Retired Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders comes out in support of Prop 19 (legal weed)

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
http://yeson19.com/node/71

(California) Highlighting the broad and growing coalition supporting Proposition 19's commonsense solution to control and tax marijuana, former U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders joined the President of the California NAACP, a retired LAPD narcotics detective, the former Police Chief of San Jose, a retired Orange County Judge, and a retired LAPD Deputy Chief in signing the Initiative's ballot statements.

The coalition supporting the Initiative includes medical leaders, law enforcement professionals, faith leaders, economists, and elected officials.

Following is the rebuttal filed by Proposition 19 for the voter guide, and the original pro-Proposition 19 ballot statement:

Yes on Proposition 19 Rebuttal to Opponents’ Ballot Statement

THE CHOICE IS CLEAR: REAL CONTROL OF MARIJUANA, OR MORE OF THE SAME

Let’s be honest. Our marijuana laws have failed. Rather than accepting things as they are, we can control marijuana.

Like the prohibition of alcohol in the past, outlawing marijuana hasn’t worked. It’s created a criminal market run by violent drug cartels, wasted police resources, and drained our state and local budgets. Proposition 19 is a more honest policy, and a common sense solution to these problems. Proposition 19 will control marijuana like alcohol, making it available only to adults, enforce strong driving and workplace safety laws, put police priorities where they belong, and generate billions in needed revenue.

THE CHOICE IS CLEAR: REAL CONTROL OF MARIJUANA, OR MORE OF THE SAME

We can make it harder for kids to get marijuana, or we can accept the status quo, where marijuana is easier for kids to get than alcohol.

We can let police prevent violent crime, or we can accept the status quo, and keep wasting resources sending tens of thousands of non-violent marijuana consumers -- a disproportionate number who are minorities -- to jail.

We can control marijuana to weaken the drug cartels, or we can accept the status quo, and continue to fund violent gangs with illegal marijuana sales in California.

We can tax marijuana to generate billions for vital services, or we can accept the status quo, and turn our backs on this needed revenue.

THE CHOICE IS CLEAR

Vote Yes on 19.

JOYCELYN ELDERS
United States Surgeon General (Ret.)

ALICE A. HUFFMAN
President, California NAACP

DAVID DODDRIDGE
Los Angeles Police Department Narcotics Detective (Ret.)

Yes on Proposition 19 Ballot Statement

PROPOSITION 19: COMMON SENSE CONTROL OF MARIJUANA

Today, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are spent enforcing the failed prohibition of marijuana (also known as “cannabis”).

Currently marijuana is easier for kids to get than alcohol, because dealers don’t require ID.

Prohibition has created a violent criminal market run by international drug cartels.

Police waste millions of taxpayer dollars targeting non-violent marijuana consumers, while thousands of violent crimes go unsolved.

And there is $14 billion in marijuana sales every year in California, but our debt-ridden state gets nothing from it.

Marijuana prohibition has failed.

WE NEED A COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO CONTROL AND TAX MARIJUANA LIKE ALCOHOL

Proposition 19 was carefully written to get marijuana under control.

Under Proposition 19, only adults 21 and over can possess up to one ounce of marijuana, to be consumed at home or licensed establishments. Medical marijuana patients’ rights are preserved.

If we can control and tax alcohol, we can control and tax marijuana.

PUT STRICT SAFETY CONTROLS ON MARIJUANA

Proposition 19 maintains strict criminal penalties for driving under the influence, increases penalties for providing marijuana to minors, and bans smoking it in public, on school grounds, and around minors.

Proposition 19 keeps workplaces safe by preserving the right of employers to maintain a drug-free workplace.

PUT POLICE PRIORITIES WHERE THEY BELONG

According to the FBI, in 2008 over 61,000 Californians were arrested for misdemeanor marijuana possession, while 60,000 violent crimes went unsolved. By ending arrests of non-violent marijuana consumers, police will save hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars a year, and be able to focus on the real threat: violent crime.

Police, Sheriffs, and Judges support Proposition 19.

HELP FIGHT THE DRUG CARTELS

Marijuana prohibition has created vicious drug cartels across our border. In 2008 alone, cartels murdered 6,290 civilians in Mexico -- more than all U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

60 percent of drug cartel revenue comes from the illegal U.S. marijuana market.

By controlling marijuana, Proposition 19 will help cut off funding to the cartels.

