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

[LunarRay]

Government's Blessing, or Government's Curse?

But it is still Government that dictates whether man rajes Soma, or not.

It's Government fight against a war against drugs, which is leading towards countries like Mexico becoming inhabitable.

It's countries like the USA, which throw their citizens in jail for possesing, Soma.

-John

Hmmmm I guess that depends on how one looks at it... blessing or curse.

My premise is that we are or ought to be government... not the reality we have today... The common citizen going to 'Washington' for a bit and making sure what the rest of us want is what occurs.... that is my government notion.

In this case, 'Soma' is the variety of substances that might be called inducement toward complacent behavior... iow, get everyone to be on the same daffy page and no one knows what is going on but the few who somehow benefit from that condition.

It seems to me that every effort to eliminate the consumption of this 'Today's Soma' by government goes against the notion of doped up ding bats is better than conscious thinking folks...

In this case and in many cases it is demand that creates the supply... I'm not too sure supply creates demand, iow.
Mexico or where ever is the result of demand and if it is 'home grown' that eliminates that issue.... elsewhere...

 

[Moonbeam]

I think that because most people don't use marijuana they will vote to keep it illegal just because they are assholes. The ability to keep somebody else from enjoying something you don't is where assholes derive their joy.

 

[EagleKeeper]

$20 an ounce when you were in HS? Fuck I wish those prices carried over to today. It's easily 10x's the cost for lower grade medical marijuana. 20x's for good stuff.

I bet you anything he is remembering $20/eighth oz. as $20/oz. I don't think even cheap Mexican weed in the 1970's was $20/ounce.

- wolf

Some of the "enlightened" kids in HS were using it.
A clear sandwhich baggy of the stuff was $20 according to them.

I burned my lungs with cedar bark/newspaper when 11. Never felt the need to burn my $$ again

 

[EagleKeeper]

Once the state gets their hooks into a new money spigot; it will be opened as wide as possible

The state needs money and its not your business what people do with their bodies. Smoking weed is a personal choice... I'm just glad we will be able to sin tax it vs. spending money on law enforcement and incarceration.

True.

The states does need money - it wastes what it has and refuses to be fiscally responsible. An extra source of money will not solve its budget - it will allow them to put off the hard choices or come up with additional pet programs because of all the $$ that they envision rolling in.



However, if the drug impacts a person's ability to interact with society, it does become my concern.

 

[ericlp]

True.




However, if the drug impacts a person's ability to interact with society, it does become my concern.

You mean like Alcohol, Prozac and the MANY MANY other drugs on the market? You could say caffeine could be classified in that as well.

I guess you have many concerns eh?

 

[EagleKeeper]

You mean like Alcohol, Prozac and the MANY MANY other drugs on the market? You could say caffeine could be classified in that as well.

I guess you have many concerns eh?

Regulated

 

[Ns1]

Meg Whitman went on camera today saying she was vehemently against Prop 19

 

[shira]

I'm for it but deadbeat potheads don't deserve social services.

The government savings subsequent to legalization would dwarf any added social-service costs. Note that virtually no one is "hooked" on weed.

 

[shira]

Let me correct myself: the only social services alcoholics and potheads should get is help with their addiction. No destroying your brain with alcohol or drugs and then whining that you can't work because of it.

The direct damage caused by the use of marijuana is extremely small. It is dwarfed by that caused by alcohol.

 

[nonlnear]

Meg Whitman went on camera today saying she was vehemently against Prop 19

Along with almost all the legislators on both sides of the aisle who are deep in the game. Everybody who wants to play in the big leagues has to suck up to the major lobbyists, which means they are unable to represent the people on certain issues. I don't see how it can be taken as significant of anything other than the fact that there are wealthy lobbyists backing the power seats (both D and R) who oppose prop 19.

 

[woolfe9999]

I didn't think to check the polling on Prop 19 until just now. It looks good.

April 20, 2010[13] SurveyUSA 500 56% 42%
May 9–16, 2010[14] PPIC 1168 49% 48%
June 22–July 5, 2010[15] Field Poll 1005 44% 48%
July 8–11, 2010[16] SurveyUSA 614 50% 40%
July 23–25, 2010[17] Public Policy Polling 614 52% 36%
August 9–11, 2010[18] SurveyUSA 602 50% 40% %
August 31–September 1, 2010[19] SurveyUSA 569 47% 43%

So far only 1 poll of 7 shows it trailing, and that was from 3 months ago. My main concerns is that there appears to be some narrowing trend. The last poll shows it up by 4%, which is within the margin of error. It's too close to be sure. It's unclear whether these polls are tracking likely voters or not. Anyone in CA who supports this needs to be sure to get out to vote.

- wolf

 

[Ns1]

I didn't think to check the polling on Prop 19 until just now. It looks good.

