Prop 19 up in smoke! Bummer!

[Pneumothorax]

I'm quite surprised at the results as this state is Pwned by the Democrats anyway. BTW I'm a registered Republican and I did vote yes on 19 lol. I'd rather have people high on weed than prescription drugs.

 

[Tequila]

damn, talk about a lurker. been a member for decade and only have 4K post?

Haha. I can only dream of 4k posts.

As for Prop19. I thought it would be a lot closer than that. I'm not a pot smoker but I see no reason to criminalize it.

 

[Moonbeam]

I told you it wouldn't pass. The idea of somebody enjoying themselves without having to suffer first isn't something self-haters will easily permit. Such people could be dangerous via inhibition, hehe.

However, the bill WAS poorly written, so there is always that to consider too.

 

[her209]

I think subconsciously the pot smokers wanted this Prop to fail because legalizing it would have taken the fun and thrill out of doing something illegal - kind of like smoking or drinking when you're underage. You're one sick puppy.

(Not a pot smoker.)

 

[airdata]

I'm quite surprised at the results as this state is Pwned by the Democrats anyway. BTW I'm a registered Republican and I did vote yes on 19 lol. I'd rather have people high on weed than prescription drugs.

The thing is though that they're already high. Legalization in other places around the world has not shown drastic increases in usage.

Legalizing and regulating will just help to regulate and control it.

I don't think mexican cartels have as much market share in california as they do elsewhere since there are so many local growers and dispensaries where people goto get their supply...

Legalization elsewhere though would help to curtail money going to drug cartels, and keep people from having to go through shady characters to get their weed.

 

[sactoking]

Duh, most of the people who supported Prop 19 were nonvoting felons

 

[thraashman]

damn, talk about a lurker. been a member for decade and only have 4K post?

That doesn't even make sense. I've been a member longer with fewer posts. His post count is still higher than 1 a day.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Looking at the map it looks very similar to the one for Prop 8. The coastal cities with the exception of San Diego, vs the entire inland section of the state.

Makes me hate Fresno even more.

 

[Jiggz]

It's no over until the fat lady sings. The fat judge that is. Just like Prop 8 this will end up and will be won in a CA court!

 

[her209]

It's no over until the fat lady sings. The fat judge that is. Just like Prop 8 this will end up and will be won in a CA court!

Unless the state legislature decides to act.

 

[CrackRabbit]

It's no over until the fat lady sings. The fat judge that is. Just like Prop 8 this will end up and will be won in a CA court!

Somehow I doubt that. Prop 8 had some serious constitutional issues behind it, 19 (in defeat) doesn't.
If it had passed you could damn well bet there would of been a court battle, but it would of been California vs the US.
Maybe the legislature could pass laws similar to it, but doubt any of them have enough sense or balls to do it.

 

[Steeplerot]

prop 19 was bs, why would someone vote to basically admit what you do is criminal. Every pot club were asking to vote no.

 

[her209]

Somehow I doubt that. Prop 8 had some serious constitutional issues behind it, 19 (in defeat) doesn't.
If it had passed you could damn well bet there would of been a court battle, but it would of been California vs the US.
Maybe the legislature could pass laws similar to it, but doubt any of them have enough sense or balls to do it.

Its still a possibility with the budget hole... but I'm not counting on it.

 

[MrMatt]

It was a vague and poorly written bill if I recall.

 

[BoomerD]

So disappointed in CA, war on drugs will continue. Drain on money and resources. Not too mention encroaching on liberty. Sigh.

Haha. I can only dream of 4k posts.

As for Prop19. I thought it would be a lot closer than that. I'm not a pot smoker but I see no reason to criminalize it.

Pot has already been "decriminalized" in California. It's currently no worse than a minor traffic ticket.

I don't see the city, county, or state police agencies spending resources to bust pot smokers...but the drug dealers...yes.

I'm one of the most vehement "anti-drug" people on these boards...yet in spite of my misgivings about the way it was written, I still voted Yes on 19.

