California Prop 19: the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

[Rigamarole]

So I started a thread on this when it was first announced that it was getting on to the ballot, but now that we have some specifics and a prop number assigned might as well get another one going. I mean, we've got this shiny new forum and all...

Anyway here it is: Prop 19 (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_19,_the_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative_(2010)). To be voted on November 2nd.

I'm kind of surprised I haven't seen any real campaigning yet with the election only 3 months and change away. This is going to be a big issue that will bring a lot of people to the polls on both sides and if the prelim polls (http://elections.firedoglake.com/2010/07/12/ca-prop-19-legal-regulated-marijuana-favored-50-40-in-new-poll/) are any indication it will be close but it's favored to pass.

So how will this change the landscape of California if it does? Think Starbucks will start offering a ganja latte? It's going to be a very interesting time. In addition to whatever tax revenue comes in it's really going to boost our tourism industry. :D

[suranyi]

Interesting, this poll shows it winning 50% - 40%. Just a few days ago the Field Poll (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/10/local/la-me-0710-pot-poll-20100710)reported it losing 44% - 48%.

So it's right on the cusp right now. Historically, a proposition has to be winning by well over 50% at this time to have any chance, because almost all undecideds end up voting no.

[Rigamarole]

Interesting, this poll shows it winning 50% - 40%. Just a few days ago the Field Poll (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/10/local/la-me-0710-pot-poll-20100710)reported it losing 44% - 48%.

So it's right on the cusp right now. Historically, a proposition has to be winning by well over 50% at this time to have any chance, because almost all undecideds end up voting no.

The article I linked about the SurveyUSA poll mentions that Field poll and comments on the disparity. It posits that there may be a Bradley effect because the Field poll was conducted with a live interviewer while the SurveyUSA poll was not.

[Nametag]

It's still against federal law, and while federal agents don't do much drug law enforcement in California, large cannabusinesses would attract their attention. So, no Ganja Latte for you!

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

It's still against federal law, and while federal agents don't do much drug law enforcement in California, large cannabusinesses would attract their attention. So, no Ganja Latte for you!If this does pass, my guess is that sales would initially happen through the same channels as with MMJ now. You wouldn't need the doctor's recommendation anymore to get in, but the more conservative localities would continue to ban them just as they do now. I also expect that the current administration would would continue with its hands-off attitude. OTOH, if the Republicans take back the WH in 2012, I think the DEA will be shutting all the outlets down come January 21, 2013.

One interesting thing about this I haven't heard mentioned is that, like most states, California enacted its MJ prohibition law before there was any Federal law; in CA's case it was around 1915. If it comes to a Federal-State challenge in court, it probably won't make any difference. But if the proposition does win, I can't help thinking it would be only proper for Californians to decide when they want to end MJ prohibition in their state, just as 100 years ago they were among the first to enact it.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

For those who don't know, the president of the local NAACP chapter voiced her support for the proposition, citing the disproportionate effect of MJ prohibition on people of color. Predictably, the AA churches are not pleased with this announcement and plan to mobilize for the "no" side. So one can see the possibility of a concerted effort to stop Proposition 19 arising from a whole spectrum of conservative religions groups. Yet even now, this uproar may be fizzling; I'm not hearing anything more about it, although truth be told I haven't been looking that hard.

[Rigamarole]

It's still against federal law, and while federal agents don't do much drug law enforcement in California, large cannabusinesses would attract their attention. So, no Ganja Latte for you!

If this does pass, my guess is that sales would initially happen through the same channels as with MMJ now. You wouldn't need the doctor's recommendation anymore to get in, but the more conservative localities would continue to ban them just as they do now. I also expect that the current administration would would continue with its hands-off attitude. OTOH, if the Republicans take back the WH in 2012, I think the DEA will be shutting all the outlets down come January 21, 2013.

Here in L.A. those dispensaries are everywhere (literally - there are 4 or 5 within a block from my apartment. The city has been trying to trim down the number, but if this prop passes it's going to be insane how much business they'll do. I predict lines down the block... and I agree with you about the DEA; they won't be intervening at least if things remain as they are now.

[Oakminster]

I'm cautiously optimistic. If this thing passes, and it can be shown to generate substantial tax revenue, other cash strapped states are going to take a hard look at it. Tax increases in this economy are a hard sell in my state, which is very Red. Yet, we've already slashed the budget, and revenues are still dropping, with unemployment over 20% in some rural counties. A tax on marijuana would be a relatively painless way to boost revenue. Nobody really gets hurt by it, preachers can still rail against the vile weed, but maybe we could keep paying the teachers we have left....

