Marijuana Legalization on 2010 Ballot in California?

Advocates of the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act say they have gathered more than enough signatures to qualify the initiative for California's November 2010 ballot. The measure would allow people 21 and older to grow marijuana for personal use and to possess up to an ounce. It would also allow licensed suppliers to grow and sell marijuana (up to an ounce at a time) to adults. Public consumption and consumption in the presence of minors would remain illegal. (The text of the initiative is here.) The measure's chief backer, Richard Lee (operator of Oaksterdam University and Coffeeshop Blue Sky in Oakland) told the San Francisco Chronicle "the petition drive collected more than 680,000 signatures in two months, less than half the time allowed for such a drive." Supporters need 433,971 valid signatures to get the initiative on the ballot. The Chronicle notes that "a recent California Field Poll suggested that a majority of California voters, 56 percent, support the idea of legalizing and taxing cannabis."

Comments

[Joe M]

It's not just California. The majority of Americans support it now:

http://www.angus-reid.com/poll....._marijuana

[Hyperion]

Agree with you. If it was put to a popular vote, it would pass in most states now. But if so called progressive politicians have anything to do with it, there is no way this will ever pass.

[The Feds]

That's nice... (rub their hands with glee)

[sage]

The measure would allow people 21 and older to grow marijuana for personal use and to possess up to an ounce.

TEH CHILDREN! TEH CHILDREN!

[Char]

I believe he states that it will only be for people 21 and older and it will be illegal to use in the pesence of children. So, your point is mute.

[Pro Libertate]

The Drug Czar will simply stop the referendum. It can't be allowed.

[CTHORM@IBIS]

I'm trying very hard not to be excited about this. Don't let us down!

[skr]

Over half of Californians support it now. Just wait until the bullshit TV ads show up demonizing the prop. I'm sure they will say that the streets will run red with the blood of babies and mexican drug cartels have taken over government. IIRC, the decriminalization prop was called a "drug dealers bill of rights" even though there were no provisions for dealers only possession. That went down in flames. I wonder if homeowners will vote for legalization so they can still increase tax dollars without having to give up Prop 13?

[Troy]

I would like to believe that the more hyperbolic and histrionic the ads are, the less believable they'd be.

[skr]

actually, I think studies have been done showing that the more outlandish a lie is, the more likely it is to be believed.

Exactly.. See Prop H8.

[Stine]

No doubt.

That Prep 8 didn't do anything for my ass.

[Hyperion]

Cali to do something right for once? Nah, it will never happen, they will figure out a way to screw it up. Doesn't matter much anyways, our 'progressive' reps in DC(many from Cali) will never allow this to happen. Either that, or as someone else has already suggested, they will allow it to happen, then there will be a massive roundup by the feds of new inmates from Cali to serve in the new gulag system.

[wylie]

They already figured out how to screw it up from the get-go.

Allowed to grow and posses 1 ounce? That's 1 pretty small plant. And I'm sorry but 1 ounce isn't going to last till your next single, tiny, plant is ready to harvest.

And fuck if you have friends who smoke. They have to grow their own single, tiny, plant for their own stash.

Now, 4oz dried + enough plants to produce 4oz dried, and maybe we've got a deal.

[wylie]

disclaimer: ideally, would be no-ones business unless you we're making a business out of it.

[Hyperion]

Good point. Would be pretty much impossible to keep that 1 oz growing plant / stash balance under control.

[bagoh20]

They have to allow separate limit for plants since like you say 1 plant is gonna be over an ounce, but dude, get another hobby so you don't smoke so much or better friends that bring their own.

[jwgealt]

F*ck that, don't tell me how much pot to smoke, this is uhMerica man - land of the weed and home of the free(loaders).

[matt]

Re-read the sentence. The 1 ounce limit refers to how much you can sell at a time, not how much you can grow at a time.

So you can grow a ton, but only sell it an ounce a time.

[anon]

FYI, no one in California calls it "Cali".

Who uses that name?

[Hyperion]

Not sure where I picked that up. I lived in Cali for 5 years. That was a long time ago. Doesn't sound like things have improved there since then.

[TheZeitgeist]

When I hear "Cali" I think of the Colombian coke cartel.

[CTHORM@IBIS]

I've lived in California my whole life, but I occasionally call it Cali. I wouldn't say it more than a few times a year though.

[skr]

I only use it when I'm high and lazy.

[TrickyVic]

It has a better ring than shithole. 😉

[Hyperion]

Although shithole is now the more appropriate and recognized alias.

[nmaekarB]

No, Shithole is about 8 NASCAR laps from Rooster Poop, Georgia.

[Sudden]

Ironically, the chick in the Reason hoodie to the left of the comments looks like she's already been celebrating this law with her own personal stash.

I guess this is a good thing, at least if they allow people to grow it themselves. In the meantime though, I'm pretty sure this is just an excuse to tax tax tax. It'll probably end up being more expensive legally than it was illegally.

[BakedPenguin]

If you grow your own and don't sell (or give) it to anyone, it would be hard for them to tax it.