Legalizing pot wouldn't have done anymore than inconvenience the cartels. Since MOST of the pot in California is grown within the borders, it wouldn't have impacted the smuggling operations, MOST of the big grow operations that get busted are linked to the Mexican cartels, not to "Joe Potsmoker," and with the resultant drop in prices that legalization would have brought, the cartels would simply shift sales to other states.

My biggest objections to Prop 19 are the same ones I've always had against legalization of pot.

1) No accurate and quick way to test a driver that discriminates between the joint he smoked last weekend in the comfort of his living room, and the joint he smoked 10 minutes ago while driving down the highway.

2) Many work-comp insurance policies are written with "drug-free workplace" standards. Since Prop 19 said that a company could only use test results against an employee if they could prove that it negatively impacted said employees' performance, that would most likely have caused a HUGE increase in work-comp premiums...or cancellation.

3) Folks who work "safety-sensitive" jobs, such as truck drivers, equipment operators, cops, etc., would still be subject to DOT type of standards, yet if it was legalized, that puts them in a disparate situation. As a class A driver for more than 30 years, I've always been subject to lower BAC standards while behind the wheel of a commercial vehicle, and I'm OK with that, but with pot, you're either clean or dirty...back to the need for better testing. That truck driver should also be able to enjoy a toke or two while he's at home, without having to worry about failing a drug test a week or two later.

4) Lastly, the higher prices of pot due to it being illegal does help keep it out of the hands of kids. Sure, it's available everywhere, no denying that, but when it's at $300 or more per ounce, it's more difficult for kids to buy. At $50/ounce, that's just a week or two worth of allowance. The higher prices restrict/reduce the amount they have available to them.

All that aside, legalizing pot, controlling its growth, (who grows and where) and selling it in a controlled environment, such as liquor stores, COULD potentially have a positive impact on the state budget.

1) Fewer people in jail for misc. possession charges.

2) Resulting in fewer prosecutions, freeing up staff for other crimes, reducing the number of jailers/guards, (although that impact would probably be minimal due to the high number of other criminals)

3) Increased tax revenue, not only from marijuana sales, but hell...look at the opportunity to tax "munchies" as separate from food items.

 

[ModestGamer]

In the latest National Geographic magazine they revealed statistics showing that no matter the political leaning, gender, age, or racial demographic... any one group had at least 61% approval of the legalization of marijuana. I was surprised by this.

Ballot measures like this tend to bring out the psuedo conservatives, the christian socialist progressives. they come out in droves, becuase the preachers says its the devils weed.

Morons.

 

[airdata]

Duh, most of the people who supported Prop 19 were nonvoting felons

Contrary to popular belief/disinformation/ignorance, felons can vote once they've completed parole / supervised release in most states including California.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

 

[Craig234]

Unless the state legislature decides to act.

The good news is, the Democratic legislature has passed bills Republican Schwarzeneggar vetoed.

The bad news is, new Democratic Governor Jerry Brown has been on the record opposing Prop 19.

 

[Craig234]

prop 19 was bs, why would someone vote to basically admit what you do is criminal. Every pot club were asking to vote no.

I don't think the issue was admitting it's criminal, it is. It was more likely an issue of the clubs wanting to preserve their monopoly.

 

[Craig234]

Contrary to popular belief/disinformation/ignorance, felons can vote once they've completed parole / supervised release in most states including California.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

When they aren't being denied the right they legally have to vote in Florida 2000, where thousands were illegally denied the right, one of the things stealing the election.

 

[Craig234]

Pot has already been "decriminalized" in California. It's currently no worse than a minor traffic ticket.

I don't see the city, county, or state police agencies spending resources to bust pot smokers...but the drug dealers...yes.

I'm one of the most vehement "anti-drug" people on these boards...yet in spite of my misgivings about the way it was written, I still voted Yes on 19.

Good post. That's largely my position as well.

Legalizing pot wouldn't have done anymore than inconvenience the cartels. Since MOST of the pot in California is grown within the borders, it wouldn't have impacted the smuggling operations, MOST of the big grow operations that get busted are linked to the Mexican cartels, not to "Joe Potsmoker," and with the resultant drop in prices that legalization would have brought, the cartels would simply shift sales to other states.