[Really Not All That Bright]

What does it need to pass? 60%? Good luck to it, I say. Even if it doesn't generate substantial revenue, it will save California billions in enforcement and incarceration costs.

[suranyi]

What does it need to pass? 60%? Good luck to it, I say. Even if it doesn't generate substantial revenue, it will save California billions in enforcement and incarceration costs.

It needs 50% + 1. As far as I know, the only type of propostions in California that need a supermajority to pass are tax measures.

[Doctor Who]

God, I hope it passes. Just so we can all stop pretending that the weed shops are medical offices.

[Chronos]

It needs 50% + 1. As far as I know, the only type of propostions in California that need a supermajority to pass are tax measures. And this isn't considered a tax measure? I mean, it's even got "tax" in the name. And presumably there wasn't a tax on marijuana before.

[Really Not All That Bright]

And this isn't considered a tax measure? I mean, it's even got "tax" in the name. And presumably there wasn't a tax on marijuana before.
It allows local governments to tax weed, but it doesn't actually create any taxes itself.

[Giraffe]

It needs 50% + 1. As far as I know, the only type of propostions in California that need a supermajority to pass are tax measures.

I don't think this is true (though I wish it was) -- I believe that all ballot initiatives need only a simple majority to pass in California.

[Pleonast]

If it passes what happens to those serving sentences on state drug charges for marijuana? Given the current prison overcrowding, maybe they've already been paroled, so it doesn't matter.

The reduction in costs in the enforcement, judicial, prison and parole systems, plus the tax revenues it could earn makes this a big winner for the budget.

Let's see--less public debt, smaller government, less of a nanny state. That's a hat trick! I so hope it passes.

[hajario]

I don't think this is true (though I wish it was) -- I believe that all ballot initiatives need only a simple majority to pass in California.

Nope. Tax increases or new taxes need a supermajority to pass here. I think it's 66% unless the money goes to schools in which case it's 55%. I'm not positive on the numbers but I am sure that it's less for school taxes.

The MJ one is not a new tax. It's making something legal to sell so there will now be a normal sales tax on it. It only needs 50%+1 to pass.

[Giraffe]

Nope. Tax increases or new taxes need a supermajority to pass here. I think it's 66% unless the money goes to schools in which case it's 55%. I'm not positive on the numbers but I am sure that it's less for school taxes.

The MJ one is not a new tax. It's making something legal to sell so there will now be a normal sales tax on it. It only needs 50%+1 to pass.

Huh. I guess all the crazy initiatives spending money we don't have have been bond measures, then. Which seems like it should require a higher threshold than new taxes if you ask me, but no one ever does. :(

[BrainGlutton]

I presume there are parties who oppose this measure and are presenting arguments against it . . .

I wonder, do any of those arguments have to do with America's obesity epidemic?

'Cause in California, that would really play! ;)

[hajario]

Huh. I guess all the crazy initiatives spending money we don't have have been bond measures, then. Which seems like it should require a higher threshold than new taxes if you ask me, but no one ever does. :(

Bond measures also require a supermajority in the same percentages, two-thirds must vote for it unless it's for schools in which case it's 55%. We also require a supermajority of the legislature to pass a budget which is really why it takes so long to do so in most years.

The supermajority for bond issues and tax increases were part of the infamous Prop 13. The reduction to 55% for schools was via Initiative several years ago. I believe that it's flip-flopped back and forth between 67% and 55% a time or two.

Link to an interesting article on the subject. (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mathews-twothirds-20100530,0,105876.story)

[suranyi]

Bond measures also require a supermajority in the same percentages, two-thirds must vote for it unless it's for schools in which case it's 55%. We also require a supermajority of the legislature to pass a budget which is really why it takes so long to do so in most years.

The supermajority for bond issues and tax increases were part of the infamous Prop 13. The reduction to 55% for schools was via Initiative several years ago. I believe that it's flip-flopped back and forth between 67% and 55% a time or two.

Link to an interesting article on the subject. (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mathews-twothirds-20100530,0,105876.story)

Actually, the situation with bond measures is complicated. Local bond measures often require a supermajority, but statewide bond measures usually do not.

[Giraffe]

Bond measures also require a supermajority in the same percentages, two-thirds must vote for it unless it's for schools in which case it's 55%. We also require a supermajority of the legislature to pass a budget which is really why it takes so long to do so in most years.

