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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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. (???) )
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
