To my California friends [Prop. 19]

[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]

@Snowboarder_Bo

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]

@Snowboarder_Bo

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.

@kidchameleon

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.

@Yeticus_Rex

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]

@spark240

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]

@hajario

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]

@Campion

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.

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

[Peremensoe]

@Campion

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]

@spark240

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.

@BigT

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.

@Campion

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.]*

@BigT

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]

@suranyi

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]

@spark240

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]

@spark240

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.