Are you sure about that? I seem to recall that at least as recently as 2004, we had a raft of propositions funding various pet projects via bond initiatives which passed by simple (and in some cases narrow) majorities. For example:

Proposition 55 (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_55_%282004%29), $12.3 billion in bonds issued to renovate public schools, passed 51% to 49%.

Proposition 63 (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_63_%282004%29), which raised state income taxes to pay for health services, passed 54% to 46%.

Proposition 71 (http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_71,_Stem_Cell_Research_%282004%29), $3 billion bonds issued to fund stem cell research, passed 59% to 41%.

There were a bunch of others, but you get the idea.

[hajario]

Actually, the situation with bond measures is complicated. Local bond measures often require a supermajority, but statewide bond measures usually do not.

Yes. That's it. I had forgotten about that distinction. Thanks.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

I don't think this is true (though I wish it was) -- I believe that all ballot initiatives need only a simple majority to pass in California.Ballot initiatives need only a simple majority, if no new taxes are imposed. IIRC the notorious Proposition 8 in 2008 didn't get anywhere near two thirds approval, but it passed.

Statewide propositions and countywide measures all require a two-thirds majority if they impose a tax at a definite rate. L.A. County's Measure R, which imposed a $.005 sales tax to fund transit projects won so narrowly that it took them months to count the last ballots tricking in, before they could certify it.

But is Prop 19 a tax proposition if it allows an unspecified tax rate on a product that will not be legal until and unless the law comes into force? Probably not. I expect that the two-thirds rule would apply to subsequent efforts to levy such taxes, which would be separate laws.

Even more curious, can localities impose and collect taxes on a commodity that remains illegal under Federal law? Probably not, strictly speaking, but the Feds might be inclined to disregard it, especially if the tax money so collected is used to ensure proper regulation of a legal MJ market.

[Giraffe]

Statewide propositions and countywide measures all require a two-thirds majority if they impose a tax at a definite rate.(bolding mine)

Again, I don't think this is true -- click my link to Proposition 63, which imposed a 1% state income tax increase on everyone earning over $1,000,000/year.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

If it passes what happens to those serving sentences on state drug charges for marijuana? Given the current prison overcrowding, maybe they've already been paroled, so it doesn't matter.

There aren't a lot of people in prison for just simple possession, but there are probably many more who were convicted of it, or pled to it, along with other crimes listed in the complaint or indictment. If Prop 19 passes, I imagine every one of these people will be calling their attorneys to try to get the pot charges knocked off--what the hell, if it knocks a couple years off the sentence, why not?

IANAL but I believe the basic principle is supposed to be that a repealed law does not automatically void any convictions, or commute the sentences of those convicted of its violation. For example, if you are guilty of tax evasion and then the law imposing that tax is repealed, you still should have paid the tax. But if history is our guide, this sort of thing does happen. For instance, not long after Prohibition was repealed, there were a few people serving life sentences for simple possession in Michigan, which had a much stricter alcohol policy than the Federal prohibition law. It took a few years, but they got out.

[Chronos]

I've a hunch that, even if they can't get out (or have their sentences reduced, or whatever) just by virtue of the new law, that they'd probably still be good candidates for a pardon or commutation by the governor. Even more so since, if I'm not mistaken, the current governor is very pot-friendly.

[Rigamarole]

Even more so since, if I'm not mistaken, the current governor is very pot-friendly.

*sigh* you made me do it (http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/political-pictures-arnold-schwarzenegger-pot-governing.jpg).

[Stan Shmenge]

I've a hunch that, even if they can't get out (or have their sentences reduced, or whatever) just by virtue of the new law, that they'd probably still be good candidates for a pardon or commutation by the governor. Even more so since, if I'm not mistaken, the current governor is very pot-friendly.

I believe he is on record as opposing the measure.

If it goes down to defeat, we can thank the soccer moms. Who probably smoked their share back in their own youth, but recoil at the idea of their own snowflakes ever getting their hands on the demon weed. Polling shows that women are the group most opposed.

I predict that the measure will go down to defeat. Lots of interest groups around to fund ads opposed to the measure, law enforcement, bible thumpers, heck even the growers up in Humboldt are against the measure because they believe it will reduce the price they can get for their crops. Who out there will fund advertising in support? So the measure is likely to lose support as the fear mongering ads start to roll.