Then again, it being CA, they might have "tax trucks" that go around with infrared heat detection devices looking for grow lights.

[Ajax the Great]

In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that the energy emanating from one's house is private, and cops checking for grow-lights using infrared detection devices would need a warrant to do so.

[Hyperion]

I am just waiting for Chads comments on this. I am sure he has something brilliant that will enlighten us all.

[The Chad]

I may not be who you are referring to, but dammit he gives me a bad name!
This is awesome, and I hope other states follow suit quickly.
I think it means you can grow a plant, while also possessing at most an ounce at a time. Very hard to enforce going forward I think.
It's too bad the Feds will crack down on these legal users regardless. That's why I'm hoping more states will send the message

[Hyperion]

Once you know who the Chad I am referring to is, you will probably change your name to something more like 'Not that fucking idiot Chad'.

[P Brooks]

Is somebody going to come to your house and inspect and assess your stash for tax purposes?

I see no potential for a gargantuan disaster here.

None at all.

[Hyperion]

Nope, no potential at all. The governments perfect track record of proving they can resist fucking with people who are minding their own business and harming no one else, is just impeccable.

[robc]

I assume it would be like homebrewed beer/wine. No tax but you have a limited amount. Go over the limit and you are potentially opening yourself up to serious legal trouble.

[Ajax the Great]

Or like tobacco. Except with tobacco, you can grow UNLIMITED amounts, at least in most states, as long as you don't sell it. The initiative, on the other hand, would allow a maximum 25 square foot pot garden.

[BakedPenguin]

TFA says "tax and regulate the sale of marijuana." If this can be taken literally, home growing for personal use would remain untaxed, like homebrewing.

[wylie]

Yeah. As long as you're not making an income off it, the IRS should fuck-off. If you want to grow a couple pounds to give out as x-mas gifts next year, i don't see how that's any different than the old people who foist their vegetables on you because they garden so well they could feed 10 families.

But is that the precedent set by WickardVsFilburn? Too lazy to re-read the wiki article. Maybe I'm thinking of a different case, lil help?

[tetrisd]

Wickard v. Filburn suggested the opposite. There, the court held that a small farm -- used for consumption not sale -- nevertheless had an impact on interstate commerce. Thus, the federal interstate commerce cause empowered the government to penalize the small farmer.

Gonzales v. Raich had a similar holding. There, the court found that interestate commerce was affected by legalized, regulated medical marijuana in California. This is due to the effect the medical marijuana has on the illict marijuana market in other states.

On one hand, you have to appreciate that the federal commerce power was greatly expanded in order for FDR to implement his New Deal (and arguably end the Great Depression). However, now it's just annoying when it's used to Constitutionalize the federal prohibition of a regulated state market.

[Hacha Cha]

if you read the actual text of the initiative you'll see it does allow for personal cultivation. "14. Permit the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption."

[Hyperion]

All of this does not matter. Somewhere hidden in the 2000+ page health care bill, possession of any amount of marijuana, no matter how minute, will be a felony. And if it's not in there, they will sneak it into the 4000+ page cap and trade bill. Burning Marijuana releases dangerous levels of C02, Al Gore said so and the science is settled, so plesae don't bother posting any evidence disputing this settled fact.

[wylie]

As long as you grow more weed to replace what you smoke, you're carbon neutral.

[Unsubstantive Kurt]

Yeah California.

Does anyone have an update on the reverse sting in texas where activists set up grow lights for a small shrub in a house with a bunch of video cameras, then waited for the police to raid them?

[Unsubstantive Kurt]

In the above post, I attempted to put psuedo html {threadjack} tags around my potential thread jacking.

[TrickyVic]

Look under the rug.

[Brandybuck]

This doesn't go far enough. Marijuana needs to be really free. Dump the silly one ounce limits. Let it be sold out of every liquor store. Let me trademark my own brand of marijuana muffins. Put it on par with alchohol and tobacco.

[Hyperion]

How can it be really free, if it is being sold? I guess I missed the point. Although, the muffin idea will move it out of the evil cigarette(being smoked) taboo category. Better make those sugar and fat free muffins...

[wylie]

Well, on par with A&T tosses your muffin idea right out the window.

CHILDREN EAT MUFFINS!111ONE

[Joe M]

Ha. It's probably illegal to grow tobacco without some kind of permit.

[Hyperion]

I don't think so. But how many people have you seen do it?

[skr]

tobacco is a bitch to cure well

[SIV]

Put it on par with alchohol and tobacco.
I wouldn't wish that level of regulation on any consumer product. I'd really like to see some genius plant geneticist modify it to grow like an invasive noxious weed (even more so) while producing 10% THC.

[SIV]

It was very illegal to grow more than .1 acre of tobacco without an "allotment" from the USDA less than a decade ago.
Growing tobacco isn't easy.Producing quality tobacco is much harder than growing marijuana.

[Hyperion]

1/10th of an acre of tobacco is a hell of a lot, especially if they are big plants. Producing quality tobacco is difficult, agreed, I've seen the entire process. I once knew a farmer who grew primo stuff that got used in good cigars. He was around 80 years old and had been doing it his entire life, and the land he owned just seemed to be made for growing the stuff.

