What's new

Calif measure shows state's conflicted link to pot

Neo 420

Active member
Veteran
California has a long history of defying conventional wisdom on the issue of marijuana, including its embrace of the drug in the 1960s and its landmark medical pot law 14 years ago. So it may not be all that surprising that a November ballot measure to legalize the drug has created some odd alliances and scenarios. Pot growers have opposed it. Some police have favored it. Polls show the public is deeply divided. Only politicians have lined up as expected: Nearly all major party candidates oppose the measure. And hanging over the whole debate is the fact that marijuana remains illegal under federal law.
As the Nov. 2 election nears, Proposition 19 has become about much more than the pros and cons of the drug itself. The campaigns have framed the vote as a referendum on everything from jobs and taxes to crime and the environment.
The measure gained ground in a Field Poll released Sunday, pulling ahead 49 percent to 42 percent among likely voters. The poll also found that Californians have become steadily more permissive toward the drug since pollsters began quizzing state residents about their attitudes 40 years ago.
Proponents say the measure is a way for the struggling state and its cities to raise badly needed funds. A legal pot industry, they say, would create jobs while undercutting violent criminals who profit off the illegal trade in the drug.
"I think it's a golden opportunity for California voters to strike a real blow against the (Mexican) drug cartels and drug gangs," said Joseph McNamara, who served as San Jose's police chief for about 15 years. "That would be a greater blow than we ever struck during my 35 years in law enforcement."
Supporters, including a group of former and current law enforcement officials, have called attention to the failure of the so-called "War on Drugs" to put a dent in pot production in California, and they say police need to pursue more dangerous crimes.
To pull ahead, opponents will have to convince voters that legalized marijuana will create a greater public safety threat than keeping it illegal.
"If the price drops, more people are going to buy it. Low-income people are going to buy marijuana instead of buying food, which happens with substance abusers," said Pleasant Hill police Chief Pete Dunbar, who also speaks for the California Police Chiefs' Association, one of many law enforcement groups against the measure.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100926/ap_on_re_us/us_marijuana_legalization
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"If the price drops, more people are going to buy it. Low-income people are going to buy marijuana instead of buying food, which happens with substance abusers," said retarded Pleasant Hill police Chief Peter Dunbar.

Wow, this dude is way off. Its weed not crack. Nobody's gonna take all their money and spend on weed like people do with crack, heroin and meth. People are gonna spend half their paychecks on weed and the other half on food for after they smoke the weed. lol.
 
"If the price drops, more people are going to buy it. Low-income people are going to buy marijuana instead of buying food, which happens with substance abusers," said retarded Pleasant Hill police Chief Peter Dunbar.

Wow, this dude is way off. Its weed not crack. Nobody's gonna take all their money and spend on weed like people do with crack, heroin and meth. People are gonna spend half their paychecks on weed and the other half on food for after they smoke the weed. lol.

Exactly that. When are people going to realize that Cannabis IS NOT addictive. I can't go two hours without a cigarette, and that's legal. I have never sacrificed eating lunch to buy weed, but I have for cigarettes. The only exception to this thought process to me is medical community. Some people actually need it. I can and have gone a long time without weed. You know what...I was fine.
Now growing it...that's a different story ;).

But nobody is going to be braking into houses, stealing their mom's TV, or giving $5 blow jobs on the side of the street to buy weed.

Conventional thought must be broken.
 

Lazyman

Overkill is under-rated.
Veteran
It doesnt matter if we pass 19 or not, the Feds will file an injunction and sue California out the ass for even trying it. Just like AZ trying to usurp Federal immigration law, the feds will sue California for trying to usurp their drug laws. We would need to secede from the Union before this could happen.
 

Lazyman

Overkill is under-rated.
Veteran
I saw a funny article yesterday where a reporter was predicting that California would make 1.4B dollars off the taxes on California's 14B weed market. I posted a reply: "So you think this will capture 100% of the black market eh? That might be a tad optimistic."

I'd say 10-15%, so California might get a couple million in taxes. Big effin deal. Probably cost more than that to defend the myriad of lawsuits that will pop up.
 

kmk420kali

Freedom Fighter
Veteran
It doesnt matter if we pass 19 or not, the Feds will file an injunction and sue California out the ass for even trying it. Just like AZ trying to usurp Federal immigration law, the feds will sue California for trying to usurp their drug laws. We would need to secede from the Union before this could happen.

