Hey…you’re welcome…but instead of that bottle of wine, I decided to finish payroll for my employees who depend on me being alive…you know…so they can buy their weed, wine and buses.
Again…you’re welcome.
[/still looking for putz smilie]
Just think what we would be posting now, if the prop simply read…
“Decriminalizes marijuana for private and personal use not to exceed 1 ounce.”
That would have passed…and that would have been one step farther ahead than we are right this very minute. But no, just like someone who has the munchies, they tried to bogart the whole bag of Doritos. :smack:
Anybody know what the actual results were? I’ve looked at maybe 10 different articles that only say it was “soundly defeated,” but with no numbers.
SFGate shows 55.5% No (2,268,002) vs. 44.5% Yes (1,820,619)
And it looks like both Oakland and San Jose measures to tax medicinal marijuana are going to pass. I wonder if there will be a run on “medicine” before the taxes go into effect.
Here is an update on the numbers:
Yes 3,349,237 46.3%
No 3,891,521 53.7%
Uh, what? It already has been decriminalized… currently the penalty for possession of less than one ounce is a citation on par with a traffic ticket.
What’s the point of decriminalizing possession though if you still have to go to an illegal, police-hunted dealer to buy it?
Yes, legislators are subject to the law just as private citizens are. However, to the extent you’re asking whether the electorate could pass a statute that says, e.g., by 2011 the legislature shall pass legislation that treats marijuana like alcohol, you have problems.
This is the first problem. In the law, it’s called the “political question” doctrine. Your second problem is enforceability. Combined, I think the idea is unworkable.
Think about it this way. Assume a statute is passed as posited above. Assume the legislature (a) acts or (b) doesn’t act. (Although in reality if it’s a statute, the legislature will just pass another statute immediately repealing it.)
In the case of (a), the legislature will be sued because I can guarantee you that someone somewhere will find fault with whatever legislation is passed. And that lawsuit will proceed on two fronts: first, all of the problems with the feds that exist with Prop 19 would exist with this legislature, and so that needs to be worked out (i.e., whether and how the California legislation is trumped by federal law); and second, whether the legislation passed fulfills the legislatures obligation under this hypothetical proposition. And the thrust of that challenge will be the same as the challenge under (b), the legislature doesn’t act. Which brings us to the political question doctrine.
You’d be asking a court to judge whether the legislature did its job adequately. It seems to me that’s akin to asking the court to second guess the legislature. Generally, a court will give you thumbs up or thumbs down on a law – whether it’s legal, constitutional, etc. But the court won’t give you thumbs up or thumbs down on something that is entrusted to another branch of government. In other words, if what the legislature does is within their exclusive constitutional control, the court won’t get involved. So I don’t think it’s workable for a host of reasons.
Per the Secretary of State, with 97.1% of the precincts reporting:
No 3,906,895 53.8%
Yes 3,359,776 46.2%
Next time? Ha!
The concept of marijuana law reform is dead for another generation at least.
It wasn’t perfect, so it had to go down. This sounds awfully familiar…
That’s not true. They’re already gearing up for the 2012 initiative, including in other states like Colorado and Nevada (there’s an underlying strategy here that such an initiative will bring more young voters to the polls, who will also vote to re-elect Obama in crucial swing states). It’s so easy to get a proposition on the ballot in California in particular that there’s no reason not to have it on there every single election until it passes.
This is definitely headed in the direction of “fuck you.” Please remember we’re not in the Pit and keep it civil, please.
Thanks,
twickster, Election forum mod
I applaud your optimism and thank you for the cite. But, IMO, marijuana legalization is like gay marriage–so small a monkeysphere that putting it up for a vote will always result in defeat, narrow or wide. If I had to bet, I’d say CA splits its vote based on the grudging advice of the moralizers ("Even if you MUST vote Democratic, vote down* this *proposition–employers have the right to test). And it’ll fly based on a Jack Welch interview on Morning Joe.
Now, if the zeks banded together… what a difference that would make!
It would completely elminate any legal penalty for adults and hopefully allow those same adults to cultivate a small amount for personal use.
Even with Prop 19 being defeated CA still has some of the most (if not the most) liberal marijuana laws in the nation. “Medicinal use” is defined so broadly that people can legally (under state law) buy pot to treat things like anxiety or menstrual cramps. It’s exactly like doctors in the 1920s (& later in states that stayed dry) who’d prescibe things like brandy & champagne to their patients.
They don’t even have to prove that they have those ailments. Most of the prescribing docs are whores and will write a 'scrip for anyone with $99. Of course, Medical MJ is as harmless as a glass of wine for the most part so it’s not like this is a major problem. If I wanted, I could get up from my desk right now, get a prescription and then buy some weed at a dispensary and be back in less than an hour.
That’s what I was aiming for…no citations and grow your own for personal and private use only. Eliminate the middle man…he was ripping you off anyways and I’m pretty sure his quality control was lacking.
What about someone who wanted to fly down for a legal stoney weekend and then fly home—Could a non-resident who didn’t mind paying the $99 Doctor’s fee do the same thing?
We just need a few more of these type of people to up and die, and this will pass. Demographic breakdown indicates that young people supported it and old people did not.
Old people, soccer moms (who probably did their share of bong hits before crapping out their snowflakes), the elderly and the churchies are at best fighting a delaying action.
We will field a better written prop in 2012, when hopefully more of the youth will turn out to support Obama. And, yeah, it was badly drafted.
I investigated this possibility myself—purely out of curiosity, mind you, and nothing to do with a possible trip to California in the near future—and it seems one has to show proof of residence in the state of California. Harsh toke!
No Kush for YOU!
I don’t think either of our perspectives are out of whack here. I’m really not that optimistic about it - I recognize that it’s absolutely an uphill battle. The only difference is I won’t say “never” simply due to the infinite monkey theorem angle: improbable events will eventually occur. And the more often it gets onto the ballot the more probable it becomes that it will pass in our lifetimes. I say why not take advantage of California’s wacky proposition system and go with a brute force attack to get it on there again and again, every single election?