[Paul]

Advocates of the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act

Marijuana already is regulated, controlled and taxed.

[Hyperion]

I just wonder if they actually legalize it so that they can tax it, how that will play out for consumers. I wonder if a handful of large growers would immediately seize the market and grow really crappy stuff, sort of like the major brewers did with beer. And then the consumers who could not grow their own personal stash for whatever reason would have to smoke this really crappy stuff until some time later some smaller growers start to spring up and grow some real connoisseur grade product, sort of like what the micro-brew industry has done for American beer drinkers. Just a thought...

[John C. Randolph]

I wonder if a handful of large growers would immediately seize the market and grow really crappy stuff, sort of like the major brewers did with beer.

I'm not sure that would be feasible, since anyone could just grow a few plants themselves. Brewing is rather more capital-intensive that growing pot.

-jcr

[Hyperion]

Not sure about that John. Agree that brewing is more capital intensive. But, you are going to have lots of(maybe a majority?) of potential consumers who cannot grow their own product for a couple different reasons.

1. they do not live in a climate suitable for growing quality stuff outdoors(frost kills the plant before maturity), or they do not have anywhere outdoors available to grow anything.

2. They try to grow indoors, but lack the space for an indoor garden or cannot afford the electric bill for the lights needed(much cheaper to buy from the major growers).

[Hacha Cha]

growing indoors is very cheap if you use fluorescent tube lights, compact fluorescents, and/or LEDs. anyone can do it. if you kill the male plants and use a timer for the lights during the flowering stage its pretty hard to fuck up. brewing beer or wine is much easier to fuck up.

[wylie]

I was lookin into LEDs for general/legal indoor plant lighting.

Seems like you could build a panel out of red and blue LEDs matched to the 2 photosynthesis peaks. Would look weird to us, but i think the power->photosynthetic-activity efficiency would be great.

I got sidetracked before i could find good parts for it though.

[wylie]

Could have some normal day-color bulbs for when you want to sit and appreciate them or take pictures.

[Hyperion]

You could probably use the full spectrum light bulbs that I use for all of the lights in my home. I hate the light from regular fluorescent bulbs.

[Hyperion]

I don't think most average users of cannabis can grow enough indoors with fluorescents to supply their own stash. I agree that anyone with a little patience and acquired knowledge could grow some and not fuck it up. But I think the majority of the American public would either just choose to pay for it, or they would fuck it up for lack of patience and detail or just out of neglect. Most people I know will kill the easiest to grow houseplant for just those very reasons. Well, just let me go ahead and say, I have seen plenty of people fuck it up.

[The Chad]

your initial question is still valid in this case. Some people fear the tobacco companies will swoop in and mass produce some ditch weed and they'll ruin the experience. They may try to do that, but if it's legal the price of that will plummet to essentially zero, specially as smaller organizations start producing quality shit. It's not either option a.) walmart schwag or b.) grow it yourself. There will be 'microbrews' in the mix all over the place. Sure it may cost more, but we're used to $40 an eighth now. I bet they still end up cheaper for the consumer, and cheaper for the producer since they won't have to worry about protection or artillery.

[Hyperion]

Agree with you this is how it will work out. The big growers who rely more on mass production and marketing will keep their fair market share, just like the coors, bud, and miller lite type products still retain high market percentage even though far superior beer sits right next to their product on the shelves. But the quality stuff will eventually be highly available, just at a higher price.

[skr]

greenhouses people, sunlight is free. As to the quality grown by growers, I think it will only get better. Look at Amsterdam, they grow great pot. Closer to home just come to LA and go to a dispensary, all kind bud. There is a lot of competition between growers.

[wylie]

See, thats what cap and trade is all about: raise electricity prices so people cant grow indoors.

[robc]

Bullshit. Brewing isnt capital intensive at all. You can get up and homebrewing for under $100 doing it well and under $50 if you want to skimp.

[Hyperion]

So I hear. I need to try one of those kits. My brother has been doing it for a while and claims to make some pretty good brew, but I have not had a chance to try any of it.

[Joe M]

I would say brewing is both less capital intensive and easier than growing would be, to get a basic useable result. Costs obviously go up depending on how involved you want it to get, and the quality of your equipment and ingredients.

[Hyperion]

Depends. If you can grow outdoors, that is obviously much cheaper, and I am thinking that getting the brewing down to a fine art would be more difficult, but that is based on never having tried the brewing. Damnit, now I have to go buy a brew kit because all of this talk has my curiosity up.

[robc]

Ive been brewing for 6+ years now and you dont "save money" over buying beer by brewing if you do it as a hobby instead of to save money.

Like with any hobby, there is always the new nifty toy you can buy to be cool, or improve processes or whatever. But, really, it takes a few batches to make good beer, but it isnt that hard. My first batch was drinkable. No need to choke it down or anything, but it was nothing special. All uphill since then (with an exception or two).