April 20, 2010[13] SurveyUSA 500 56% 42%
May 9–16, 2010[14] PPIC 1168 49% 48%
June 22–July 5, 2010[15] Field Poll 1005 44% 48%
July 8–11, 2010[16] SurveyUSA 614 50% 40%
July 23–25, 2010[17] Public Policy Polling 614 52% 36%
August 9–11, 2010[18] SurveyUSA 602 50% 40% %
August 31–September 1, 2010[19] SurveyUSA 569 47% 43%

So far only 1 poll of 7 shows it trailing, and that was from 3 months ago. My main concerns is that there appears to be some narrowing trend. The last poll shows it up by 4%, which is within the margin of error. It's too close to be sure. It's unclear whether these polls are tracking likely voters or not. Anyone in CA who supports this needs to be sure to get out to vote.

- wolf

Personally, I don't think 19 has a chance in hell of passing. Maybe 5-10 years, but not yet.

 

[woolfe9999]

Personally, I don't think 19 has a chance in hell of passing. Maybe 5-10 years, but not yet.

How exactly did you get that conclusion from the polling data I just showed?

- wolf

 

[Ns1]

How exactly did you get that conclusion from the polling data I just showed?

- wolf

Because polls aren't accurate and with a 5% margin of error your poll could very well be 47 v 43 going the other way.

Besides, I'm inclined to believe that old people vote, and older people will be more likely to vote no.

 

[shira]

How exactly did you get that conclusion from the polling data I just showed?

- wolf

It may well pass, but the Feds will screw it up. Medical marijuana is one thing (they'll claim), but they'll come in with guns blazing if recreational weed is openly available in CA. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[JSt0rm]

It may well pass, but the Feds will screw it up. Medical marijuana is one thing (they'll claim), but they'll come in with guns blazing if recreational weed is openly available in CA. I hope I'm wrong.

There are people who make their living waging war against the citizens of this country. They and the industries that support them wont give that up so easily.

 

[tinker2141]

There are people who make their living waging war against the citizens of this country. They and the industries that support them wont give that up so easily.

People do this all the time. I hate a lot of them on both sides. I think the Courts will up hold this law though. They will be hard pressed not to. I think if the Feds push the issue it very well may back fire and become nationally legal.

 

[nonlnear]

It may well pass, but the Feds will screw it up. Medical marijuana is one thing (they'll claim), but they'll come in with guns blazing if recreational weed is openly available in CA. I hope I'm wrong.

That would be a beautiful thing. The only thing better than the GOP tearing itself apart would be the Democrat party tearing itself apart at the same time. THAT could realistically be the catalyst needed to spark a total realignment of partisan power, even more significant than the big switch that happened over civil rights. The stars are aligned...

 

[shira]

People do this all the time. I hate a lot of them on both sides. I think the Courts will up hold this law though. They will be hard pressed not to. I think if the Feds push the issue it very well may back fire and become nationally legal.

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?

 

[xj0hnx]

Yeah, just don't mention the taxing. 🙂

Anyway, I doubt the taxes will make up for the price decline. One study said it could decline to $35/ounce which is about 1/10th of the current retail price. Assuming that study is off by 2:1 and it goes to $70/ounce, if this is taxed to 100% of its value, which would be far more than even the cigarette tax, then you'd be at $140/ounce, less than half the current price.

- wolf

Cartels aren't importing the $350 an ounce stuff, they are importing the brick that currently is already $35 an ounce.

 

[Ns1]

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?

shit man, it's risky now even for personal MMJ growers.

 

[daishi5]

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?

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.

 

[Ns1]

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.

the answer is YES

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled on June 6, 2005 that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which allows the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce... among the several States," Congress may ban home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

the biggest pile of steaming shit ever.

 

[tinker2141]

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?

Above poster answered my questions apparently.

But will the federal courts be willing to defy the people a third time this year? They have already struck down several initiatives by the people as unconstitutional. Are they willing to do so with this issue? Are the elected leaders ready to have absolutely every one pissed off; I think this issue would do it? Only an extreme minority in society would find this offensive. It could even improve treatment for those suffering from real addiction issues. The majority of us who were stuck in health class, being lectured by some idiot about the dangers of DOPE and laughing about it are adults. We know the who, what and why of it. It’s time to use it to our advantage in the same ways we tax alcohol and tobacco.

 

[woolfe9999]

Because polls aren't accurate and with a 5% margin of error your poll could very well be 47 v 43 going the other way.

Besides, I'm inclined to believe that old people vote, and older people will be more likely to vote no.

These points are reasonable which is why I am concerned over that most recent poll (the earlier polls give it a wide lead). However, I wouldn't bank it *failing* to pass based on that polling data. At worst, it's 50/50.

- wolf