To my California friends [Prop. 19]

[Chimera]

Please vote YES for Prop 19.

I know there are a lot of bugs to be worked out, a lot of questions to be answered, and a lot of issues and problems to be settled with it. I know that it isn't a panacea, that it won't cure your budget woes, that it won't end all crime or Law Enforcement stupidity. I know it isn't half the things it has probably been billed as.

But what it is, is the first real shot at making headway on decriminalizing Marijuana nationwide. The first big domino that will make wishy-washy pussy politicians all over the country go "Hmm, maybe it won't end our careers if we vote for something like this". The first big shot at the BIG NO from Law Enforcement agencies who have a vested interest in not legalizing pot, and the fools who still equate pot with Heroin.

It starts or ends with you folks, out there on the coast. It isn't just about what happens in your state, or what it does for or to your state. It is a lot bigger than that.

[Yeticus Rex]

I'm an employer.
My employees drive on the job.
They transport Developmentally Disabled adults out in the community.
I think you see where I am going with this....

It was reported in the WSJ, that if Prop 19 passes and since Marijuana is not a tobacco product, an employer could not ban it from being smoked IN their breakroom.....but could still enforce the ban on smoking cigars or cigarettes. Also, I have quite a few clients and employees with asthma, what about their rights to a smoke-free workplace?

AND....If there are alot of bugs to be worked out, then they need to worked out BEFORE it comes to a vote rather than spending extra money, time, lawsuits, etc. after it passes. Otherwise, you are putting *ALOT* of people, property, and commerce at risk through lawsuits. But since the allowance is so broad in scope, I'm sure the Feds (or courts) will see to it that it doesn't see the light of day.

If they wanted to have this Prop pass.....they should have thrown a screen pass instead of a long bomb into the end zone. Who ever wrote this prop up was definitely high. Sorry.....I'm voting NO.

But can I still be your friend?

[gazpacho]

Yeticus Rex.

Do you have the ability to ban alcohol from your business? It seems bizarre to me that you will not be able to specify that you can't be at work under the influence of pot but will be able to do so for alcohol.

[Chimera]

It seems rather unlikely that this alleged loophole wouldn't be closed within about 3 days of Prop 19 passing.

[Yeticus Rex]

Yeticus Rex.

Do you have the ability to ban alcohol from your business? It seems bizarre to me that you will not be able to specify that you can't be at work under the influence of pot but will be able to do so for alcohol.
Yes....but you got it backwards.....you can't be UTI for alcohol, but you would be allowed for pot.

It seems rather unlikely that this alleged loophole wouldn't be closed within about 3 days of Prop 19 passing.
Then why create the loophole in the first place? :dubious:

CalChamber's Legal Analysis on Prop 19 (http://www.calchamber.com/PressReleases/Documents/Prop_19_The_Impact_on_the_Workplace_F.pdf)

With Federal guidelines to follow (through indirect Medicare funding), there will be no safe harbor for employers if this passes "as is".

[RandMcnally]

Too late, I already voted against it, for very selfish reasons.

I hate the smell. I hate the smell with a damn passion. I'd rather huff in second-hand cigarette smoke than weed smell any day.

I've never smoked weed once, not even to try it. I've just never had the urge. Now, if it passes I'm not going to go protesting on the street or anything, but hey, I had my chance at the ballot box.

[Crupiea]

The state could care less about decriminalizing anything or helping people.

They see a large amount of money being spent and no tax coming in and they want their cut.

Very simple.

They are even willing to become drug pushers to get your money.

Its not like its that big of a deal if people want to get high but everyone seems to do just fine as it is now and it seems available enough.

I have never met someone who purchased something and wished they were paying taxes on it.

Until now.

[Chimera]

They are even willing to become drug pushers to get your money.

I find this ironic. Around here we have a fair number of Municipal Liquor Stores. Seems government got in the business of selling drugs a long time ago.

[Fried Dough Ho]

I find this ironic. Around here we have a fair number of Municipal Liquor Stores. Seems government got in the business of selling drugs a long time ago.

Not us Californians. Liquor licenses are a pricey commodity which are sold on the open market and in auctions -- some have sold in excess of six figures.

[Rick]

Yes....but you got it backwards.....you can't be UTI for alcohol, but you would be allowed for pot.


Then why create the loophole in the first place? :dubious:

CalChamber's Legal Analysis on Prop 19 (http://www.calchamber.com/PressReleases/Documents/Prop_19_The_Impact_on_the_Workplace_F.pdf)

With Federal guidelines to follow (through indirect Medicare funding), there will be no safe harbor for employers if this passes "as is".

That is some scary shit.

[Measure for Measure]

That's the problem with ballot initiatives: they don't benefit the process of deliberation and adjustment that regular legislation has. Instead the voters are given an up/down choice -- which they decide upon impressionistically. My attitude is "When in doubt, vote no." If you want something passed, lobby the legislature.

I'll admit though that marijuana is a special case: no elected representative wants to be soft on pot. But California already has medical marijuana and the Governor recently signed legislation making possession a misdemeanor. If other states want to decriminalize pot, they can point to those precedents.

Other thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=579915&page=2
Excerpt : If prop 19 passes, marijuana will still be illegal: it will conflict with Federal law. And the feds very well may do something about that. The very largest growers should beware.

I oppose Prop 19 as it permits localities to certify large growing operations, ones bigger than the 5x5 ones that would be automatically legal. Admittedly, I understand that the state could over-ride that, if it wished. Anyway, in the absence of meaningful campaign finance reform, I don't want industrial scale growers and distributors running advertising and marketing campaigns on behalf of weed. Sure, cigarettes and alcohol are worse and marijuana prohibition sucks. But if we're going to introduce another mind altering substance into American public life, I want the CDC involved. Besides, I think the medical marijuana shtick is working pretty well. If you don't want to pay a physician $50, get your bud from the guy down the street. A physician slip typically costs something closer to $100 though.

I understand now that prop 19 has a 50-50 chance of passage: supporters of it should make a point of exercising their right to vote.

[magnusblitz]

Yes....but you got it backwards.....you can't be UTI for alcohol, but you would be allowed for pot.


Then why create the loophole in the first place? :dubious:

CalChamber's Legal Analysis on Prop 19 (http://www.calchamber.com/PressReleases/Documents/Prop_19_The_Impact_on_the_Workplace_F.pdf)

With Federal guidelines to follow (through indirect Medicare funding), there will be no safe harbor for employers if this passes "as is".

If true, I'll admit that's a good reason to vote against it. However, I'm not convinced by the source. In some parts, they actually list the current law and compare to it. However, in the situation where it says "marijuana would be more protected by pot" there's no cite. Can you point me to specific laws that would show this interpretation?

[Measure for Measure]

From this libertarian website: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/10/californias_pro.html
11304 (c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301. Provided, however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected. So pot smokers get job protections, unless it can be demonstrated that their use impairs job performance.

The website Cannabis Fantastic points out that Prop 19 has conflicting language though: “This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others: Health and Safety Code sections 11357 [relating to possession on school grounds]; 11361 [relating to minors as amended herein]; 11379.6 [relating to chemical production]; 11532 [relating to loitering to commit a crime or acts not authorized by law]; Vehicle Code section 23152 [relating to driving while under the influence]; Penal Code section 272 [relating to contributing to the delinquency of a minor]; nor any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety.” So laws regarding controlled substances in the workplace will over-ride. Well, at least this proposition can be patched.


In other news, Steve Cooley, the Republican candidate for State Attorney General, believes that Prop 19 is probably unconstitutional and preempted by federal law: http://cannabisfantastic.com/2010/10/las-district-attorney-and-county-sheriff-vow-to-disregaurd-prop-19-if-it-passes/

[Locrian]

I am honestly still on the fence for this. I see its potential for a lot of things-- maybe even sticking it to the fundies-- but still, I've got my license. I smoke at home. (Inhales) Huh? :D

My real question is how much hassle will there be to regulate this law? What will it cost?