[Hyperion]

That is exactly what I expected to hear. I think that people who brew their own beer are the same people who would grow their own weed, for the same reasons and the same rewards, both having nothing to do with saving money. Makes perfect sense.

That being said, I maintain my initial argument that most people will buy commercially grown weed, only a small percentage will grow their own, and a very small percentage will grow all that they use.

[robc]

Yep. I probably buy more beer since I started homebrewing.

[Hyperion]

I am going to try it, but I don't see it resulting in buying less beer.

[TrickyVic]

""I wonder if a handful of large growers would immediately seize the market and grow really crappy stuff, sort of like the major brewers did with beer."""

Trailer park trash need weed too.

If there is a market, the market will satisfy those who like quality goods as well as those who can only afford crap.

Even with quality beer available, there was still a market for Meister Brau, and vice versa.

[Hyperion]

"Trailer park trash need weed too."

When I lived in the midwest, there was what we referred to as 'the ditch weed'. It grew alongside irrigation ditches in farm fields and was the descendant of cannabis plants that had been grown for making rope back in..., can't remember what decades that was. Anyway, guys would go get it and smoke it. It would not get you high and tasted like dirt, but they smoked it regardless. It was sort of the beer equivalent to Coors light, so I guess you could sell it if it was cheap enough.

[Paul]

Although the "regulate us! tax us! set us free!" crowd does have a point. By telling a bunch of overactive, hypercontrolling fuckwads commonly referred to as "politicians" that if they legalize something, they'll have even more control over than they do now, you mught just slip one past them.

Of course right up until they realize that marijuana has to be smoked and is, in essence, a cigarette. At that point you're doomed.

[skr]

I think that if you could grow copious amounts of ganja that you might just start eating it more frequently.

[Matthew Garrison]

This would still be ridiculously restrictive, but it would be a significant step forward in the fight against prohibition. We really need to think about what the role of government should be. It isn't appropriate for the government to decide what adults should not consume in front of their children. If I can drink wine in front of my kids, I think I should be able to eat a pot brownie in front of them. Parents generally need to have the right to raise their children according to their own values. Government is not the solution to most things. Enforcing freedom rather than diminishing in would be a lot cheaper and would make everybody happier except for those who feel entitled to command and control others. What I do with my own weed is nobody's business but mine.

[Stine]

That's an interesting comment and it gave me pause.

I tend to not like segmenting drugs into classes, but it might be called for in this case. I don't have a problem with a parent ingesting pot with children around, but I do have a problem with them toking up (wait until they're out of the house). I also have a problem with parents doing smack with children around (or at all).

Once you have kids, you give up some rights to fuck yourself up, because doing so would put you in a position where you couldn't be a good parent. And I don't mean "get to bed and brush your teeth", I mean "the baby sat in its own filth and didn't get fed today" because you were passed out for most of the day.

[Paul]

It isn't appropriate for the government to decide what adults should not consume in front of their children.

Whelp we lost that one already.

If I can drink wine in front of my kids, I think I should be able to eat a pot brownie in front of them.

Yeah, the health department is working on that one right now. Top men are on it. Top men.

What I do with my own weed is nobody's business but mine.

Newsflash, your neighbor is about to start paying for your healthcare. As long as your healthcare is financed by the public, the public has a say in how you live.

How'm I doin' so far?

[skr]

dammit paul why ya gotta bring me down.

[Stine]

Sorry to rain on the parade but you're already paying for the unreimbursed services rendered by hospitals to those who can't pay.

Every so often Congress cuts them a check from the general fund because of the mandates under EMTALA.

You also pay for the guy-at-work's back operation because you're in the same insurance pool as he is, but we'll leave that to the side because that's arguably a voluntary transaction.

[Ajax the Great]

"Newsflash, your neighbor is about to start paying for your healthcare. As long as your healthcare is financed by the public, the public has a say in how you live."

Guess what? Your neighbor most likely already does pay for you, albeit indirectly.

Guess what else? That does not nullify any of our rights. Our bodies still belong to us, as they are not for sale to the state.

To solve any perceived free-rider problem, all we need to do is tax the stuff. We currently do that with alcohol and tobacco.

[Atanarjuat]

consumption in the presence of minors would remain illegal

Bizarre. You can grow, purchase, or even roll a joint in front of your kids, but you have to go in the bathroom and lock the door to smoke it. I assume if you are convicted of this infraction, your kids will be taken away and you'll be put on a list of people who can't live within X feet of a school.

[Kroneborge]

"Newsflash, your neighbor is about to start paying for your healthcare. As long as your healthcare is financed by the public, the public has a say in how you live."

+1

[Donesk]

"Newsflash, your neighbor is about to start paying for your healthcare. As long as your healthcare is financed by the public, the public has a say in how you live."

Paul, I respect your right to eat cheeseburgers, drink cola, and even drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes, even though these things are the leading cause of death in our society.

Can you explain to me the difference between those items listed above and marijuana?

[Paul]

Donesk, I'm going to assume you're new here. Welcome to the board.