I posted this in another Thread...but it is off-topic there, so I will post it here--:)

Then why did that not work with 215??
Arizona was another issue-- The Constitution gives all things Immigration related to the Feds...Arizona tried to make their own State Laws...not the same--:tiphat:
 

CaptainTrips

Active member
It doesnt matter if we pass 19 or not, the Feds will file an injunction and sue California out the ass for even trying it. Just like AZ trying to usurp Federal immigration law, the feds will sue California for trying to usurp their drug laws. We would need to secede from the Union before this could happen.

Immigration is a little different. The feds have a constitutional duty as far as immigration does. There is no constitutional requirement for enforcing drug laws. If the feds want drug laws, they can send the dea to California, but Cali law enforcement is under no requirement to, and is actually illegal for them to do so...
 
There is no constitutional requirement for enforcing drug laws.
And while I agree with this, how many times has the constitution been raped (read amended) to suit Their needs?

I can...unfortunately...see this now: 19 passes, feds amend constitution to include a requirement for feds to enforce drug laws, 19 gets overturned. Not that I want this to happen. I'm one of those weird people that would like to see this pass. But, like Lazyman, I see the feds stepping in sayin'.."Hell no, not in my house!" One way or another.

Sorry to be so pessimistic about all this, but I haven't seen anything They have done to show that they won't fuck this one up "For the people!!".
 

CaptainTrips

Active member
Amending the constitution is not easy. There is a reason it hasn't been done in a long time. I am not saying the feds won't do something, but I don't think they have a chance at sueing cali or over turning prop 19. If the feds want drugs laws, they can enforce them, but over turning prop 19 is not very realistic imo... States are not required to mirror federal law unless the law would go against the constitution such as if there was a ballot measure reinstating slavery...
 

CaptainTrips

Active member
Well I am no expert at how the gov. works, and I am kind of a cynic as far as constutional authority is concerned. But I really think the fed has no power to actually stop prop 19. Best they could do is send in federal power the way the do with medical marijuana... If they could overturn prop 19, they could overturn prop 215.
 

denmaster

Member
Exactly that. When are people going to realize that Cannabis IS NOT addictive. I can't go two hours without a cigarette, and that's legal. I have never sacrificed eating lunch to buy weed, but I have for cigarettes. The only exception to this thought process to me is medical community. Some people actually need it. I can and have gone a long time without weed. You know what...I was fine.
Now growing it...that's a different story ;).

But nobody is going to be braking into houses, stealing their mom's TV, or giving $5 blow jobs on the side of the street to buy weed.

Conventional thought must be broken.
really?! $5 blow jobs?! what's your address......lol
 

Neo 420

Active member
Veteran
For clarification, did the Fed's say they were going to close down Prop 19 stores (if it passes) or close down the proposed 200 zillion square miles grows that the city of Oakland wants to allow?
 

SCF

Bong Smoking News Hound
Veteran
This needs to pass. Jack Herer tried hard on this initiative to get it on the ballet. For Jacks Sake. R.I.P. Vote to legalize marijuana!

This will also weed out those who are using medical marijuana as an excuse, and let the real patients not get taxed, and hopefully a less hostile environment for all. If people quit drinking and smoke more. Than we can have weed bars. and so on. This can create a lot of jobs, and hopefully. Open up the Market for Hemp development. which this plant is the single most powerful plant, take away the medical portion. Just in every other aspect. Its the most useful plant on this earth known to man. and its illegal.
 

kmk420kali

Freedom Fighter
Veteran
For clarification, did the Fed's say they were going to close down Prop 19 stores (if it passes) or close down the proposed 200 zillion square miles grows that the city of Oakland wants to allow?

The Oakland thing is directed at MMJ...it actually has nothing to do with 19--:tiphat:
 

Wydget

New member
hmmmmm.

hmmmmm.

As I recall, the Constitution has not been amended all that much. Looking forward to the results of Prop 19. If it wins things will be very interesting.

California grower and this is my 1st post. :jump:
 
Top