If we can't afford it, we really shouldn't pass anything new, but we can't really put a price tag on it until it passes, can we?

(It amazes me that last election we actually said YES to a billion dollar train ($1 or 2 billion) and chickens about to become McNuggets get larger and newly painted cages. (???) )

[Yeticus Rex]

If true, I'll admit that's a good reason to vote against it. However, I'm not convinced by the source. In some parts, they actually list the current law and compare to it. However, in the situation where it says "marijuana would be more protected by pot" there's no cite. Can you point me to specific laws that would show this interpretation?

I've re-read the site, but I am not sure which section you're referring to.

I'll admit that the legal analysis comes from an employer backed organization; I mean after all, I would want to know more about this Prop w.r.t. small businesses and how they are affected if this passes. I personally don't care if people smoke pot, but if it affects my business.....damn straight I would want to know how we would be affected and what the risks are. This measure goes way too far in protecting users in the workplace and to the detriment of businesses. Some will say that this fear-mongering by businesses, but I would argue that it was written so ambiguously that from a legal standpoint, it is possible that these scenarios could exist if passed as is, and I certainly don't want business to become the guinea pigs when the lawsuits are filed to see how the courts would interpret the law. California is not the most business-friendly state and this is just another step in the wrong direction. Leave businesses as is and to keep control over whether or not to keep their pot smokers employed. If it was worded like that, then I would reconsider my position.

I can see decriminalization in the future some day, and maybe would support a Prop more finely tuned and focused, but this Prop is way over-reaching.

[Bone]

My household voted yes. Increasing individual liberty is a goal in and of itself. Never tried it myself and likely never will, but I'll take any opportunity to change the law to increase people's freedom.

[hajario]

It's a stupid law. The Feds or a lawsuit will squash it within a week if it passes. The whole thing will likely be more trouble than it's worth. I still voted YES though because I agree in principle that pot should be legal. I doubt it will pass though.

[BrainGlutton]

I have an extremely rare medical condition which causes me to develop glaucoma whenever I set foot in California . . .

[jsc1953]

It's a stupid law. The Feds or a lawsuit will squash it within a week if it passes.

Absolutely. Half of the initiatives passed in California already wind up being struck down by the courts -- this one has the distinction of being flat-out in conflict with Federal law. It will have zero effect on daily life in California for the foreseeable future.

[Morgenstern]

I am. It doesn't look promising though. The DA from SD announced that if it passes, all the drivers in CA will be in grave danger from the multitude of people smoking and driving. She even indicated that it could even happen to school bus drivers (like they don't test them anyway).
Reefer madness 2010.

[Nametag]

That Chamber of Commerce analysis is ridiculous. There is nothing in Prop. 19 that enjoins an employer from doing as he damn well pleases when it comes to setting conditions of employment, same as now. Drug testing can still be a condition, and showing up stoned for work, or blazing up at work, can still be grounds for dismissal -- the presumption that intoxication is inherently incompatible with productive work is not diminished.

[Yeticus Rex]

It directly conflicts Federal Law regarding a drug-free workplace. Two sets of laws in conflict regarding employees and their workplace........ridiculous indeed!

[Yeticus Rex]

(c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.
Can anyone explicitly define the ambiguous phase "actually impairs job performance"?

And please don't tell me "After an accident has occured." That answer is unacceptable in an employer's eyes.

[Chimera]

Alcohol is legal, but it is not legal to consume it and drive (well, above the accepted blood alcohol level). Is there any indication that this will not apply to Marijuana? Because from everything I have seen, the only question is one of testing, not one of "driving while intoxicated".

[Measure for Measure]

My real question is how much hassle will there be to regulate this law? What will it cost? Well, some municipalities have already passed revenue legislation contingent on Prop 19 passing. There's reason to believe that the initiative will be a fiscal win for the state. It's not clear to me whether this initiative will be overturned in whole or in part though. I have an extremely rare medical condition which causes me to develop glaucoma whenever I set foot in California . . . Whereas other tourists suddenly find themselves in need of medication for stress reduction...

Yeticus Rex: Right: that's the bad language. But the other language says that any workplace legislation over-rides Prop 19. So if indeed Federal law mandates a drug-free workplace, then 11304 (c) is irrelevant anyway. Or not! IANAL.

[Stan Shmenge]

I've re-read the site, but I am not sure which section you're referring to.

I'll admit that the legal analysis comes from an employer backed organization; I mean after all, I would want to know more about this Prop w.r.t. small businesses and how they are affected if this passes. I personally don't care if people smoke pot, but if it affects my business.....damn straight I would want to know how we would be affected and what the risks are. This measure goes way too far in protecting users in the workplace and to the detriment of businesses. Some will say that this fear-mongering by businesses, but I would argue that it was written so ambiguously that from a legal standpoint, it is possible that these scenarios could exist if passed as is, and I certainly don't want business to become the guinea pigs when the lawsuits are filed to see how the courts would interpret the law. California is not the most business-friendly state and this is just another step in the wrong direction. Leave businesses as is and to keep control over whether or not to keep their pot smokers employed. If it was worded like that, then I would reconsider my position.

I can see decriminalization in the future some day, and maybe would support a Prop more finely tuned and focused, but this Prop is way over-reaching.

So, you can legally protect your business from users who's work is impaired. And since employment is "at will" in California, you can pretty much fire anyone at any time for any or no reason anyway, what is your problem?

[Stan Shmenge]

Too late, I already voted against it, for very selfish reasons.

I hate the smell. I hate the smell with a damn passion. I'd rather huff in second-hand cigarette smoke than weed smell any day.

I've never smoked weed once, not even to try it. I've just never had the urge. Now, if it passes I'm not going to go protesting on the street or anything, but hey, I had my chance at the ballot box.

You DO know that smoking in public will still be illegal under the new law? You know that don't you? And the penalties for smoking where children are present will increase?

[aruvqan]

It directly conflicts Federal Law regarding a drug-free workplace. Two sets of laws in conflict regarding employees and their workplace........ridiculous indeed!

Be freaking real - so you are down with people coming to work so hung over they are ineffective, but someone who had a joint the night before is teh evil?

I have no idea how often I have walked into work on previous jobs to find coworkers so hung over they should have just stayed at home. I couldn't tell you how many people who had a joint sometime the night before I have worked with, unless they somehow mentioned it to me. Grass does not cause hangovers that I have ever witnessed in people at work the next morning. Alcohol does. Cigarettes let people go outside every hour on the freaking hour, yet me the nonsmoker has to argue to get a damned pee break? I don't see people screaming that alcohol and cigarettes are going to ruin the work force ... :rolleyes:

[Yeticus Rex]

Alcohol is legal, but it is not legal to consume it and drive (well, above the accepted blood alcohol level). Is there any indication that this will not apply to Marijuana? Because from everything I have seen, the only question is one of testing, not one of "driving while intoxicated".
Guess you didn't read my cite:

Testing for Marijuana Use

Current law:

Pre-employment testing: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), employers may test applicants for illegal drug use, including marijuana. 42 U.S.C. § 12112 et. seq.; Cal. Gov’t. Code § 12940. Other tests (such as for alcohol use or legal use of a prescription medication) are medical examinations that can only be conducted after making an offer of employment, and if the test is “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” See EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Preemployment Disability-Related Questions and Medical Examinations.
Also, cases interpreting the California Constitution suggest that an employer may conduct pre-employment drug tests, as long as the employer has a legitimate and substantial interest in determining whether an applicant is using drugs. See Loder v. City of Glendale, 14 Cal. 4th 1846 (1997); Pilkington Barnes Hind v. Superior Court, 66 Cal. App. 4th 28 (1998).