Marijuana smoke is known in the State of California to be cancerous. There are known carcinogens in Marijuana smoke.

Taken the above statement, combined with the known and demonstrated merging of public health and the drug war, you don't think for a minute that once legalized, Marijuana isn't going to come under all manner of red tape and scrutiny from our reptillian overlords?

[Donesk]

There's a difference between a substance that contains carcinogens and one that causes cancer. Marijuana has not demonstrated to cause cancer.

Marijuana has been under scrutiny for some time now. The government has funded tons of research into the harmful effects of marijuana to use as ammo in the War on (some)Drugs. A few of the more comprehensive ones have shown our response to marijuana to be unwarranted. Besides, it has a far longer history of use in our culture than any drug on the market.

What do you suggest we do to improve the situation? We're spending an enormous amount of money on a highly unproductive approach that puts innocent people in jail and drugs in the hands of children.

[TheZeitgeist]

Not to wallow in retro chic, but California legalizing Mr. Magic would be down with the "first brick in the wall."

It will be interesting to see how politicians of national significance (that will gladly vote for Iraq wars based on polling) react to this, because it will be a national issue if its on the ballot in California. And it will poll well.

Uncle Obama and his "people" are going to make the uncomfortable realization in 2010's election year that the people who support this measure are by-and-large the young crowd of independents that put him in power, and he so desperately wants back. Tee-hee.

[Paul]

What evidence of this is there? Barack Obama has already spoken on this issue, and spoken on it knowing his constituency. You do realize that as much as we all love marijuana, his (re)election isn't going to turn on this issue, and he knows it.

Let me break it down this way for you:

Candidate one: Against gay marriage. Wants to overturn abortion. Supported the Iraq War, wants to keep Guantanamo open, wants to step up the drug war, believes in an aggressive foreign policy, promises to crack down on illegal immigration.

Candidate two: Wants to create some sort of national healthcare plan. Opposed Iraq but reluctantly supports intervention in Afghanistan, believes in a more humble foreign policy and wishes to forge multi-lateral positions, is pro-choice, believes in a 'fairer' economy, doesn't say much about the drug war, thinks marijuana is "bad".

Who are your young marijuana-smoking Daily Kos democrats going to vote for?

[Hyperion]

They are going to vote for a democrat no matter what non-issue that democrat decides to focus on.

Actually, recent history has shown that the candidate would not have to even mention issues, just say 'change' and 'yes we can', and the voters would never even question what change is being spoken of or what it is that 'yes we can' do.

Hitler could come back to life and run as the democrat candidate and not change a single word that he spoke during his time and they would vote for him.

[Joe M]

Well it worked once.

[TheZeitgeist]

Candidate Two has so far been against gay marriage, has hardly engaged in a "humble" foreign policy, "reluctantly" has ratcheted up the war in Afghan, is totally against the growth of our footprint in Iraq this year, has no interest in a health care plan beyond political perceptions of success or failure, believes in a "fairer" economy where huge banks are unaccountable, and tries to keep illegal immigration, the drug war, and the creep of the police state (check out his Justice department antics...straight out of the Bush admin playbook) on the back burner because they are only political death traps for him.

And judging from a quick perusal of the Daily Kos and HuffPo, the lefties are PISSED at him for essentially selling them down the river on health care. At this point it depends on who the Republicans run. And the Presidential election is in 2012 anyways, I'm talking about 2010 and the fact politicos are going to have to go on the record about any kind of California legalize-dope-ballot because of its national portent.

[Paul]

So what you're saying is, they'll vote for canidate #2, they just won't be happy as happy about it as they were the first time. To wit:

Though there's no official word yet, early indications based on talks with various officials are that the groups will either formally oppose the legislation or, less dramatically, just not fight very hard to ensure its passage.

They're SOOO pissed, they won't fight very hard to ensure its passage.

Right now in the Senate chamber, GOP delay tactics on the Democratic health care reform bill are in full swing. The Senate clerk is reading out aloud the text of an amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders that would insert a single-payer system into the health care bill.

It would all be possible if it weren't for those meddling republicans.

Kos is still referecing Sarah Palin on a regular basis... but so does Reason so... not much to see there. And lastly:

Iraq, tax cuts for the rich, illegal wiretapping, now health care. The list of wankery is fairly long, and the crappy consequences that ensue are too often a result of misguided Democratic compromise, collaboration and/or capitulation.

Again, Democrats are the right party, they're just not strong enough.

No evidence whatsoever that any of these constituents you refer to are going to vote GOP. And as a non-GOP voter, who can blame them?

Obama will very likely be elected a second term, and regardless of the vote split, he will retain his core constituency of young, marijuana smoking independent voters that put him there the first time. You can bank on that.

[TheZeitgeist]

The Democrats were ineffective in opposition (Bush got his Iraq war, tax-cuts, Medicare expansion...the dude didn't even veto a bill for six years) and they are ineffective in majority (Bush got his Iraq surge, got some TARP love with the help of the 'crats, etc.).