I think it'd have a bigger impact, but far from eliminate them, so it's not too important a hair to split.

My biggest objections to Prop 19 are the same ones I've always had against legalization of pot.

1) No accurate and quick way to test a driver that discriminates between the joint he smoked last weekend in the comfort of his living room, and the joint he smoked 10 minutes ago while driving down the highway.

I'd think we should ensure we're using scientifically valid substance-neutral tests, like the 'count the alphabet backwards from m to j' or whatever they come up with.

Heck, make them part of the driver's license test to they can say 'you were able to do it when you got your license'.

2) Many work-comp insurance policies are written with "drug-free workplace" standards. Since Prop 19 said that a company could only use test results against an employee if they could prove that it negatively impacted said employees' performance, that would most likely have caused a HUGE increase in work-comp premiums...or cancellation.

This is a valid issue to look at.

3) Folks who work "safety-sensitive" jobs, such as truck drivers, equipment operators, cops, etc., would still be subject to DOT type of standards, yet if it was legalized, that puts them in a disparate situation. As a class A driver for more than 30 years, I've always been subject to lower BAC standards while behind the wheel of a commercial vehicle, and I'm OK with that, but with pot, you're either clean or dirty...back to the need for better testing. That truck driver should also be able to enjoy a toke or two while he's at home, without having to worry about failing a drug test a week or two later.

Best case, the tests I mentioned above might suffice. Worst case, part of truck driving is just to not smoke pot at all - as they can't now, in theory.

I'm ok with that, as part of a larger solution.

4) Lastly, the higher prices of pot due to it being illegal does help keep it out of the hands of kids. Sure, it's available everywhere, no denying that, but when it's at $300 or more per ounce, it's more difficult for kids to buy. At $50/ounce, that's just a week or two worth of allowance. The higher prices restrict/reduce the amount they have available to them.

Crack addicts sport habits. That has not been effective it seems to me - and should have a large reduction in crime for that drug money.

 

[rockyct]

The people of California once again prove they are pricks. Well done.

lol, Californians are pricks because they got within about 10 point of legalizing MJ. How about you try to get it on your ballot next year? Really, it just shows California isn't quite as liberal and crazy that the rest of the country makes us out to be. I voted for prop 19 and against prop 8, but the state still has a ton of socially conservative people.

 

[woolfe9999]

I told you it wouldn't pass. The idea of somebody enjoying themselves without having to suffer first isn't something self-haters will easily permit. Such people could be dangerous via inhibition, hehe.

However, the bill WAS poorly written, so there is always that to consider too.

Yes, there were several problems with the way the bill was written, and the opponents of it capitalized on those flaws. On balance it probably made the difference between a narrow pass and a fail. Most polling showed it favored up until just 1 month ago. Which is why I think it will pass in 2012, especially with more young voters showing up for the presidential election.

- wolf

 

[Tab]

Yes, there were several problems with the way the bill was written, and the opponents of it capitalized on those flaws. On balance it probably made the difference between a narrow pass and a fail. Most polling showed it favored up until just 1 month ago. Which is why I think it will pass in 2012, especially with more young voters showing up for the presidential election.

- wolf

Assuming the same people who funded it, will do so, again.

 

[rudder]

I told you it wouldn't pass. The idea of somebody enjoying themselves without having to suffer first isn't something self-haters will easily permit. Such people could be dangerous via inhibition, hehe.

However, the bill WAS poorly written, so there is always that to consider too.

I was surprised it did not pass, but after reading a little more into prop 19 I can see why people voted against it.

Your second part of your comment is a big reason why it did not pass. There was extensive wording in the bill that attempted to make it very hard for employers to discipline workers who use marijuana and give users a number of workplace rights regarding use. The bill only gave a little power to employers if marijuana use "actually impairs job performance." One could just imagine the court cases that would come from this wording.

Another big reason is that this activity would still be a federal crime. How much could the state really tax out in the open? This negates the argument that it would be a boon to the states tax revenue coffers.

People are going to have to go after the self-haters in Washington D.C. if they ever want true legalization of MJ.