Post-employment testing: The California Constitution protects all individuals’ right to privacy, including private sector employees. Under the Constitution, an employer who wants to test for illegal drug use must balance its interests against the employee’s reasonable expectation of privacy. See Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 7 Cal. 4th 1 (1998). If an employer has a good reason to test (e.g., the employee caused a workplace accident in suspicious circumstances, the employer observes drug activity in the workplace, etc.) and the employee has no reason to believe the employer won’t test, such as a policy stating that the employer does not conduct testing, the employer can conduct the test.


Effect of Proposition 19:

Pre-employment testing: Proposition 19’s stated intent is to regulate marijuana “like…alcohol.” If that’s the case, an employer could only test for marijuana use after making an employment offer, and would have to show such testing is “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”

Post-employment testing: Even if an employer knows an employee is using marijuana at work, the employer could be prohibited from testing because the employee could argue marijuana use is private—after all, if the employer cannot discriminate based on marijuana use, why would an employee expect to be tested for it?

Even worse, an employer could not take any disciplinary action against an employee even if allowed to test, until the marijuana use “actually impaired” the employee’s performance—for example, by causing a workplace accident. So, even if an employee in a safety-sensitive position (e.g., forklift driver, bus driver, etc.) came to work reeking of marijuana smoke, an employer could do nothing unless employee’s work was “actually impaired.” If the same employee came to work reeking of alcohol, the employer would have good reason to test, discipline and even terminate. So, by requiring “actual impairment,” marijuana would be more protected than alcohol.
Well, some municipalities have already passed revenue legislation contingent on Prop 19 passing. There's reason to believe that the initiative will be a fiscal win for the state. It's not clear to me whether this initiative will be overturned in whole or in part though. Whereas other tourists suddenly find themselves in need of medication for stress reduction...

Yeticus Rex: Right: that's the bad language. But the other language says that any workplace legislation over-rides Prop 19. So if indeed Federal law mandates a drug-free workplace, then 11304 (c) is irrelevant anyway. Or not! IANAL.
One could hope that the Feds will squash this based on this section alone, but hey....It's California!.....anything that happens irrationally in California, stays irrational in California! Nevada is looking better as the years go by.

So, you can legally protect your business from users who's work is impaired. And since employment is "at will" in California, you can pretty much fire anyone at any time for any or no reason anyway, what is your problem?
Problem? You try to define what constitutes "impairment". Impairment with alcohol is considered at .08% BAL. Please tell me you know how to measure a person's BTHCL level so I got something concrete to PROVE impairment. Otherwise, I (and other businesses) will be mired on what the definition of impairment is.....and I really don't want to shell out court costs to find out what it is......IT SHOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN STATED IN THE PROP. It doesn't. So, now you know what the problem is. Plus:

Taking Adverse Employment Actions
Current law: If an employer takes an adverse action against a poorly performing employee, such as demotion or termination, the employee may claim the adverse action was motivated by discrimination protected by the FEHA. If the employee proves a minimal case for discrimination, the employer must demonstrate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions or face a trial.
Effect of Proposition 19: Proposition 19 would allow marijuana users to claim that an employer’s actions are motivated by marijuana use. Just as with the FEHA, employers would be required to prove the employee’s poor performance, and not marijuana use, justified the personnel action. Inevitably, disgruntled employees’ claims of recreational marijuana use will draw employers into frivolous lawsuits and undermine the at-will employment relationship.

You DO know that smoking in public will still be illegal under the new law? You know that don't you? And the penalties for smoking where children are present will increase?
Ah....another who didn't bother to read:
Smoking Marijuana at Work
Current law: Current law prohibits smoking “tobacco products” in the workplace. See Cal. Lab. Code § 6404.5.

Effect of Proposition 19: Because the current anti-smoking law only applies to tobacco products, the proposition would not prohibit employees from smoking marijuana in the workplace. In fact, employers would be required to allow marijuana smoking at work because Proposition 19 would prohibit denial of “any right or privilege” granted by the Act, without defining what that means.
Just as confusing, the Act specifies that users can “possess” or “share” marijuana in a “non-public place,” but does not define what a “non-public place” is. In other contexts, California courts have interpreted “public place” narrowly, so most locations are “non-public places.” For example, recently, a California court found that even a grocery store was not a public place. Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 8, 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 1171 (2010). So, users would be able to smoke in virtually any workplace.
Again, irrational shit in California where public is private and private is public. Yeah, and I've seen kids in a Ralph's store........so everyone could reasonably consider another lawsuit to either fix what's broken or continue our trip down Lawyer's Lane.
Be freaking real - so you are down with people coming to work so hung over they are ineffective, but someone who had a joint the night before is teh evil?
<shakes head>
I really don't want to torch you up since your a fellow guildie, but...

1. I am being real. I see it from the position of great liability (boss) while you are seeing it from the eyes of an employee, who has considerably less liability.
2. I do give my employees benefit of the doubt. I really don't want to know what they do off hours. But if I see them smoking during breaks, how the hell am I gonna be impartial to those who smoke weed with respect to privacy?
3. Employees will never admit to being hungover to a boss. Instead it would be some other excuse...."I'm sick", "The baby kept me up all night.", "I was in the emergency room with my mom." Yeah, I could just tell them that they are lying and accuse them that they are hung over, but I can't prove it. What I can do is send them home anyways because they are a detrimental liability. But if they smell of skunkweed, (i.e.-smoking before coming in), then I'm right back in that gray zone that I mentioned in #2 and the reply to Stan.
4. I never said it "teh evil". Stop jumping to conclusions. But it does quite complicate the way I have to run my business.
I have no idea how often I have walked into work on previous jobs to find coworkers so hung over they should have just stayed at home. I couldn't tell you how many people who had a joint sometime the night before I have worked with, unless they somehow mentioned it to me. Grass does not cause hangovers that I have ever witnessed in people at work the next morning. Alcohol does. Cigarettes let people go outside every hour on the freaking hour, yet me the nonsmoker has to argue to get a damned pee break? I don't see people screaming that alcohol and cigarettes are going to ruin the work force ... :rolleyes:
Again, you're stuck with this notion of "the morning after". Is there really a certain time of the day (4:20.....NOT!) that weed smokers prefer? I've seen guys pound down a lot of beer and smoke weed during lunch at the last job I was at and some of them did drive equipment. I really don't have issue with those that smoke after work before bedtime. Problem is, there are those who smoke anytime of the day. But how the hell am I gonna follow with what's proposed with those employees?

[Yeticus Rex]

Can anyone explicitly define the ambiguous phase "actually impairs job performance"?

And please don't tell me "After an accident has occured." That answer is unacceptable in an employer's eyes.

Still waiting for an answer on this one.....this is the main flaw of the prop.

Anybody?

Bueller?

Bueller?

Bueller?

[Morgenstern]

The employer determines if the job performance has been impaired. They have been doing it that way for years.

[Yeticus Rex]

If the prop passes as is, that too will change.

[Measure for Measure]

But it does quite complicate the way I have to run my business. I've got this proposal for California: brace yourself, because it's way out in left field. I call it... "Representative Democracy". The idea --I know it's crazy-- is that laws are passed by a limited number full time *paid* employees of the state rather than by 18 million volunteers offering up or down votes on laws written exclusively by lobbyists and interested parties. Oh, and these "Representatives" get to consult with those affected by these proposed laws (I call them "bills") and even make adjustments and modifications based upon "Hearings" and "Committee Meetings". I'll even give them control of the state's budget -- none of it would be mandated by propositions passed 20 or 30 years ago! And if the populace doesn't like the results, the Representatives get "Voted out of office". I know it's nutty, but it just might work!

[Nametag]

Guess you didn't read my cite:
Cite? You mean The California Chamber of Commerce editorial? That's not a rational (or even coherent) analysis, no one with half a brain is going to accept it as a cite, and you're going to keep hearing crickets if you keep trotting it out. No one wants to argue with the crazy people (meaning the authors of that...thing).

