the blood system and if the authority has the right to demand a blood test I'm pretty sure you'd be in jeopardy...

There's no test that they are going to do that can tell how much you have in your system, and there are plenty of opiate tolerant chronic pain patients that do not even get a buzz off 80mg of OxyContin. Obvioulsy there are some people that could take a Tylenol 3 and be a danger on the road, but some are perfectly fine to drive while loaded up with enough to put some people in the ground. How much you take doesn't matter, what matters is your tolerance. I have personal experiance with this, so I know for a fact that you can drive away from an encounter with police in the right circumstances.