Sad, really. It would strike a big blow against the senseless war on drugs once the rest of the nation sees that the sky didn't fall after legalizing it here. Of course the voters will vote for any damn measure that increases the bonded indebtedness... Stupid voters. :mad:

[BigT]

So should we expect a religious organization to organize and oppose this one, too?

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

So should we expect a religious organization to organize and oppose this one, too?
See my post upthread. Some prominent AA religious leaders have already excoriated the L.A. chapter president of the NAACP for endorsing prop 19. I expected this would lead almost immediately to a tidal wave of religion-based, concerted opposition efforts, and I'm surprised to see that that hasn't happened yet.

Other news: A major food service workers' union signed on; sorry I forget which one it was.

ETA: In this context, perhaps I'd better explain that I mean African American, not Alcoholics Anonymous.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

God, I hope it passes. Just so we can all stop pretending that the weed shops are medical offices.No, no--herbal pharmacies.

From the publicity in the news about these dispensaries, it's easy to get the idea that it's like something out of Cheech and Chong come to life. For one thing, they generally offer a dozen or more "strains" of cannabis, and the names of these strains sound unfortunately like something out stoner movie--e.g. "Purple Kush", "Silver Haze", and "White Widow" to name a few. The fact is, however, that these strains have different characteristics as to general strength and as to the genetic makeup of the plant; some are more sativa and some are more indica--which in turn is supposed to make different strains more suitable for different ailments. In essence, the proffering of all these different varieties with giggle-inducing names is not done so they can pretend they're an Amsterdam coffeeshop, but so an appropriate remedy can be offered, and customers and sellers can have rational discussions about their effects.

In reality, the shops are discretely conducted, not least because in the City of L.A. most have been forced to close. If you weren't looking for them, you wouldn't even know they were there. More than anything else, it appears to me to be like a subculture operating quietly under our very noses. I think if more of the general public were aware of this, there would be a lot less concern and fear about cannabis, even among the soccer moms.

[Rigamarole]

Other news: A major food service workers' union signed on; sorry I forget which one it was.

Pizza Delivery Dudes of America? :D

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Pizza Delivery Dudes of America? :DThe United Food And Commercial Workers Union.

The spoilered link is probably not a huge deal, unless you work in one of those offices where they don't allow pictures, or something.


Probably NSFW as the headline contains the words "legalize" and "pot", and has a picture of a leaf.

Cite (http://www.thebigmoney.com/blogs/cash-crop/2010/07/15/big-union-endorses-legal-pot-california)

[C K Dexter Haven]

I find it amazing that my generation (I was in college in the late 60s) is now "in charge" and marijuana (a rallying cry of that era) still isn't legalized. Sigh.

[suranyi]

I find it amazing that my generation (I was in college in the late 60s) is now "in charge" and marijuana (a rallying cry of that era) still isn't legalized. Sigh.

I think that's an indication of how every generation gradually becomes more conservative as they age. But slightly less so than the generation before.

[Peremensoe]

Even more curious, can localities impose and collect taxes on a commodity that remains illegal under Federal law?

Sure they can. Why not?

In fact, states and localities have been known to tax commodities that were illegal under their own law, too, as when Mississippi in 1944 (then thirty-seven years into a fifty-nine-year state "bone dry" law) enacted a ten percent sales tax on "tangible personal property, the sale of which is prohibited by law."

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Sure they can. Why not?

In fact, states and localities have been known to tax commodities that were illegal under their own law, too, as when Mississippi in 1944 (then thirty-seven years into a fifty-nine-year state "bone dry" law) enacted a ten percent sales tax on "tangible personal property, the sale of which is prohibited by law."How was it possible for the tax to be paid, when to report the transactions would have been to incriminate oneself?

[Peremensoe]

How was it possible for the tax to be paid, when to report the transactions would have been to incriminate oneself?

Enforcement priorities. The state evidently decided that collecting the tax was better than pretending to interdict liquor and not collecting the tax. Yet Mississippians continued to stagger to the polls to vote dry.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

For those interested, an opinion piece (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-kleiman-marijuna-legalization-20100714,0,6502857.story) in today's L.A. Times. Among other things, it points out that legalization would run counter to both Federal law and international treaties, and will likely be rendered moot by a Federal crackdown, in the event that it wins.

[daksya]

Mark Kleiman, in that OpEd, rests his thesis on these premises:

1a)Pot possession and manufacture will remain illegal under federal law.
1b)Anyone operating a licensed business under CA law will be confessing to federal crimes, in writing.