[jsc1953]

I've got this proposal for California: brace yourself, because it's way out in left field. I call it... "Representative Democracy".

We tried that. It didn't work.

:)

[Morgenstern]

If the prop passes as is, that too will change.

The funny thing is that those people who partake of the dubage are probably, as you read this, toking away. I doubt much of anything will change either way.

[hajario]

The funny thing is that those people who partake of the dubage are probably, as you read this, toking away. I doubt much of anything will change either way.

Yep. It's decriminalized here. That means that if I get caught with a baggie, I will get the equivalent of a parking ticket assuming that the police officer gives enough of a shit to bother with writing me one. You can avoid even that by paying a doctor $99 for a prescription.

If Prop 19 passes, it will be a pain in the ass for all involved for the several years it will be in the Courts. There is enough precedence for them to side with the Feds and that will be that. I give it no more than ten days for the new law to be in effect before it's shut down while the Courts decide. I almost never smoke anymore but you better believe that I'll go down to the dispensary to buy some while I can just for the novelty of it.

My favorite thing about this mess: One of the largest groups against Prop 19 are the big growers in Mendecino and Sonoma Counties. Those fucking hypocrites are afraid that it will cause prices to drop.

[Captain Midnight]

That's my plea, Californians, please vote yes for marijuana. Legalize it and tax it. Just try it. If it doesn't work out, it can be recriminalized. I don't think it would be.

The anti-pot people are dickwads and fascists. Fuck them in the ass with a frozen rabbit. These are the assholes who want to put you in prison for possessing one ounce of a plant that can be grown anywhere in the World. I say no more. Legalize it.

California stoners, get your ass out and VOTE. VOTE! Every cop, churchie and prohobitionist are. The victory is ours. Smoke a joint, go to the polls, celebrate with some Taco Bell. You are the frontline and this legalization bill can be our invasion of Normandy and a tidal wave that cannot be stopped.

Please vote YES for marijuana.

[Morgenstern]

A pot in every pot!!!

[Measure for Measure]

Well, like all propositions, #19 will go to court: no problemo, we do that all the time. I predict that the Chamber of Commerce's fears will be worked out soon or in a couple of years, either in the judicial or legislative branches -- #19 carves out a lot of room for state and local regulation and tax. I've seen worse.

I trust that Yeticus Rex will enjoy a couple of extra quarters or years of legal uncertainty -- hey he's a businessman in CA: he must love punishment! The big growers in Mendacino might be pleasantly surprised after the new industrial scale operations opening in big liberal urban areas are raided by the Feds. Those who know how to maintain a low profile might have an edge in this new era. If they're smart, they will cut a deal with the local pols to tax their inputs in such a way to maintain implausible deniability. For indoor operations, high-use electricity users could pay a 20% supplemental tax.

[Ionizer]

Something not likely worth its own thread, but I wanna give props to Zach Galifianakis (sp?) for this clip (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/30/zach-galifianakis-smokes-_n_776497.html) from Bill Maher's Real Time show. Helps to keep it 'real', I guess. Lighting up the joint like that got quite the reaction...but no dragons. Figured some here would get a chuckle from it.....

Please vote Yes, Cali folks. It is time to quit the bullshit of saying 'society' is harmed by cannabis. Fight the ignorance...(pretty please with sugar on top?)

[Snowboarder Bo]

Cite? You mean The California Chamber of Commerce editorial? That's not a rational (or even coherent) analysis, no one with half a brain is going to accept it as a cite, and you're going to keep hearing crickets if you keep trotting it out. No one wants to argue with the crazy people (meaning the authors of that...thing).

^ ftw

That editorial is so riddled with inanities, I can't believe anyone would bring it up.

The main sticking point I keep reading is "doesn't define". Well, the law doesn't define what "shall" means, or what "marijuana" means, or what "not" means.... FFS it's not even rational to suggest that every law must also define what every word contained in the law means, but here's the California Chamber for the Enrichment of Business Owners trotting it out like it's a valid argument.

ETA: Forgot to mention: did anyone else notice that the CalChamber rant fails to actually print the text of Prop. 19? It's not an oversight. Without the text there, many people (perhaps even most people) will just accept the arguments put forth by the oh-so-oppressed business owner's lobbying group.

[SanDiegoTim]

Yet a noth brilliant case made for Prop 19.

[Campion]

Please vote YES for Prop 19.

I know there are a lot of bugs to be worked out, a lot of questions to be answered, and a lot of issues and problems to be settled with it. I know that it isn't a panacea, that it won't cure your budget woes, that it won't end all crime or Law Enforcement stupidity. I know it isn't half the things it has probably been billed as.This is more true than you could know. Here are the problems with I see with Prop 19 leaving aside the manifest law enforcement problems. First, it directly conflicts with federal law regarding drug use, and the feds have made plain that they intend to enforce those laws. Thus, not only are you asking Californians to support a likely useless legal battle for a law that conflicts with federal law, but you're asking us to do so knowing it's useless.

Second, there is very little if any money to be made from this law. How is California going to regulate and tax an activity that is illegal under federal law? That is, how many pot growers are going to admit what they're doing such that they can be prosecuted for federal crimes? Again, I'm not interested in footing the bill to figure that one out.

Third, while the Chamber of Commerce article is unnecessarily hyperbolic, it raises some good points. As the proposed statute reads now, an employer may not take employment action against an employee for cannabis use, etc., unless it "actually impairs job performance." That, of course, means additional lawsuits to figure out exactly what the limits are, and how impaired an employee need be before action can be taken. And, again, there are conflicts with federal law. Now, at the end of the day, this could be addressed by the courts, which could strike those portions of the law that conflict with federal law.

But, guys, I'm not interested in California footing the bill for this "experiment." Work out the kinks somewhere else, please. No on the ill-conceived Prop 19.


I've got this proposal for California: brace yourself, because it's way out in left field. I call it... "Representative Democracy". The idea --I know it's crazy-- is that laws are passed by a limited number full time *paid* employees of the state rather than by 18 million volunteers offering up or down votes on laws written exclusively by lobbyists and interested parties. Oh, and these "Representatives" get to consult with those affected by these proposed laws (I call them "bills") and even make adjustments and modifications based upon "Hearings" and "Committee Meetings". I'll even give them control of the state's budget -- none of it would be mandated by propositions passed 20 or 30 years ago! And if the populace doesn't like the results, the Representatives get "Voted out of office". I know it's nutty, but it just might work!
God, I'd pay money to get legislators that actually would legislate rather than punting to the electorate.

[Campion]

Yet a noth brilliant case made for Prop 19.

Yeah, it makes me realize why Prop 19 is losing in the polls despite fundraising 10 times more money than the anti-pot dickwads and fascists (holla!).

[Snowboarder Bo]

That is, how many pot growers are going to admit what they're doing such that they can be prosecuted for federal crimes? Again, I'm not interested in footing the bill to figure that one out.

Well, it's not legal except for medical use now, but apparently there are enough that the UAW has been helping workers to organize. cite (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/unions-organize-marijuana-growers-in-ca) & cite, pic#2 (http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/10/marijuana.html) & cite (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703305004575504370924866534.html)

Michigan has at least 2,440 registered care-givers, who are allowed to grow pot. cite (http://www.annarbor.com/business-review/beal-properties-attracts-medical-marijuana-grower-for-detroit-complex/). Since Michigan's population is a little over 1/4 of California's, it wouldn't be hard to imagine that CA has about 10,000 registered medical marijuana growers. I'm sure that number would skyrocket if sales weren't limited to medical needs.

So, to answer your question: a shitload of people would, and have, registered to grow weed, despite it still being illegal at the federal level.

[twickster]

Merged duplicate threads; renamed combined thread so topic is clear.

