# California Prop 64 (Legal Recreational Marijuana, 2016 ed.) - how will you vote? And discussion. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 18, 2016, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-prop-64-legal-recreational-marijuana-2016-ed-how-will-you-vote-and-discussion/760174 "2016-07-18T01:46:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-prop-64-legal-recreational-marijuana-2016-ed-how-will-you-vote-and-discussion/760174/41 "2016-07-18T19:02:12Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I haven’t been asked to vote to outlaw anything. If marijuana were legal here, and the ballot measure was to ban it, I probably would vote against the ban. > > But it’s not currently legal, and that’s fine with me. They’re asking, “Should it become legal?” I’m going to vote no. This seems like nothing more than status quo bias. The existence of a ban leads to your support for the ban, but if it didn’t exist, you wouldn’t support it? ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-prop-64-legal-recreational-marijuana-2016-ed-how-will-you-vote-and-discussion/760174/42 "2016-07-18T19:21:28Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > That’s the problem. We need action at the federal level, because this increasing trend of states acting on their own is creating a house of cards that could fall apart any second if the sitting president decides to change course. Assuming that California and the other 4 states approve recreational marijuana, does the federal government have the resources (i.e. enough enforcement agents, prosecutors, etc.) to enforce the mj laws in all nine states plus DC? As far as the current election, from what I understand, neither Hillary nor the Donald are interested in doing so. If Mike Pence were put in charge, he would. Ditto if Chris Christie were made Attorney General. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2016, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-prop-64-legal-recreational-marijuana-2016-ed-how-will-you-vote-and-discussion/760174/43 "2016-07-18T20:32:56Z")
> [@dtilque](#): > > Assuming that California and the other 4 states approve recreational marijuana, does the federal government have the resources (i.e. enough enforcement agents, prosecutors, etc.) to enforce the mj laws in all nine states plus DC? Of course they do. All they have to do is reallocate from less important things like child abduction, bank fraud and terrorism. ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-prop-64-legal-recreational-marijuana-2016-ed-how-will-you-vote-and-discussion/760174/44 "2016-07-19T09:22:24Z")
OK, but I bet they would get a lot fewer convictions in those states, since the defence could argue they were following state law. Wasn’t that the case when California first legalized medical mj and some federal prosecutors tried to convict them? ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-prop-64-legal-recreational-marijuana-2016-ed-how-will-you-vote-and-discussion/760174/45 "2016-07-19T14:55:13Z")
> [@dtilque](#): > > OK, but I bet they would get a lot fewer convictions in those states, since the defence could argue they were following state law. Wasn’t that the case when California first legalized medical mj and some federal prosecutors tried to convict them? No. I mean maybe they tried but it’s always been irrelevant as far as Federal law is concerned. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-prop-64-legal-recreational-marijuana-2016-ed-how-will-you-vote-and-discussion/760174/46 "2016-07-19T20:53:17Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > This seems like nothing more than status quo bias. The existence of a ban leads to your support for the ban, but if it didn’t exist, you wouldn’t support it? Kinda, yea. My view on rights is that they should only ever progress, never regress. Stalling progress isn’t quite the same as taking a right away again once it has been granted. (I know a handful of people who, although they oppose same-sex marriage, acknowledge that we can’t take it away, now, from those couples who are married. You can’t make a promise, and then break it. I even know a few pro-lifers who have this view regarding abortion. They wish it had never become legal, but they don’t favor taking it away from people who now have that right.) (It means we should be very careful when we grant a right, because they’re that much easier to give than to take away.) ---
**Author:** ![Locrian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/locrian/32/14146_2.png) [@Locrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Locrian)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2016, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-prop-64-legal-recreational-marijuana-2016-ed-how-will-you-vote-and-discussion/760174/47 "2016-07-19T21:09:30Z")
I’m SOOO voting yes for 64. Marijuana edibles keep away nausea from my diabetes medications and are great a couple hours before bed. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2016, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-prop-64-legal-recreational-marijuana-2016-ed-how-will-you-vote-and-discussion/760174/48 "2016-07-20T17:26:30Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Kinda, yea. My view on rights is that they should only ever progress, never regress. Stalling progress isn’t quite the same as taking a right away again once it has been granted. > > (I know a handful of people who, although they oppose same-sex marriage, acknowledge that we can’t take it away, now, from those couples who are married. You can’t make a promise, and then break it. I even know a few pro-lifers who have this view regarding abortion. They wish it had never become legal, but they don’t favor taking it away from people who now have that right.) > > (It means we should be very careful when we grant a right, because they’re that much easier to give than to take away.) Interesting. I think you’re mostly describing path-dependency. That is, how we get to where we are is often more important than where we actually are, policy-wise. I think we should take a longer view, though. If a ban on certain drugs makes sense, then we should ban them, and deal with the consequences. If it doesn’t, then we shouldn’t, and deal with those consequences. Keeping a law around permanently because it might be hard to reenact it if we repeal it and it turns out we made a mistake seems like a bad way to guide a society. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2016, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-prop-64-legal-recreational-marijuana-2016-ed-how-will-you-vote-and-discussion/760174/49 "2016-07-20T20:24:46Z")