2)The Feds aren't going after MMJ in CA due to "good legal and constitutional reasons".

3)Legal MJ would be much cheaper leading to CA becoming supply hub for pot in US & Canada, displacing other sources. To prevent this, Feds would go after legal growers in CA.

All of these are shaky or unpersuasive.

1)The MMJ allowed in CA since a dozen years now has remained illegal throughout under Federal law. Many of the dispensaries that operate in CA are licensed i.e. they too have confessed in writing to acts illegal under federal law.

2a)The Bush admin did go after MMJ dispensaries. So did the DEA under Obama, both before & after his stance to not do so. The AG's decision rationale is based on "an assessment of how to allocate scarce enforcement resources" and not the sanctity of the state over medical practice. There's no talk of good constitutional/legal reasons. If it were so, the FDA would become almost toothless.

2b)The international treaties do disallow legalizing drugs for recreational use, but here's the thing: the US is the big dog in the international drug policy arena. What consequences does the US really expect to suffer should CA pass Prop 19?

3)Pot is much cheaper in Mexico, yet it doesn't maintain that price band in Chicago or New York. Any bulk pot shipped out of CA still has to pass through hostile territory, same as cheap Mexican weed. The same risk premium applies. Pot may become modestly cheaper elsewhere, but no collapse of current pricing levels should be expected.

[puddleglum]

What is wrong with the status quo? Everyone in California who wants pot can legally get it by going to a doctor and making up a symptom and it makes it slightly harder for children to get pot. This prop is only going to force the federal government to either crack down or stop enforcing pot laws. My guess is that they will choose to crack down.

[Doctor Who]

What is wrong with the status quo? Everyone in California who wants pot can legally get it by going to a doctor and making up a symptom and it makes it slightly harder for children to get pot. This prop is only going to force the federal government to either crack down or stop enforcing pot laws. My guess is that they will choose to crack down.This is exactly what I don't like about the status quo: the pretext that anything medical is going on. Legalize it, ban it altogether, but let's stop all the "care collective" "I get headaches" "advil won't work for me" nonsense.

[Stoneburg]

Aren't people in favor of this proposition more likely to forget about voting? Has that been calculated for?
:dubious:

[Rigamarole]

Aren't people in favor of this proposition more likely to forget about voting? Has that been calculated for?
:dubious:

Jokes aside, I think the passage of this prop is really going to depend on mobilizing the youth vote. If a lot of young people get out and vote (that is, relative to the normal low turnout of young voters) the way they did in the last presidential election, it has a very real chance.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Rock the uh... what's it called? The thing... rock the... shit. What are we rocking?

OH! Rock the vote, man. Rock the vote.

[Stoneburg]

Jokes aside, I think the passage of this prop is really going to depend on mobilizing the youth vote. If a lot of young people get out and vote (that is, relative to the normal low turnout of young voters) the way they did in the last presidential election, it has a very real chance.

What would be the political ramifications of the Obamanizer coming out in favor you think?

[Rigamarole]

What would be the political ramifications of the Obamanizer coming out in favor you think?

I don't think he would since he's already said he's against legalization. But if by some chance he had a change of heart? Well, the Repubs would of course demonize him but they already do that plenty - and it could actually increase his support among his base. So, it probably couldn't hurt.

[Chronos]

Obama's best move, politically speaking, would probably be to invoke states' rights. This would let him effectively support the measure in California without going against his prior anti-legalization stance, and would also put the Republicans in the no-win situation of either agreeing with him, or going against their own pet states'-rights causes.

Of course, whether he actually takes this position will probably depend on his own personal ideology.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

In invoking states' rights, it helps to remember that state narcotics laws predate the federal law in many cases, and nowhere more so than with respect to marijuana and California. California enacted its own pot ban in 1915 or thereabouts. Most federal law enforcement addresses international smuggling or criminal acts that involve crossing internal state lines. Simple possession and use of MJ, in my non-legal opinion doesn't meet this standard, notwithstanding tortuous arguments to the contrary that have been successful in court. For example in Gonzalez v. Raich (545 U.S. 1; 125 S. Ct. 2195), in 2005, the SCOTUS held, in effect, that since personal cultivation eased the demand for MJ in the local illicit market, it would lower prices thus affecting interstate commerce. From there it's not a stretch to say that the drug dealers, deprived of their adult customers, would perforce focus on the kids as their primary prospects.