[Measure for Measure]

God, I'd pay money to get legislators that actually would legislate rather than punting to the electorate. FTR, prop 19 was put on the ballot by petition signers. Most politicians of both parties oppose this act for obvious reasons. That said, the Governor recently signed a bill making pot posession an infraction (http://blogs.sacbee.com/weed-wars/2010/10/governor-signs-california-marijuana-decriminalization-bill.html) which is less than a misdemeanor. So you can't blame the CA politicos: they've done fine on this issue.

[Clothahump]

Frickin' California idiots. Only in GranolaLand would this be on the ballot at all.

[Measure for Measure]

Frickin' California idiots. Only in GranolaLand would this be on the ballot at all. Heh. You wish. The nutty ideas of the Golden State tend to metastasize then spread throughout the nation. Smoking bans in restaurants? California idea. Smoking bans in bars? California idea. Appointing actors to the executive branch? California idea. Kneejerk tax revolts? The same.

[hajario]

Frickin' California idiots. Only in GranolaLand would this be on the ballot at all.

Ignorant and rude. Nice. Did you know that similar measures have been on the ballot in Oregon and Alaska at least? It was actually legal in Alaska for a while until the went back the other way.

[BigT]

That's the problem with ballot initiatives: they don't benefit the process of deliberation and adjustment that regular legislation has. Instead the voters are given an up/down choice -- which they decide upon impressionistically. My attitude is "When in doubt, vote no." If you want something passed, lobby the legislature.


Why can't that be worked out either ahead of time, or after the vote (with the people voting that a law will be created)?

At least with a voter initiative, I get to vote for what I want, instead of voting for someone who will make as many votes for things that I think are stupid. And I don't have to worry about me being paid off.

[Yeticus Rex]

Cite? You mean The California Chamber of Commerce editorial? That's not a rational (or even coherent) analysis, no one with half a brain is going to accept it as a cite, and you're going to keep hearing crickets if you keep trotting it out. No one wants to argue with the crazy people (meaning the authors of that...thing).
Legal analysis with w.r.t. the scope of business. I've already admitted as much in post #15. Your attempt to wave it off as an "editorial" is completely naive and narrow-minded. I have yet to see a cite where it is assured by the writers of Prop 19 guaranteeing that this will not happen. That would never be their intent....and remember....the "crazy" is on both sides of the fence.


The anti-pot people are dickwads and fascists. Fuck them in the ass with a frozen rabbit. These are the assholes who want to put you in prison for possessing one ounce of a plant that can be grown anywhere in the World.

That's not my position; mine is from a business standpoint. It's not that black and white like you make it out to be. There are unintended consequences that are legitimate concerns here. Respecting those concerns would go a long way to forging a better proposition that would not only pass, but would give the Feds reason to actually revisit and possible modify their Anti-Drug policy. But this prop as is, will do nothing of a sort.....too broad....too conflicting....too over-reaching. This was truly a wasted opportunity, regardless of whether it passes or not.

Like I said before, I would vote for it had it been less intrusive towards businesses in California.

I trust that Yeticus Rex will enjoy a couple of extra quarters or years of legal uncertainty -- hey he's a businessman in CA: he must love punishment!
Been in business for 18+ years. Started during a recession and with an unsigned budget (courtesy of the Duke and Willie show). Started with 6 employees and now up to 64. It's been quite a rollercoaster ride.

That editorial is so riddled with inanities, I can't believe anyone would bring it up.
Anyone who doesn't own/run a business wouldn't even to bother to bring it up. I would like to see a business owner (who has employees other than family members) here actually stand up here and honestly say that they are voting for the prop. Just because I see conflict where as you see it as inanities, doesn't devalue my opinion of it. Now, here come the strawmen....
The main sticking point I keep reading is "doesn't define". Well, the law doesn't define what "shall" means, or what "marijuana" means, or what "not" means.... FFS it's not even rational to suggest that every law must also define what every word contained in the law means, but here's the California Chamber for the Enrichment of Business Owners trotting it out like it's a valid argument.
Spoken like a true anti-business union supporter. I'm pretty sure you've seen a union contract that takes up pages and pages of exact definitions to define words w.r.t. the employment relationship between a union and an employer. Why would you support a union's right to exacting definitions but oppose an employers right to the same type of guidelines? There are many small employers like me who want to follow the law, but do not want to be subject to "the experiment" of finding out what the law will eventually be.

"California Chamber for the Enrichment of Business Owners" is a good play of words there, but I'm actually cutting out a lot of things that would have "enriched" myself to see if I can make it through this ongoing recession.

ETA: Forgot to mention: did anyone else notice that the CalChamber rant fails to actually print the text of Prop. 19? It's not an oversight. Without the text there, many people (perhaps even most people) will just accept the arguments put forth by the oh-so-oppressed business owner's lobbying group.
Really....Seriously....every voter in California gets the text mailed to them so they can read it for themselves. Do you actually think that CalChamber is really trying to pull a fast one over every voter? :rolleyes:

This is more true than you could know. Here are the problems with I see with Prop 19 leaving aside the manifest law enforcement problems. First, it directly conflicts with federal law regarding drug use, and the feds have made plain that they intend to enforce those laws. Thus, not only are you asking Californians to support a likely useless legal battle for a law that conflicts with federal law, but you're asking us to do so knowing it's useless.

Second, there is very little if any money to be made from this law. How is California going to regulate and tax an activity that is illegal under federal law? That is, how many pot growers are going to admit what they're doing such that they can be prosecuted for federal crimes? Again, I'm not interested in footing the bill to figure that one out.

Third, while the Chamber of Commerce article is unnecessarily hyperbolic, it raises some good points. As the proposed statute reads now, an employer may not take employment action against an employee for cannabis use, etc., unless it "actually impairs job performance." That, of course, means additional lawsuits to figure out exactly what the limits are, and how impaired an employee need be before action can be taken. And, again, there are conflicts with federal law. Now, at the end of the day, this could be addressed by the courts, which could strike those portions of the law that conflict with federal law.

But, guys, I'm not interested in California footing the bill for this "experiment." Work out the kinks somewhere else, please. No on the ill-conceived Prop 19.



God, I'd pay money to get legislators that actually would legislate rather than punting to the electorate.

^ ftw

Can anyone explicitly define the ambiguous phase "actually impairs job performance"?

And please don't tell me "After an accident has occured." That answer is unacceptable in an employer's eyes.
A third request that still goes unanswered and for good reason.

[JohnT]

They are even willing to become drug pushers to get your money.

Why not? After all, many states run a gambling operation (lotteries) and sell liquor to the masses. Why not weed?

[Washoe]

Appointing actors to the executive branch? California idea.

Sorry 'bout that. We were high when we did it. When we came down and realized what we had done, it was too late to do anything about it.

[Blalron]

Why not? After all, many states run a gambling operation (lotteries) and sell liquor to the masses. Why not weed?

If we're going to accept alcohol and tobacco as being OK for consenting adults to use, there's absolutely no sensible reason to ban marijuana. I'm not going to claim it's completely harmless, but it's definitely substantially less harmfull than alcohol is.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Frickin' California idiots. Only in GranolaLand would this be on the ballot at all.

Not a fan of democracy, personal liberty, or the freedom to pursue happiness, eh?

You can have your stockpile of guns and munitions; I'll be fine with a bong load and a couple of hours of Xbox. Try not to shoot your own foot while I'm downing choppers with RPGs.

[kidchameleon]

The main sticking point I keep reading is "doesn't define". Well, the law doesn't define what "shall" means, or what "marijuana" means, or what "not" means.... FFS it's not even rational to suggest that every law must also define what every word contained in the law means, but here's the California Chamber for the Enrichment of Business Owners trotting it out like it's a valid argument.

Not every word, but important words. Including "shall". We have procedures at work that define what "shall" is and they are way less important than a statute.

[Rigamarole]

Polls are closed... it's gonna be really close but the exit polls (http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/individual/#CAI01) don't look too good. Hopefully there are enough people too shy to admit it to a pollster to sway the vote.

