# To my California friends \[Prop. 19\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 28, 2010, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597 "2010-10-28T00:23:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ionizer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5daacb/32.png) [@Ionizer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ionizer)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2010, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597/41 "2010-10-30T22:56:44Z")
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?) ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2010, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597/42 "2010-10-30T23:37:47Z")
> [@Nametag](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![SanDiegoTim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/85e7bf/32.png) [@SanDiegoTim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanDiegoTim)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2010, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597/43 "2010-10-31T15:07:37Z")
Yet a noth brilliant case made for Prop 19. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2010, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597/44 "2010-10-31T18:59:38Z")
> [@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. 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. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2010, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597/45 "2010-10-31T19:17:54Z")
> [@SanDiegoTim](#): > > 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!). ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2010, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597/46 "2010-10-31T19:20:40Z")
> [@Campion](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![twickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ec9cab/32.png) [@twickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twickster)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2010, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597/47 "2010-10-31T19:25:26Z")
Merged duplicate threads; renamed combined thread so topic is clear. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2010, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597/48 "2010-10-31T23:05:55Z")
> [@Campion](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597/49 "2010-11-01T03:34:57Z")
Frickin’ California idiots. Only in GranolaLand would this be on the ballot at all. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597/50 "2010-11-01T05:26:03Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > 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. ---
**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:** [November 1, 2010, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597/51 "2010-11-01T05:39:15Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597/52 "2010-11-01T11:55:05Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597/53 "2010-11-01T18:28:19Z")
> [@Nametag](#): > > 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. > [@Captain\_Midnight](#): > > 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. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > 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. > [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > 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: > [@Campion](#): > > 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 [QUOTE=Me] 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. [/QUOTE] A third request that still goes unanswered and for good reason. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2010, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597/54 "2010-11-02T20:33:29Z")
> [@Crupiea](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Washoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ecae2f/32.png) [@Washoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Washoe)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597/55 "2010-11-03T00:03:04Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597/56 "2010-11-03T00:30:43Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597/57 "2010-11-03T01:20:04Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597/58 "2010-11-03T02:32:09Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597/59 "2010-11-03T03:15:42Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![MPB\_in\_Salt\_Lake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c0e974/32.png) [@MPB\_in\_Salt\_Lake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MPB_in_Salt_Lake)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2010, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597/60 "2010-11-03T03:29:40Z")
> [@Rigamarole](#): > > 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… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-my-california-friends-prop-19/558597.md?page=4)