Only by refuting convoluted arguments successfully in court, can the reach of the CSA into people's closets and back yards be ended. Simply overturning the law itself is most likely a nonstarter, because there are too many conservative sections of the country whose representatives would never allow it.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Aren't people in favor of this proposition more likely to forget about voting? Has that been calculated for?
:dubious:Still the estimated percentages for support are remarkable. In the hazy, heady early 1970s, when a similar proposition was on the ballot, it lost by a huge margin; now it looks as if the margin will be quite small, win or lose. With that much support for the initiative, I don't think forgetting to vote will be a problem.

[Chronos]

Only by refuting convoluted arguments successfully in court, can the reach of the CSA into people's closets and back yards be ended.Expand that acronym, please? I don't think you're talking about the Confederate States of America.

[puddleglum]

CSA = Controlled Substances Act
Under the status quo in California, everyone who wants to smoke pot can legally do so. So this proposition seems less about wanting to smoke pot then it is about getting the government to pat you on the head and tell you its fine. If it passes, it forces the federal government into taking a stand. Do California potheads really want to give the voters of Georgia and New Jersey a chance to take away what they already have?
The people who are pushing this don't seem to be thinking clearly.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

CSA = Controlled Substances Act
Under the status quo in California, everyone who wants to smoke pot can legally do so. So this proposition seems less about wanting to smoke pot then it is about getting the government to pat you on the head and tell you its fine. If it passes, it forces the federal government into taking a stand. Do California potheads really want to give the voters of Georgia and New Jersey a chance to take away what they already have?
The people who are pushing this don't seem to be thinking clearly.You must be expecting a massive national outcry by conservatives in the other 49 states, should the proposition pass. So far we're not even seeing that from the folks in the conservative areas within California. The only way they could "take away what we already have" would be by fast-tracking legislation at the national level to abrogate the state MMJ laws. I suppose legal "remedies" would also be open to them, but I doubt the average Georgian or New Jerseyite cares that much about a few potheads in California getting their weed legally. I doubt that they would have the numbers to stop that even if the Republicans do pick up a few more seats in November. The issue of legalization doesn't divide evenly along party lines, which is why the California central committee of the Democratic Party has come out as neutral on Prop. 19. Many Republicans are libertarian-minded and won't be too eager to cooperate; on the other side, our senator Feinstein and Democratic VP are two of the biggest drug warriors on the planet, yet neither has bothered to comment on the situation in California. To her credit, while I'm sure Feinstein's no fan of marijuana, she has most famously directed her sights against truly dangerous drugs like illicit methamphetamine.

What I do think we'll see is that, in some cases, the promoting and sale of legally available pot will go beyond what is considered reasonable in terms of whom the marketing targets and in the amounts produced or sold at a particular location. In situations like this, which are likely to generate community complaints, IMO the Feds would be justified in invoking the interstate commerce clause, and enjoining or closing those "weed shops" from operating. This type of thing has already happened with MMJ dispensaries whose operators were allegedly flouting the state law, although I am not familiar with those cases or the merits thereof.

[Captain Midnight]

It's still against federal law, and while federal agents don't do much drug law enforcement in California, large cannabusinesses would attract their attention. So, no Ganja Latte for you!

Wouldn't Federal law make any legalization on the state level moot and a waste of time?

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

It's still against federal law, and while federal agents don't do much drug law enforcement in California, large cannabusinesses would attract their attention. So, no Ganja Latte for you!

Wouldn't Federal law make any legalization on the state level moot and a waste of time?Strictly speaking, yes, but then by that logic the same is true of the MMJ laws we have now. In fact, if you are charged at the federal level for violating the CSA with respect to MJ, you cannot assert legally that it was for medicinal purposes, since federal law recognizes no medical use. This is even though there are a handful of glaucoma patients who, as the result of an ongoing experiment, have been receiving monthly shipments of pre-rolled joints, courtesy of the U.S. government.

Remember, even in The Netherlands MJ remains technically illegal, or at least the growing of it is. Yet evidently appears to be as good as legal to anyone who wanders into the right kind of Amsterdam coffeeshop. I think the lesson to be learned is that MJ legalization will probably happen, but it won't look like legalization. Instead, it will be condoned with law enforcement only stepping in where things get out of hand. The result will be de facto legal weed without any politicians having to admit to being soft on drug abuse.

[Rigamarole]

It's still against federal law, and while federal agents don't do much drug law enforcement in California, large cannabusinesses would attract their attention. So, no Ganja Latte for you!