[MPB in Salt Lake]

Hopefully there are enough people too shy to admit it to a pollster to sway the vote.

I SO hope you are right, but in this day and age (where many people, both famous and not, seem very comfortable going on TV and bragging about their most egregious personal failings, a la Tiger Woods' girls) I don't think there are a ton of bashful California marijuana supporters around.

Again, I really hope Prop 19 passes, and then maybe the rest of the USA can see that the world has not suddenly ended because those so inclined can now smoke some dried plant leaves without fear of arrest.......

[Snowboarder Bo]

I've said it before: if this fails, it's not because of the idea, it's because the ballot measure is poorly worded.

Nevada stood a great chance of legalizing marijuana a few years back, but the idiots in charge wrote the proposed law to legalize possession of up to 3 ounces. That's like trying to increase the speed limit from 55 to 300. It was stupid, and the public balked at allowing a person to have nearly a quarter pound of weed. If the measure has been for up to 1 ounce, it would have passed easily.

I see Prop 19 in a similar light.

The truth is, the pro-pot people should NOT let the stoned people write the ballot measures. There's a time and a place for everything, and writing laws is not the time to be stoned or drunk or tweaking or gakked up or tripping or etc. or etc.

[Peremensoe]

Nevada stood a great chance of legalizing marijuana a few years back, but the idiots in charge wrote the proposed law to legalize possession of up to 3 ounces. That's like trying to increase the speed limit from 55 to 300. It was stupid, and the public balked at allowing a person to have nearly a quarter pound of weed. If the measure has been for up to 1 ounce, it would have passed easily.

Three ounces isn't that much, actually.

Alaska used to tolerate possession of four ounces, but also the cultivation of twenty-five plants, which can easily yield more than an ounce each (and, with advanced techniques, much more). Prop 19 allows a home-growing operation of twenty-five square feet, so even a rank amateur would likely be able to produce far more than he'd be allowed to possess. Prop 19 also allows local jurisdictions to "authorize" possession and cultivation of larger amounts.

Anyway, why should amount matter? It's not like driving speed--I'm not any more dangerous with a case of liquor than a bottle, and I wouldn't be more dangerous with a pound of weed than an ounce.

[Campion]

So, to answer your question: a shitload of people would, and have, registered to grow weed, despite it still being illegal at the federal level.(A) It wasn't a question; it was a rhetorical device. (B) Nice statistics, as my friend Mark Twain would say, but they don't address the issue. Up to this point, the feds haven't really targeted the issue, but they're saying they will if Prop 19 passes (it won't). Also, news flash: people routinely cheat on their taxes. Given that they're engaging in an illegal activity, there's no question but that (some?) pot growers will also cheat on their taxes. My point stands.

Not every word, but important words. Including "shall". We have procedures at work that define what "shall" is and they are way less important than a statute."Shall" and "not" don't need to be defined in this statute. Those words already have been given meaning in the law, so redefining them here doesn't add any clarity. My objection isn't to words like that.

A third request that still goes unanswered and for good reason.Yes, there is a darn good reason why no one has attempted to answer your question of what "actually impairs job performance" means. That's a legal question, and I'm pretty confident having read through this thread that there aren't any lawyers reading it so you're not going to get good answers. Well, there's one lawyer reading the thread, but I have it on good authority that she has zero interest in doing the research to answer your question. And, frankly, that's what you're asking: whether that phrase is used in any other laws in California, and if so, whether those laws are sufficiently similar that the language may have the same meaning as in Prop 19, and if so, whether any courts have interpreted that language, and if so, what factors, elements, or tests court use to determine the meaning of the phrase. To someone interested in the answer and capable of legal research, that might take an hour to figure out or it could take a week. Or the answer could be that the phrase is new. (Which I believe is your point.) But the pro Prop 19 faction isn't particularly interested in what the law says or how the law will play out; they just want the "right" that the law appears to promise, even if that "right" is illusory.

But this is all moot. For now. When's the next election?

[hajario]

Yep. Officially failed. Oh well. Maybe next time they'll draft something winnable.

[gladtobeblazed]

Well it sucks I won't be able to grow my own, but at least possession is only an infraction.

[Peremensoe]

I think the prop was indeed badly-written, but mainly in that it was too long and detailed, which implied that all the details should or could have been spelled out up front, and left it open to criticism on those details rather than the core issue. It should have simply ordered the legislature to develop a state marijuana code comparable to the regulatory framework for liquor.

[Campion]

Anyway, it's rather disingenuous to say that this proposition should have failed simply because it's poorly written and complications would arise in implementation--many such laws have been enacted, both by initiatives and by the legislatures. Working out kinks after enactment, in the courts or by further legislation, is almost standard.

I think the prop was indeed badly-written, but mainly in that it was too long and detailed, which implied that all the details should or could have been spelled out up front, and left it open to criticism on those details rather than the core issue. It should have simply ordered the legislature to develop a state marijuana code comparable to the regulatory framework for liquor.
Uh, no. That's not how it works. A proposition in California isn't a "wouldn't it be nice" thing, it's either a statute or a constitutional amendment that then becomes law as written. If you want something that simply directs someone to pass a law in a certain way, that's called "lobbying your legislators to do their job the way you want them to." And, yes, then they study the issue to death and debate language and blah blah and ten years later maybe you get something. Hey, works for the vast majority of other US jurisdictions!

But passing a law that you know is poorly drafted, subject to significant and perhaps insurmountable challenge (bill for said challenge to be paid by California, which last I heard was out of money), and then hoping that some poor judge somewhere is willing to exceed judicial authority and rewrite the law (so that s/he can then be harangued next election time for actually "legislating from the bench") is not a plan I can get behind.

And if were just as simple as "develop[ing] a state marijuana code comparable to the regulatory framework for liquor" wouldn't the proponents of Prop 19 have done just that? [Note: this is a rhetorical question.]

[Kyla]

Yep. Officially failed. Oh well. Maybe next time they'll draft something winnable.

I hope they do. I am a proponent of the legalization of weed, but I thought this proposition was shockingly poorly written and thought out. I voted no, but would be happy to vote yes for a better proposition.

[Peremensoe]

A proposition in California isn't a "wouldn't it be nice" thing, it's either a statute or a constitutional amendment that then becomes law as written.

Is not the California state legislature subject to statute themselves?

[Locrian]

Nope. Not gonna happen. I voted for it just to see if it could bring SOME money, but it really doesn't effect me. Still got the license. :D

Where are the hippies when you need them? Oh, right. They went republican.

[Peremensoe]

And if were just as simple as "develop[ing] a state marijuana code comparable to the regulatory framework for liquor" wouldn't the proponents of Prop 19 have done just that? [Note: this is a rhetorical question.]

And fuck your "rhetorical" questions. You don't get to say your piece and then arbitrarily rule out responses. Particularly when there's a perfectly good, non-rhetorical answer: No. The regulatory framework for liquor is a whole set of detailed laws, the text of which is totally impractical for a ballot question. Nobody needs to read all that, unless they're in government or practicing law or interested in getting into the business. It's perfectly legitimate to ask the citizenry, should we treat marijuana essentially like liquor? And (if the answer is yes), to require the legislature to put the will of the people into practice.

[suranyi]

And fuck your "rhetorical" questions. You don't get to say your piece and then arbitrarily rule out responses. Particularly when there's a perfectly good, non-rhetorical answer: No. The regulatory framework for liquor is a whole set of detailed laws, the text of which is totally impractical for a ballot question. Nobody needs to read all that, unless they're in government or practicing law or interested in getting into the business. It's perfectly legitimate to ask the citizenry, should we treat marijuana essentially like liquor? And (if the answer is yes), to require the legislature to put the will of the people into practice.

But you see, that's not how the ballot propostion process works in California. In California, a ballot proposition IS a new statutue that is proposed to be part of either California's laws or an amendment to its constitution. If it passes, the entire text of the proposition is "plugged in" to the rest of the state's laws and the legislature is not allowed to change a single word.