Now the Donks have all the levers of power...and can't do shit with any of it. Blaming the Republicans is cute, but I guarantee you if the Donks had effective political operators the likes of a Tom Delay and Trent Lott (vs. Nancy and Harry, for instance) they would've passed a much more liberal looking healthcare bill in the summer, and they would've had the balls to use cloture to do it in the Senate.

The Democratic leadership is incompetent in managing their political battles and it is costing them historic chances at their agenda. Obama is now part of that, and I guarantee you in 2012 his appeal with independents will be just like elections past: A measure of the lesser of two evils.

[Hyperion]

"And judging from a quick perusal of the Daily Kos and HuffPo,"

Is there some kind of super powered anti-nausea formula that you take before doing that?

"...the lefties are PISSED at him for essentially selling them down the river on health care."

Why should he care? The lemmings will vote for him again no matter what he does, or someone else exactly like him. And all of the liberal(haha) reps in DC will vote for anything, no matter what they say, no matter how bad it is, and I mean anything. There has never been or will never be a bill so bad they will not vote for it. How would they know anyways, they have yet to read one of them.

[MattXIV]

The same lefties lined up behind Kerry who was far less aligned with their goals than even Obama's mediocre performance thus far. Most of the same people who are criticizing the Democrats from the left now will be flacking for them come election time since they'll shift their focus to the Republicans.

[Hyperion]

"Uncle Obama and his "people" are going to make the uncomfortable realization"

This group of imbeciles are not going to realize anything no matter how obvious it is or how much popular support there is for it. I will go out on a limb here and say that there is not one out of all our 'progressives' in DC that will speak out in favor of legalizing Marijuana, for obvious reasons. Although the tax potential will be very tempting for them, it would be giving people more freedom, which is exactly the opposite of what they wish to achieve with their socialist movement. And who really needs tax from Marijuana sales when they can tax the very air that you exhale.

[DWCarkuff]

I would like to think, though I am likely wrong, that one day people will look back on idiocy like the prohibition of this particular weed as the ridiculous idiocy it truly is.

[Nick]

So for legal pot we have to suffer through more Obamanomics? Ugh.

They must really consider me an asshole for wanting my entire existence to be free in every way.

[todd432]

It's a crime against democracy to arrest and jail individuals for laws no longer supported by the Majority. It's time to stand up and DEMAND change.

[andee]

i will move to cali if this happens... mark my words!

[theefirstamendment]

come join the darkside 😉

[Hyperion]

"It's a crime against democracy to arrest and jail individuals for laws no longer supported by the Majority."

Try convincing our current administration of that. They are doing everything they can to demonstrate that they do not care at all about what the majority of us want.

[TallDave]

It's about damn time.

Sanity, one vote at a time.

[Pr0vdnc]

I think they should make it an ounce per type of marijuana. If you want both indica and sativa for different types of highs then you should be able to have an ounce of each.

Or just one ounce per strain, because maybe you don't want to get totally baked so you choose a strain with a lower THC percentage.

But, if this were to pass, it would be a MAJOR step in the right direction so I won't complain just yet.

[BakedPenguin]

I would like to think, though I am likely wrong, that one day people will look back on idiocy like the prohibition of this particular weed as the ridiculous idiocy it truly is.

I think in a couple hundred years, people will look back at the War on Drugs the same way they now look at the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials.

[Rycki]

I would rather it be marijuana over alcohol any day. Extremley exciting.

[Hyperion]

Alcohol is illegal in Cali?

[Hyperion]

"I think in a couple hundred years, people will look back at the War on Drugs the same way they now look at the Spanish Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials." ...or taxing CO2?

[Alice Bowie]

California here I come

KEEP DOPE ALIVE

[Robert]

I wonder why they use those "notwithstanding"s instead of just actual changes in the consolidated statutes.

[Gene Berkman]

In 1972, the California Marijuana Initiative qualified for the ballot, and the first poll after it qualified indicated 18% would vote yes.

After a campaign of several months, 34% of Californians voted to legalize possession of marijuana.

Now, polls indicate 56% in California support legalization, so this initiative has a very good chance of passing.

The Federal government remains a problem, as it does in so many other ways.

[theotherside]

While I am happy with this progress, I wish we would get beyond the "war on drugs" is bad mentality and get on to what the better solution is.

The debate I would love to have is if empowering criminals by giving them control of the drug trade is bad which entity should we empower to control the drug trade? The obvious options are business or the government but I prefer putting non-profit agencies in charge of the drug trade and use all the "profits" to be poured into drug education and drug rehab.

Libertarians are right that the WOD is horribly ill-conceived but it doesn't mean that the best option is just putting big business (think Phillip Morris on steroids) is the right solution.

[Jack Webb]

The obvious options are business or the government but I prefer putting non-profit agencies in charge of the drug trade and use all the "profits" to be poured into drug education and drug rehab.

WTF? Hippie Bullshit, in my Hit& Run ?

These dope threads always make me question how "harmless" it really is.

[Humboldt Thug]

This proposition is not legalization. It does not remove all criminal penalties and grant amnesty for cannabis-related "crimes." In fact, it creates a new set of taxation laws as well as making ingestion in the presence of a minor a new crime.