Wouldn't Federal law make any legalization on the state level moot and a waste of time?

No, because who's going to enforce it? As pointed out upthread we already have tons (and I do mean tons) of medical marijuana clinics in California that are illegal under federal law. For a time the DEA would come in and raid a clinic here and there (met by heavy protests) but those raids have stopped. It becomes an issue of states' rights, and do you really think the federal government will want to start a civil war over a few stoners in California?

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

It's still against federal law, and while federal agents don't do much drug law enforcement in California, large cannabusinesses would attract their attention. So, no Ganja Latte for you!

Wouldn't Federal law make any legalization on the state level moot and a waste of time?

No, because who's going to enforce it? As pointed out upthread we already have tons (and I do mean tons) of medical marijuana clinics in California that are illegal under federal law. For a time the DEA would come in and raid a clinic here and there (met by heavy protests) but those raids have stopped. It becomes an issue of states' rights, and do you really think the federal government will want to start a civil war over a few stoners in California?The change in operations came principally as a result of the change of administration. The DEA still does mount raids on dispensaries, but evidently only in cases where the transactions and production involved go above and beyond what is legally permitted under the state law. For example, under the state law dispensary operators are not supposed to make profits, which is why they usually have names including the word "collective" or "cooperative". The people who work there don't quote prices, they ask for "donations" which everyone understands as an amount of money that must be paid for an eigth or quarter ounce of this or that strain. After all, let's be fair--they have expenses to meet like any other enterprise.

However, if a dispensary operator appears to be waxing rich from doing this, it's quite likely that the Federal authorities will step in and charge them with trafficking. By contrast, under Bush everyone was fair game.

[guizot]

I find it amazing that my generation (I was in college in the late 60s) is now "in charge" and marijuana (a rallying cry of that era) still isn't legalized. Sigh.I find it amazing, too, because now that your generation is sitting in the judge's seat, from the bench they're shoving collectivism (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/04/judges-bars-venice-dispensary-from-selling-medical-marijuana.html) down our young, capitalistic throats:In a hearing, [Los Angeles County California Superior Court Judge] Chalfant strongly reiterated his view that the state's laws were intended to allow medical marijuana patients and their caregivers to form collectives to grow pot together and share the harvest, but not to sell it like a retail store. "Maybe I am too old, but those of us who grew up in the 1960s know what a collective is," he said.Once this law passes, he can go back into his commune chambers and lament the advance of free enterprise as Donovan croons in the background.

[drachillix]

It becomes an issue of states' rights, and do you really think the federal government will want to start a civil war over a few stoners in California?

Free California!!!!!!!!

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

I support Prop 19 and I hope it passes. The fact that marijuana is illegal is illogical to me as tobacco and alcohol are just as dangerous healthwise yet nobody except Sharron Angle and some fanatics on the far right and far left want to get ban them. By legalizing marijuana the state will be able to save quite a lot of money from as others have said both taxing marijuana and not enforcing the current laws. Of course at the same time I think we need to crack down even more harshly on other drugs and break the power of the drug cartels.

[New Deal Democrat]

Marijuana is illegal because most of the voters do not like the kind of people who enjoy it. They're not afraid they will ruin their health. They're afraid they'll enjoy themselves.

[Rigamarole]

Fun, awesome animation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMM_T_PJ0Rs&feature=player_embedded) (if a little... whimsical) somebody made about ending marijuana prohibition.

Maybe not the most realistic take on things but it's a really well done little piece and I thought I'd share.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Fun, awesome animation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMM_T_PJ0Rs&feature=player_embedded) (if a little... whimsical) somebody made about ending marijuana prohibition.

Maybe not the most realistic take on things but it's a really well done little piece and I thought I'd share.

Thanks; I enjoyed that quite a lot. Great art, good animation and a good little story there too. I thought they accomplished their goal, although in a decidedly preaching-to-the-choir kind of way.

[Chronos]

It would have been a lot better if they had made any sort of argument at all, rather than just bare assertion.

[Measure for Measure]

Absent meaningful campaign finance reform and acknowledgment that corporations are not people, I oppose Prop 19. Large scale industrial cultivation of marijuana implies large scale industrial lobbying for the same. Then again the Feds will probably step in anyway (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/07/can-california-legalize-marijuana).

Interestingly, the Oakland City council is working on the approval of large-scale weed production facilities for medical marijuana. They want to tax it. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=11192105

[drachillix]

Interestingly, the Oakland City council is working on the approval of large-scale weed production facilities for medical marijuana. They want to tax it. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=11192105

Never thought of that...where are the dispensaries getting their MJ?