[Measure for Measure]

Yeah, yeah: poorly written. But can anybody here point to an example of a well-written initiative that was put on the ballot by petition? The only initiatives that I approve of personally are bond initiatives that *supplement* legislative action and constitutional laws regarding electoral processes.

Campion: Maybe you should give spark240 a second chance. A vague constitutional amendment ordering the legislature to do something by, say, 2012 could provide political cover for the sensible and permit a deliberative process that in practice is crucial if the law is to be if not rational then at least not wholly boffo.

Why can't that be worked out either ahead of time, or after the vote (with the people voting that a law will be created)? It can't be worked out ahead of time because these initiatives are written by interested parties acting in the knowledge that the voters can't be bothered to read the fine print. And in this case, I don't blame the voters. Yes, there is a darn good reason why no one has attempted to answer your question of what "actually impairs job performance" means. That's a legal question, and I'm pretty confident having read through this thread that there aren't any lawyers reading it so you're not going to get good answers. Well, there's one lawyer reading the thread, but I have it on good authority that she has zero interest in doing the research to answer your question. What?!?!?! I'm shocked, shocked that you voted on an initiative without understanding it fully. Don't you take your civic duty seriously? [Heh. I remember reading an article by one of the world's foremost energy policy experts (Severin Borenstein), trying to make heads or tails out of one of these energy related initiatives. It wasn't pretty.]* Why can't that be worked out either ahead of time, or after the vote (with the people voting that a law will be created)? I have no idea what you mean by "working it out after the vote." Are we suppose to collect the 8 million or so yes voters, put them in a room, and have them negotiate?


* I don't actually know whether or not Campion resides in California. Eh: poetic license.

[Peremensoe]

But you see, that's not how the ballot propostion process works in California. In California, a ballot proposition IS a new statutue that is proposed to be part of either California's laws or an amendment to its constitution. If it passes, the entire text of the proposition is "plugged in" to the rest of the state's laws and the legislature is not allowed to change a single word.

I know. I'm saying, can the statute established by the proposition not be a law requiring the legislature to act in a prescribed manner?

This is not a rhetorical question.

[Peremensoe]

Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution, after all, don't get into all the practical details in themselves; they just state the general principle and then say Congress shall enact appropriate legislation. Typically there was some back-and-forth in the courts to settle exactly what legislation was appropriate, what satisfied the requirements of the amendment. Feature, not a bug.

[Captain Midnight]

It was voted down which really pisses me off. Enough cops, churchies, sobers, and people who just do not value freedom of choice.

I was really hoping that California would do this, at least TRY IT. If it turns into an unworkable, if it shows a lot more dope smokers on the road (than they are now), if there is more crime and violence (I doubt that) and society goes nuts, then it can be illegal again.

California is pretty cool about weed nonetheless. Medical marijuana is legal. At least California allows people the choice between THC and prescribed medication for pain management. My hick southern state would throw you in jail. Even recreationally, having less than an ounce is a civil violation, not a criminal penalty or jail. I would think as long as you weren't causing a disturbance or blowing it in a cop's face, the cop wont even look at you twice.

It's a good comprimise in many ways, but I wanted to see what it would be like for government to tax it, to allow people to grow it, and how much money this could of made. Maybe it was too much of a hurdle. Maybe parents were thinking "about the children". Change and taking risks takes a big step. Like usual, the electorate would not take that step.

Personally, I don't think the "War on Drugs" is a failure, but the "War on Marijuana" is. If marijuana was legalized, then law enforcement can take that time to deal with the heroin, crack, meth and other truly dangerous drugs. These drugs will never be eradicated, but they should never themselves be legalized or decriminalized. 95% of what the cops net is pot anyway. Free that 95% and put everything full on, on the truly dangerous 5% (heroin, meth, crack etc.)

Yes, again, if you voted against this measure, please have a glass of wine. Drink the bottle. Then walk in front of a moving bus. Thank you.

[Measure for Measure]

I know. I'm saying, can the statute established by the proposition not be a law requiring the legislature to act in a prescribed manner?

This is not a rhetorical question. Presumably those requirements would have to be enforced by the courts. And courts are typically reluctant to comingle with other branches to that extent. So your proposal is problematic. But I still think it's worth exploring. After all, legislatures pass laws requiring the executive branch to draw up regulations. There might be some system of direct democracy which permits deliberation by specialists. We sure don't have that now though.

[Rigamarole]

Oh well. Maybe in 2012. My biggest concern with this one was that midterm elections tend to have lower turnouts and people who have a marginal to slight interest in politics might be more likely to vote for it if they actually had bothered to vote. They can draft a better one next time too.

[aruvqan]

Three ounces isn't that much, actually.

Alaska used to tolerate possession of four ounces, but also the cultivation of twenty-five plants, which can easily yield more than an ounce each (and, with advanced techniques, much more). Prop 19 allows a home-growing operation of twenty-five square feet, so even a rank amateur would likely be able to produce far more than he'd be allowed to possess. Prop 19 also allows local jurisdictions to "authorize" possession and cultivation of larger amounts.

Anyway, why should amount matter? It's not like driving speed--I'm not any more dangerous with a case of liquor than a bottle, and I wouldn't be more dangerous with a pound of weed than an ounce.

Really, if you consider it like alcohol, I have known people with a 10 000 bottle wine cellar, and they are not a hootcheria nor a restaurant nor a bar ... so why not allow 3 oz, or a full pound/kilo. If it is legal, then they can apply for a license to sell. Big meh. I look upon growing the same as home brewing. Certainly limit the growing space to 25 sq feet, but allow them to possess however much can be grown in that amount of space. With proper hydroponics you could probably manage 20 plants every 4 months.

[Locrian]

Ah, geez. Less pointless crime in the courts, taxes that may help a state deficit, 25 sq ft, kilos, bushels, shake, paraphernalia....

Regardless, it's time for bed, packing LEGAL bowl for igniting purposes.

I've still got a license, political punks. Keep your legislation but beware the contact high. :D

[Yeticus Rex]

Yes, again, if you voted against this measure, please have a glass of wine. Drink the bottle. Then walk in front of a moving bus. Thank you.
Hey....you're welcome....but instead of that bottle of wine, I decided to finish payroll for my employees who depend on me being alive.....you know....so they can buy their weed, wine and buses.

Again....you're welcome.
[/still looking for putz smilie]

[Yeticus Rex]

I hope they do. I am a proponent of the legalization of weed, but I thought this proposition was shockingly poorly written and thought out. I voted no, but would be happy to vote yes for a better proposition.

Just think what we would be posting now, if the prop simply read....

"Decriminalizes marijuana for private and personal use not to exceed 1 ounce."

That would have passed.....and that would have been one step farther ahead than we are right this very minute. But no, just like someone who has the munchies, they tried to bogart the whole bag of Doritos. :smack:

[Vinyl Turnip]

Anybody know what the actual results were? I've looked at maybe 10 different articles that only say it was "soundly defeated," but with no numbers.

[blondebear]

SFGate shows 55.5% No (2,268,002) vs. 44.5% Yes (1,820,619)

And it looks like both Oakland and San Jose measures to tax medicinal marijuana are going to pass. I wonder if there will be a run on "medicine" before the taxes go into effect.

[Fried Dough Ho]

Here is an update on the numbers:


Yes 3,349,237 46.3%
No 3,891,521 53.7%

[Rigamarole]

Just think what we would be posting now, if the prop simply read....

"Decriminalizes marijuana for private and personal use not to exceed 1 ounce."

Uh, what? It already has been decriminalized... currently the penalty for possession of less than one ounce is a citation on par with a traffic ticket.

What's the point of decriminalizing possession though if you still have to go to an illegal, police-hunted dealer to buy it?

