Something not likely worth its own thread, but I wanna give props to Zach Galifianakis (sp?) for this clip 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?)
^ 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.
Yet a noth brilliant case made for Prop 19.
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.
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!).
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 & cite, pic#2 & cite
Michigan has at least 2,440 registered care-givers, who are allowed to grow pot. cite. 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.
Merged duplicate threads; renamed combined thread so topic is clear.
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 which is less than a misdemeanor. So you can’t blame the CA politicos: they’ve done fine on this issue.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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:
^ ftw
A third request that still goes unanswered and for good reason.
Why not? After all, many states run a gambling operation (lotteries) and sell liquor to the masses. Why not weed?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Polls are closed… it’s gonna be really close but the exit polls don’t look too good. 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…