[Measure for Measure]

According to this relatively detailed article from Cecily Burt of the Oakland Tribune (http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_15645236?nclick_check=1), state law currently "allows medical marijuana cultivation by collectives of patients and caregivers, with no profiteering," whatever that means.

Pros for a cash-strapped city:
One indoor facility could create 300-400 jobs (probably a cooked estimate) and $3 million of tax revenue.

Cons:
The MJ price would collapse with legalization. Dealers from other states would swarm in, taking advantage of the price differential. The Feds would notice even before this happens. Industrial facilities would be a tempting target.

The article has a table of local ballot initiatives proposing 2.5-10% tax rates on marijuana (lower rates for medical, higher for recreational). If the state is smart, they'll boost taxes as high as they can to choke the illegal export trade, or at least give a more discrete profile.
ETA:
More pros:
"Legalisation might bring state and federal governments about $7 billion annually in additional tax revenue, while saving them $13.5 billion in law enforcement costs, Jeffrey Miron, the Harvard economist, estimates. " http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/health/article6851523.ece

[bdgr]

The increased sales of Doritos and visine alone could make this worthwhile.

[Lakai]

Wouldn't Federal law make any legalization on the state level moot and a waste of time?

No, because who's going to enforce it? As pointed out upthread we already have tons (and I do mean tons) of medical marijuana clinics in California that are illegal under federal law. For a time the DEA would come in and raid a clinic here and there (met by heavy protests) but those raids have stopped. It becomes an issue of states' rights, and do you really think the federal government will want to start a civil war over a few stoners in California?

Even if the Feds do enforce it, ordinary citizens will still be able to smoke MJ without much worry. Can you imagine the federal district courts taking over the state courts docket for individual marijuana possession? That's just not going to happen.

If this law passes there will be less state regulations for opening a clinic so there will probably be a lot more clinics. Plus a corporation with a lot of money can set up small stores in the state and simply accept a couple of raids as the cost of doing business.

[Saint Cad]

It's still against federal law, and while federal agents don't do much drug law enforcement in California, large cannabusinesses would attract their attention. So, no Ganja Latte for you!

Like in Alaska?
Just askin'.

[guizot]

Even if the Feds do enforce it, ordinary citizens will still be able to smoke MJ without much worry. Can you imagine the federal district courts taking over the state courts docket for individual marijuana possession? That's just not going to happen. Since yesterday, it's even less of a worry (
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marijuana-20101002,0,7445690.story). If you're caught with less than an ounce, it's an infraction, like littering or a parking ticket.Gov. Schwarzenegger deserves credit for sparing the state's taxpayers the cost of prosecuting minor pot offenders...Californians increasingly recognize that the war on marijuana is a waste of law enforcement resources.However,"This new law takes away the last reason anyone would have to vote for Proposition 19," said Tim Rosales, campaign manager for No on Proposition 19.

[Lakai]

Since yesterday, it's even less of a worry (
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marijuana-20101002,0,7445690.story). If you're caught with less than an ounce, it's an infraction, like littering or a parking ticket.

The federal law hasn't changed, so it's still the same problem as before. But I still don't think the feds are going to waste their time policing marijuana possession.

[hajario]

Since yesterday, it's even less of a worry (
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marijuana-20101002,0,7445690.story). If you're caught with less than an ounce, it's an infraction, like littering or a parking ticket.

The federal law hasn't changed, so it's still the same problem as before. But I still don't think the feds are going to waste their time policing marijuana possession.

They won't. If anything, they'll go after the cultivators and the dispensaries.

[guizot]

The federal law hasn't changed, so it's still the same problem as before...And the federal "problem" for casual possession is minimal. As you say, even "ordinary citizens" could use marijuana with much worry a few days ago. Now, they won't have to report incidents with local police on future job applications for state violations of less than an ounce.

[BigT]

I support Prop 19 and I hope it passes. The fact that marijuana is illegal is illogical to me as tobacco and alcohol are just as dangerous healthwise yet nobody except Sharron Angle and some fanatics on the far right and far left want to get ban them. By legalizing marijuana the state will be able to save quite a lot of money from as others have said both taxing marijuana and not enforcing the current laws. Of course at the same time I think we need to crack down even more harshly on other drugs and break the power of the drug cartels.

I think you may have found a belief you have in common with most people here on the SDMB.