[Campion]

Is not the California state legislature subject to statute themselves?Yes, legislators are subject to the law just as private citizens are. However, to the extent you're asking whether the electorate could pass a statute that says, e.g., by 2011 the legislature shall pass legislation that treats marijuana like alcohol, you have problems.

Presumably those requirements would have to be enforced by the courts. And courts are typically reluctant to comingle with other branches to that extent. So your proposal is problematic. This is the first problem. In the law, it's called the "political question" doctrine. Your second problem is enforceability. Combined, I think the idea is unworkable.

Think about it this way. Assume a statute is passed as posited above. Assume the legislature (a) acts or (b) doesn't act. (Although in reality if it's a statute, the legislature will just pass another statute immediately repealing it.)

In the case of (a), the legislature will be sued because I can guarantee you that someone somewhere will find fault with whatever legislation is passed. And that lawsuit will proceed on two fronts: first, all of the problems with the feds that exist with Prop 19 would exist with this legislature, and so that needs to be worked out (i.e., whether and how the California legislation is trumped by federal law); and second, whether the legislation passed fulfills the legislatures obligation under this hypothetical proposition. And the thrust of that challenge will be the same as the challenge under (b), the legislature doesn't act. Which brings us to the political question doctrine.

You'd be asking a court to judge whether the legislature did its job adequately. It seems to me that's akin to asking the court to second guess the legislature. Generally, a court will give you thumbs up or thumbs down on a law -- whether it's legal, constitutional, etc. But the court won't give you thumbs up or thumbs down on something that is entrusted to another branch of government. In other words, if what the legislature does is within their exclusive constitutional control, the court won't get involved. So I don't think it's workable for a host of reasons.

Anybody know what the actual results were? I've looked at maybe 10 different articles that only say it was "soundly defeated," but with no numbers.
Per the Secretary of State (http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/ballot-measures/), with 97.1% of the precincts reporting:
No 3,906,895 53.8%
Yes 3,359,776 46.2%

[The Understander]

Oh well. Maybe in 2012. My biggest concern with this one was that midterm elections tend to have lower turnouts and people who have a marginal to slight interest in politics might be more likely to vote for it if they actually had bothered to vote. They can draft a better one next time too.

Next time? Ha!

The concept of marijuana law reform is dead for another generation at least.

It wasn't perfect, so it had to go down. This sounds awfully familiar...

[Rigamarole]

Next time? Ha!

The concept of marijuana law reform is dead for another generation at least.

It wasn't perfect, so it had to go down. This sounds awfully familiar...


That's not true. They're already gearing up for the 2012 initiative (http://all247news.com/white-house-applauds-defeat-of-proposition-19-advocates-look-to-another-shot-in-2012/7452/), including in other states like Colorado and Nevada (there's an underlying strategy here that such an initiative will bring more young voters to the polls, who will also vote to re-elect Obama in crucial swing states). It's so easy to get a proposition on the ballot in California in particular that there's no reason not to have it on there every single election until it passes.

[twickster]

And fuck your "rhetorical" questions.
This is definitely headed in the direction of "fuck you." Please remember we're not in the Pit and keep it civil, please.

Thanks,

twickster, Election forum mod

[The Understander]

That's not true. They're already gearing up for the 2012 initiative (http://all247news.com/white-house-applauds-defeat-of-proposition-19-advocates-look-to-another-shot-in-2012/7452/), including in other states like Colorado and Nevada (there's an underlying strategy here that such an initiative will bring more young voters to the polls, who will also vote to re-elect Obama in crucial swing states). It's so easy to get a proposition on the ballot in California in particular that there's no reason not to have it on there every single election until it passes.

I applaud your optimism and thank you for the cite. But, IMO, marijuana legalization is like gay marriage--so small a monkeysphere that putting it up for a vote will always result in defeat, narrow or wide. If I had to bet, I'd say CA splits its vote based on the grudging advice of the moralizers ("Even if you MUST vote Democratic, vote down this proposition--employers have the right to test). And it'll fly based on a Jack Welch interview on Morning Joe.

Now, if the zeks banded together... what a difference that would make!

[alphaboi867]

Uh, what? It already has been decriminalized... currently the penalty for possession of less than one ounce is a citation on par with a traffic ticket.

What's the point of decriminalizing possession though if you still have to go to an illegal, police-hunted dealer to buy it?

It would completely elminate any legal penalty for adults and hopefully allow those same adults to cultivate a small amount for personal use.

Even with Prop 19 being defeated CA still has some of the most (if not the most) liberal marijuana laws in the nation. "Medicinal use" is defined so broadly that people can legally (under state law) buy pot to treat things like anxiety or menstrual cramps. It's exactly like doctors in the 1920s (& later in states that stayed dry) who'd prescibe things like brandy & champagne to their patients.

[hajario]

Even with Prop 19 being defeated CA still has some of the most (if not the most) liberal marijuana laws in the nation. "Medicinal use" is defined so broadly that people can legally (under state law) buy pot to treat things like anxiety or menstrual cramps.

They don't even have to prove that they have those ailments. Most of the prescribing docs are whores and will write a 'scrip for anyone with $99. Of course, Medical MJ is as harmless as a glass of wine for the most part so it's not like this is a major problem. If I wanted, I could get up from my desk right now, get a prescription and then buy some weed at a dispensary and be back in less than an hour.

[Yeticus Rex]

Uh, what? It already has been decriminalized... currently the penalty for possession of less than one ounce is a citation on par with a traffic ticket.

What's the point of decriminalizing possession though if you still have to go to an illegal, police-hunted dealer to buy it?

It would completely elminate any legal penalty for adults and hopefully allow those same adults to cultivate a small amount for personal use.

That's what I was aiming for.....no citations and grow your own for personal and private use only. Eliminate the middle man....he was ripping you off anyways and I'm pretty sure his quality control was lacking.

[MPB in Salt Lake]

If I wanted, I could get up from my desk right now, get a prescription and then buy some weed at a dispensary and be back in less than an hour.

What about someone who wanted to fly down for a legal stoney weekend and then fly home---Could a non-resident who didn't mind paying the $99 Doctor's fee do the same thing?

[Stan Shmenge]

We just need a few more of these (http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0709/072709kravitzgladys.jpg) type of people to up and die, and this will pass. Demographic breakdown indicates that young people supported it and old people did not.

Old people, soccer moms (who probably did their share of bong hits before crapping out their snowflakes), the elderly and the churchies are at best fighting a delaying action.

We will field a better written prop in 2012, when hopefully more of the youth will turn out to support Obama. And, yeah, it was badly drafted.

[Vinyl Turnip]

What about someone who wanted to fly down for a legal stoney weekend and then fly home---Could a non-resident who didn't mind paying the $99 Doctor's fee do the same thing?

I investigated this possibility myself---purely out of curiosity, mind you, and nothing to do with a possible trip to California in the near future---and it seems one has to show proof of residence in the state of California. Harsh toke!

[Stan Shmenge]

I investigated this possibility myself---purely out of curiosity, mind you, and nothing to do with a possible trip to California in the near future---and it seems one has to show proof of residence in the state of California. Harsh toke!

No Kush for YOU!

[Rigamarole]

I applaud your optimism and thank you for the cite. But, IMO, marijuana legalization is like gay marriage--so small a monkeysphere that putting it up for a vote will always result in defeat, narrow or wide. If I had to bet, I'd say CA splits its vote based on the grudging advice of the moralizers ("Even if you MUST vote Democratic, vote down this proposition--employers have the right to test). And it'll fly based on a Jack Welch interview on Morning Joe.

I don't think either of our perspectives are out of whack here. I'm really not that optimistic about it - I recognize that it's absolutely an uphill battle. The only difference is I won't say "never" simply due to the infinite monkey theorem angle: improbable events will eventually occur. And the more often it gets onto the ballot the more probable it becomes that it will pass in our lifetimes. I say why not take advantage of California's wacky proposition system and go with a brute force attack to get it on there again and again, every single election?