It was pointed out above that the 1oz limit is small and this was compared to homebrewing. Homebrewers are allowed 100 gallons of beer which could supply a single person for an entire year given that they average a couple of beers a day. On the other hand, even a light-moderate user can blow through an ounce in two months.

The limits in this proposition work out well for the existing medical cannabis dispensaries. If people are only allowed to possess ten plants at a time and one ounce at a time, the required growing style is quite obvious. Cannabis homebrewers will be forced to force flower individual plants over the course of the year while never producing enough to sell. In the meantime, the established network of cannabis dispensaries are more than happy to fill the demand of people unwilling to grow with such horticultural sophistication.

The market for cannabis must be vertically integrated in order to remove the high risk profits from cannabis and thus remove the criminal elements. Very large producers must be able to collaborate in production cooperatives selling to the highest bidding distributor. Production on this scale would put the criminal element out of business in one season by introducing a high-quality product on par with the current state of California wine.

One zip and ten slips is not legalization nor does a tax on sales represent libertarian values. I am voting no on this proposition. I hope one of the other cannabis initiatives which actually remove all criminal penalties make it to the ballot.

[Rhayader]

Those are all good objections, but do you really think shooting this proposition down is going to move California toward a more acceptable situation? We shouldn't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. This might not be full legalization, but it's a hell of a lot better than full recreational prohibition.

[Humboldt Thug]

This initiative places an excise tax on producers who already indirectly pay tax.

To sell to dispensaries, large-scale growers often sell to a third party who pays taxes on their behalf with the "not-for-profit" dispensaries. Placing an additional $800 tax on a product that originally sells for $2000 and then later $3200 with $800 of that going to federal and state taxes (without being able to legally claim expenses) will not reduce the demand for 0% taxed, black market product.

The only thing that an additional $800 tax will do is force medical growers to deal directly with dispensaries who will then manipulate the price lower. Keep in mind that the author of this initiative runs nearly half of the lucrative medical marijuana business in North Oakland. Lee runs a marijuana "college" as well as being financially involved in a high-volume cannabis dispensary. Real legalization would put the man out of business entirely.

Growers are the ones actually producing the high quality sinsemilla. They have been making a good living of it for over 30 years. They won't pay a $50 tax on top of an existing $50 tax on a product that they sell for $125. They will continue to sell it directly and nah pay no tax.

[Ajax the Great]

And the age limit would be 21 instead of 18 under the bill. Right now, about 50% of cannabis arrests are of people under 21, and those will probably continue. Cops need to make their monthly quotas somehow. Plus, if you're 21 or older, you could theoretically go to jail under the bill for passing a joint to a 20 year old.

If we must have an age limit for pot, 18 makes far more sense than 21, since that is the legal age of majority, going to war, etc. And the 21 drinking age has been the greatest alcohol policy failure since Prohibition.

Tobacco, on the other hand, has been a huge success story, with smoking rates declining by half over the past few decades WITHOUT raising the smoking age to 21. Education, taxes, and advertising restrictions are probably the main causes for the decline in both teen and adult smoking. And the age limit is 18 in 46 states, and 19 in the others.

But I guess to get the initiative passed, 21 would make it more likely. So I would still vote for it if I lived in CA. It's a great place to start.

[Henry]

A smart politician would jump on this in a heartbeat. It is a win win case. Marijuana is the safest of all recreational drugs. 1 in 20 will die in an alcohol related incident. I know about 8 people already in my short life. I know 2 others dead from prescription drugs.

Marijuana is safer and people would drink less alcohol. Plus the alcohol and tobacco industry both fund the Partnership for a Drug Free America.
Something to think about.

With the growing costs of health insurance and prescription drugs that are highly addictive, dangerous, expensive and often times not adequately tested, it is unethical to tell patients that they need to buy the less effective and twice expensive drugs. If they do have terminal illness, who are we to tell them how to live the rest of their life. 80 year on a 5 billion year old planet is a fart in a snow storm. Life is too short already to be telling others how to live.

Less government intrusion. Personal freedom.

It costs 30,000 dollars annually per inmate. With 7.2 million people in prison, 66% of which are in for drugs, we spend 142,560,000,000$ a year or 1 trillion dollars every 7 years on drug offenders. Most of which are addicts. Rehab is cheaper and less destructive to society.

For marijuana alone there are roughly 1 million incarcerated. That costs us 30,000,000,000$ a year. 30 Billion. Folks we are insane for spending that much. Marijuana is not worth it. Rehab is cheaper and less destructive to society. Plus many states incarcerate for anything above 30 grams.
That is over 100$ a year you and me spend on weed, even if we don't smoke it.

Is america really that free if we are forced to spend that on drugs with our taxes just to keep the prison system going and to keep corrupt politicians, judges and the legal drug industry fatter?