I wouldn’t say “more important,” just “important.” I have no way to weigh the two against each other. I would object to a decision-making process that ignores the pathway, just as I would object to one that places total dependency on it. The Judiciary has the notion of “stare decisis,” or paying attention to previous rulings. It doesn’t mean that prior rulings should absolutely dominate a decision under consideration…just that the prior rulings have some weight. No two judges will assign the exact same emphasis to prior rulings. I would be uncomfortable with a system where laws shift back and forth too rapidly, and what I was doing yesterday is suddenly illegal today – but also uncomfortable with a system where laws change too slowly, and relief may take centuries to arrive. (What can I say? I’m a boring old Democritian, asking for moderation, in all things, to moderation!) (One of the things that gives me great relief in this particular matter is that it looks like the measure is going to pass by a very large majority, so I can vote my personal preferences without having to grieve too much that my wants contradict, a little, my opinions regarding abstract ideal justice.) (And, goddamn it, I just know my neighbor is gonna light up a reeking smoke-storm!) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2016, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-prop-64-legal-recreational-marijuana-2016-ed-how-will-you-vote-and-discussion/760174/50 "2016-07-20T20:51:13Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I’ll be voting no, but I don’t really care very strongly, and, anyway, I think it’s going to pass. > > I just don’t like marijuana. I don’t want my next-door neighbor smoking it, so that the smoke comes in my window. Emphasis added. I think you got it right the firs time, and the rest of this is just hand-waving rationalization to outlaw something you personally don’t like. > [@Trinopus](#): > > I wouldn’t say “more important,” just “important.” I have no way to weigh the two against each other. > > I would object to a decision-making process that ignores the pathway, just as I would object to one that places total dependency on it. > > The Judiciary has the notion of “stare decisis,” or paying attention to previous rulings. It doesn’t mean that prior rulings should absolutely dominate a decision under consideration…just that the prior rulings have some weight. No two judges will assign the exact same emphasis to prior rulings. > > I would be uncomfortable with a system where laws shift back and forth too rapidly, and what I was doing yesterday is suddenly illegal today – but also uncomfortable with a system where laws change too slowly, and relief may take centuries to arrive. > > (What can I say? I’m a boring old Democritian, asking for moderation, in all things, to moderation!) > > (One of the things that gives me great relief in this particular matter is that it looks like the measure is going to pass by a very large majority, so I can vote my personal preferences without having to grieve too much that my wants contradict, a little, my opinions regarding abstract ideal justice.) > > (And, goddamn it, I just know my neighbor is gonna light up a reeking smoke-storm!) ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 20, 2016, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-prop-64-legal-recreational-marijuana-2016-ed-how-will-you-vote-and-discussion/760174/51 "2016-07-20T22:06:44Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Emphasis added. I think you got it right the firs time, and the rest of this is just hand-waving rationalization to outlaw something you personally don’t like. You’re wrong, then. Try again later when you have facts on your side. ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2016, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-prop-64-legal-recreational-marijuana-2016-ed-how-will-you-vote-and-discussion/760174/52 "2016-11-09T07:11:02Z")
We did it guys! Legal weed for everybody is now a reality. At least one good thing came out of this fucking election. ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2016, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-prop-64-legal-recreational-marijuana-2016-ed-how-will-you-vote-and-discussion/760174/53 "2016-11-09T08:17:55Z")
I seriously doubt the DEA under a Giuliani run Justice Department is going let these attempts to get around Federal drug laws continue for long. Crackdowns are a-coming. ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2016, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-prop-64-legal-recreational-marijuana-2016-ed-how-will-you-vote-and-discussion/760174/54 "2016-11-09T08:20:53Z")
> [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#): > > I seriously doubt the DEA under a Giuliani run Justice Department is going let these attempts to get around Federal drug laws continue for long. > Crackdowns are a-coming. Maybe, but fighting it is gonna cost _a lot_. ---
**Author:** ![aceplace57](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aceplace57/32/3500_2.png) [@aceplace57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aceplace57)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2016, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-prop-64-legal-recreational-marijuana-2016-ed-how-will-you-vote-and-discussion/760174/55 "2016-11-09T09:46:45Z")
Arkansas passed its medical marijuana law. It’s pretty restrictive and our governor opposed it. At least the sick that really need it will get marijuana. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-prop-64-legal-recreational-marijuana-2016-ed-how-will-you-vote-and-discussion/760174.md?page=2)