GENERATE BILLIONS IN REVENUE TO FUND WHAT MATTERS

California faces historic deficits, which, if state government doesn’t balance the budget, could lead to higher taxes and fees for the public, and more cuts to vital services. Meanwhile, there is $14 billion in marijuana transactions every year in California, but we see none of the revenue that would come from taxing it.

Proposition 19 enables state and local governments to tax marijuana, so we can preserve vital services.

The State’s tax collector, the Board of Equalization, says taxing marijuana would generate $1.4 billion in annual revenue, which could fund jobs, healthcare, public safety, parks, roads, transportation, and more.

LET’S REFORM CALIFORNIA’S MARIJUANA LAWS

Outlawing marijuana hasn’t stopped 100 million Americans from trying it. But we can control it, make it harder for kids to get, weaken the cartels, focus police resources on violent crime, and generate billions in revenue and savings.

We need a common sense approach to control marijuana.

YES on 19.

JOSEPH D. MCNAMARA
San Jose Police Chief (Ret.)

JAMES P. GRAY
Orange County Superior Court Judge (Ret.)

STEPHEN DOWNING
Deputy Chief, LAPD (Ret.)
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
Excellent, I hope California de facto nullifies federal law. Should be interesting to see how it plays out.

I wonder if a federal judge will seek an injunction if it passes or if the feds will slap a lawsuit on California.

FWIW, I support legalization (and taxation) of weed or at least determining the legality at the state level.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
What's even better, is that the official rebuttals and arguments against prop 19 that go on the ballot have already been debunked and shown to be outright lies.

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/19-arg-rebuttals.pdf

They make claims about the state losing federal funding and that's clearly not the truth.. i don't have any links off hand but i've read it multiple places and it's part of Pro_Prop 19's campaign.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Funny how Obummer has the AG sue AZ over a law that mirrors the federal law exactly, but doesn't sue CA over a law that goes directly opposite federal law. No hypocrisy there.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,493
6,043
126
Funny how Obummer has the AG sue AZ over a law that mirrors the federal law exactly, but doesn't sue CA over a law that goes directly opposite federal law. No hypocrisy there.

Might wanna wait on the Vote/Result before calling "hypocrisy".

Just sayin.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Funny how Obummer has the AG sue AZ over a law that mirrors the federal law exactly, but doesn't sue CA over a law that goes directly opposite federal law. No hypocrisy there.

Yea, this hasn't passed yet. And I'd love to see California pass a billed aimed at reducing crime and raising desperately needed tax revenue only to be told by the Feds that they can't do it.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
Funny how Obummer has the AG sue AZ over a law that mirrors the federal law exactly, but doesn't sue CA over a law that goes directly opposite federal law. No hypocrisy there.

Assuming the Obama administration does not challenge CA on this, and I think that is a good assumption, it couldn't be more different than the AZ situation. AZ passed a law creating certain new crimes and the question is do these new laws conflict with federal law, triggering pre-emption. All CA is (hopefully) going to do is repeal its own laws criminalizing something. Not legally prohibitting something that is prohibitted under federal law is not and couldn't possibly be a pre-emption problem. States aren't required to have laws prohibitting all the things that the federal government prohibits. A legal challenge is therefore a total non-issue. The ONLY issue is to what extent will the federal government attempt to enforce it's own prohibitory laws in California.

- wolf
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
http://yeson19.com/node/71

And there is $14 billion in marijuana sales every year in California, but our debt-ridden state gets nothing from it.

This language from the position statement is not strictly correct. IIRC, pot clubs in California do pay sales tax to the State Board of Equalization for all their pot sales (or at last what they declare). So we do already receive some tax revenue.

- wolf
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
As good a direction as this may be heading, it is an empty gesture. Legalizing weed alone will do NOTHING to take power, and money from cartels. Cartels will simply shift more to cocaine, and heroin, and may even expand further into arms.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Assuming the Obama administration does not challenge CA on this, and I think that is a good assumption, it couldn't be more different than the AZ situation. AZ passed a law creating certain new crimes and the question is do these new laws conflict with federal law, triggering pre-emption. All CA is (hopefully) going to do is repeal its own laws criminalizing something. Not legally prohibitting something that is prohibitted under federal law is not and couldn't possibly be a pre-emption problem. States aren't required to have laws prohibitting all the things that the federal government prohibits. A legal challenge is therefore a total non-issue. The ONLY issue is to what extent will the federal government attempt to enforce it's own prohibitory laws in California.