The environment. Hemp is far more renewable than cutting down a forest that took 200 years to grow. It also can be used to make biodegradable plastic. Just think about that alone the next time you read about the floating plastic island twice the size of texas in the pacific ocean. Don't believe me?

google:

Great Pacific Garbage Patch

[Henry]

I guess the point of my data and ramblings is that we got sold a bogus deal by all the politicians, greedy ceo's, greedy industries, bankers, corrupt bureaucracies etc.

That is the ONLY thing that makes sense. It is the reason it was prohibited in the first place and is why the news rarely covers it etc.

We need to start following the money trail if we want the government to stop telling us how to live our lives.

I thought this was a democracy. We are ruled by the wealthy. Just look at this whole pile of crap we are still trying to climb out of thanks to a small corrupt segment of the population. Who got bonuses that were more than I make in 10 years? Washington DC and their shady backroom dealings are spending our hard earned money to create jobs off the illegal drug users.

[Ajax the Great]

Yes, we are now an oligarchy and an empire instead of a republic.

[philly]

I have a legal prescription in 'Cali'(no we don't call it that here). It is basically legal now in LA and the bay area if you want it. It is taxed already in that way and takes in 11 million already in tax revenue. With property taxes in the crapper (foreclosure crisis, not going away) This really has a great chance of passing.

This will be mainly for sale and not for growing. I can go buy whatever I want already, whenever I want. 1oz per day. 50 an 8th for great Mendocino. 50 strains at least in circulations.

[philly]

Oh and Obama called off the FEDS already. Its been a good year.

[philly]

Sorry one more point for those not from cali, and those from cali without a prescription, there is already an infrasturcure for legality that already exists, between growers, commodities brokers (middlemen) and the dispensaries. There is 7 years of or so of a test case. It is a bit of the wild west right now in LA. The city council is kind of lost, but they did vote against the recommendations of the attorney general to re-criminalzie it completely.

To those no here and from someone who has seen the legal side already...There is reason to hope not only will it pass, but it might even be implemented in a sane manner if it does. I find it pretty sane now.

[George]

Yeaaa give us a right to posses what god cropped for us, it only makes sense since all the bullshit war on iraq, gotta let our soldiers smoke since they couldnt overseas, to ease the pain. Its all a plan, gain support from most to prepare for the worse, all these damm conspiracies and lies is trippin us all out, thats why we smoke lol,

[Henry]

Here is some math for the lawmakers and the public that wants the laws to stay the same.

"It's a pretty large number, in the sense that, certainly, in the federal system, about one out of every six federal inmates is in federal prison for marijuana. That's a very large number. There are more people now in federal prison for marijuana offenses than for violent offenses. Out of the 1.1 million people in American prisons, the marijuana offenders are not the majority. But there are a lot of them. And certainly, at a time when there's a shortage of prison space and when murderers are serving on average about six years in prison, it seems absurd to have non-violent marijuana offenders locked up in those large numbers."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/.....osser.html

"As of year-end 2007, a record 7.2 million people were behind bars, on probation, or on parole, with 2.3 million of those actually incarcerated."

"While cost varies from state to state, in 2005, the average cost of incarceration per prisoner in the United States was $23,876,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....arceration

7,200,000 * (1/6) * $24,000 = $28,800,000,000

"The table below shows the average sentence (mean and median) imposed on Federal prisoners for various offenses in 2000."

Drug Felonies 75.6 months 55.0 months

http://skeptically.org/recdrugs/id8.html

$24,000 * 4.58 = $109,920 per marijuana offender.

This breaks out to costing each and everyone of us about $125 a year on weed. The average life expectancy is about 75 years. Take out 15 for your younger years before you started working and you are looking at a total lifetime cost of $7,500 to jail marijuana users. This doesn't even count the amount of money we spend to fight the "quaqmire on drugs". That cost an extra $2,400 of life time costs.

So keeping it illegal at its current status costs us 10,000 each. So even if you are against marijuana. Are you willing to spend that considering that there is more marijuana and drug users on the streets now than before the war? Look at the incarceration rates. They continue to sky rocket. This current cost analysis could be double by the time we die. That is a lot of nice things you could do or buy for that sort of money.

Unfortunately many people don't have the mental capacity to understand our arguments. Math however is a universal number. I would think most people would definately rethink their position of they saw this. We are a greedy society and money does make the world go around. I also think that the money tied into the prison/ law enforcement/ alcohol industry is our greatest opposition. If people could just see these numbers and understand the amount that they are lied to through targeted and carefully crafted propaganda the nation of freedom might root for freedom once again.

I don't know where the U.S. gets their statistics that they spend 12 billion a year on the drug war, but if that is separate from the cost of incarceration. We are probably looking at 35 to 40 Billion a year to go after marijuana users. With the economy in the toilet this argument might have a chance of gaining a lot of listeners. Who's smoking now to ignore these numbers. 35 Billion for weed a far safer drug than alcohol, prescription drugs, and tobacco. INSANE.

[theefirstamendment]

I'm voting for the legalization...

[paige]

HAHA I THINK ITS A VERY GOOD IDEA. I THINK MARIJUANA SHOULD BE LEGALIZED TO THE FULLEST.

[theefirstamendment]

go to youtube.com...