- wolf

What "new crimes" did it create? Being here illegally?
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
What "new crimes" did it create? Being here illegally?

Whatever it criminalized under Arizona state law is a "new crime" if it wasn't illegal under state law before. The point is that there can be no federal pre-emption when a state chooses to de-criminalize something under its own laws, or indeed to deregulate something. It's only when state laws actually DO something that there might be a pre-emption problem. Please try to consider the point being made and not be so obtuse.

- wolf
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
As good a direction as this may be heading, it is an empty gesture. Legalizing weed alone will do NOTHING to take power, and money from cartels. Cartels will simply shift more to cocaine, and heroin, and may even expand further into arms.

Yea, but it doesn't mean we should just leave weed to the cartels. At least MAKE them find something else. Because if we leave weed to them, they get that money and they can still traffic the other stuff. Pot is claimed to be approx 60% of cartel revenue (a broad brush stroke generalization i know), so it would obviously put a dent on their revenue. Also, it's pretty well accepted that since Pot is the biggest seller and easiest to traffic/distribute, it's on the backs of the weeds sales that dealers are able to push harder drugs.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
It's not just dopers. Polls show support at around at least 51% in california.. you know 51% of the population isn't getting high. For many people it's about multiple issues. 1) crime and cartels 2) taxation 3) personal freedoms etc. etc. etc.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Yea, but it doesn't mean we should just leave weed to the cartels. At least MAKE them find something else. Because if we leave weed to them, they get that money and they can still traffic the other stuff. Pot is claimed to be approx 60% of cartel revenue (a broad brush stroke generalization i know), so it would obviously put a dent on their revenue. Also, it's pretty well accepted that since Pot is the biggest seller and easiest to traffic/distribute, it's on the backs of the weeds sales that dealers are able to push harder drugs.

Like I said, it's a good direction, but trying to pass it off as hitting the cartels is setting the movement up for failure when people realize down the road that it didn't cause anything but a hiccup. Hell it might even free up their resources to move more of the "hard stuff" since pot shipments are big, and profits smaller in relation to size of the load, kilo to kilo you looking at 7-10 times more for cocaine than weed, and that's street (pot) vs mid level wholesale (coke). This is the main reason I am pro drug legalization, well that and I don't think it's anyone's place to tell free adults what they can, and can't to their own bodies. Arguing the tax, and regulation is fine, I just hate to see a single facet of the "war on Drugs™" being used like it's going to hurt the cartels, to me it seems counter-productive.

One thing I am glad to see is that they aren't trying to piggyback it off medical marijuana.
 

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,670
1
0
it's called dopers denial. they think just because they are dopers, everybody else is too.
You're a dumbass. Just because you don't like what somebody else chooses to do in their spare time doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Legalization also means more than people being able to smoke weed legally.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
it's called dopers denial. they think just because they are dopers, everybody else is too.

Do you drink alcohol, smoke cigarrettes, drink caffienated coffee, or soda? THose are all more addictive and dangerous things than pot.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
I was for legalizing pot but now I'm worried it's just an excuse to propogate more second hand smoke. We're making good progress stamping out cigarette smoke, I don't want another type of smoke replacing it.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
I was for legalizing pot but now I'm worried it's just an excuse to propogate more second hand smoke. We're making good progress stamping out cigarette smoke, I don't want another type of smoke replacing it.

You're kidding right? You seriously think people will be allowed to toke up in restaurants, bars, public buildings, or any other public, confined places? Why would they be allowed to smoke pot anywhere people aren't allowed to smoke cigarettes?

- wolf
 

ConstipatedVigilante

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2006
7,670
1
0
I was for legalizing pot but now I'm worried it's just an excuse to propogate more second hand smoke. We're making good progress stamping out cigarette smoke, I don't want another type of smoke replacing it.
I bet smoking pot will be treated like drinking alcohol if it's legalized. Drinking and smoking pot would both be illegal in public. They're both things that you're supposed to do in private, on your on property, or in a designated place.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Yep. Prop 19 is still fairly strict on where you can smoke it. Pretty much in private establishments only, and not in the presence of minors. It mostly legalizes the sale and ability to grow small amounts. You could never toke up in a daycare or anything like that.

Actually, Prop 19 raises the penalties for smoking around minors vs current law.