Yeah...I think everyone who's in that part of the world have already decided how they're going to vote on that one.

You're also going to get a lot of people telling you this doesn't belong here, but whatever...it's done already.

Post it in the California forum!

>> You're also going to get a lot of people telling you this doesn't belong here, Yeah, I'm in OH and I don't think I can cast an absentee ballot since I've never even visited the west coast!

Mike

Okay, I posted in CA forum...didn't realize there was one. This site has too many forums IMO....

Mods (if there are any) please remove from this forum....

Hmmmm, I'd like to see what people who aren't "from that part of the world" have to say!
LOL, entertaining already! NT

Not that it's too touchy of a subject as much as it's a subject that's not in the vegetable garden realm.

I mean, you can cook with it, but well...yeah...heh.

I am not from California but despite the vote the feds will still be in California arresting distributors of weed should the thing pass. At best it will be symbolic and it sure won't change anything.

States like Texas are no where close to accepting such a law. Same thing with the feds. It will effect citizens of california negatively in employment and many other things. Military for example will still court martial your rear end no matter what the state says.

If some marine in san diego decides he's gonna go by 'local laws' and into the brig he goes. On top of that should someone decide they want to go outside of california it can and will effect their employment.

For example if you are a truck driver in california you better hope you are hired by a company with their global HQ that's actually in california. If HQ in Dallas needs to hire some drivers and they say 'pee in the cup', if california makes that difficult, then nevada will get the gig instead.

On various levels I think such a vote will have an overall very negative effect on the economy of california and on the citizens of california too.

On top of that how do they handle driving under the influence type stuff? Can the local cops arrest someone who is stoned out of their mind but driving through a school zone full of kids???

I am not exactly certain how the federal law works, but drugs are illegal on a federal and local level in most places. If the feds can complain about arizona's law on immigration you better believe they can complain about massive weed farms.

At best all you're gonna wind up with is not having to head to municipal court for having a joint in the car, but by far you are not out of the woods by any means.

What it won't do is bring weed out in the open. All it takes is to have one big farm and have one bundle of their product go across state lines and the feds will be busting that farmer on federal charges. They will be treating that california farmer the same as a mexican one doing the same thing, only they will have jurisdiction over his rear end.

Nevada can also camp their cops out on the highway and stop cars all day long and search...and if you got one pack, busted.

At best what will result should the law pass is that local cops won't be cooperating with feds anymore, which will put them in a big old connundrum. It will make a conundrum on many many levels.

We haven't even gotten into the morality of advocating drugs yet... I am just talking sheer ramifications of if california wants to be stupid.

Weed is already out in the open in CA, Schwarzenegger downgraded it to a $100 fine and an infraction ticket w/no criminal penalties just last month. The current dispensary system has already made it de facto legal for users, it's growers and retailers who will be most affected by prop 19, imo.

Can the local cops arrest someone who is stoned out of their mind but driving through a school zone full of kids???
Really? Do you seriously wonder about that? Honestly, if some one is whacked out of their gourd on drugs and driving anywhere and gets pulled over do you seriously believe that there is even a remote chance that the law will say they can't be arrested for it?
I mean, I understand some of your points but try to stay within the confines of reality.

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I'm one of the handful of Americans who has never experimented with the stuff.

However, from the strictly Constitutional viewpoint, it should be up to the people of the state of California to decide whether it is legal or not for that state.

The argument amount about someone driving stoned holds no water. Some people will abuse drugs, illegal *or* legal (alcohol, prescription meds), no matter what the legal status. If you are driving impaired, you can be ticketed or arrested.

Just because the federal government might try to throw its weight around doesn't mean that it is Constitutional or correct for the fed to do so. Nor does it mean that the states should shy away from asserting state rights.

I can hardly believe that I came over hear to discuss my cucumbers in the greenhouse and ended up talking federal versus state powers...

A man who tried to control his vast media holdings and thus the public discourse by controlling the pulp market is responsible for the spread of federal power and the false categorization of MJ into its current Schedule.

Are there historical parallels to media control today? We report, you decide. ;o)

Dan

"I am not from California but despite the vote the feds will still be in California arresting distributors of weed should the thing pass. At best it will be symbolic and it sure won't change anything."

This is wrong. In 1996 when the medical marijuana referendum was on the ballot. People made the same argument. The Feds said "you can't do that, it will still be illegal". Well it was done and come visit Ca and you'll find many dispensaries of cannabis.

"On top of that how do they handle driving under the influence type stuff? Can the local cops arrest someone who is stoned out of their mind but driving through a school zone full of kids???"

Man you can't be serious.....I'll try that next time I'm drunk and stopped by the police. "But it's legal officer!!"

Many of us have had the "exhilarating" experience of eating a vine ripe heirloom tomato from our garden and saying to ourselves or others: "Man...this is good!"

The government decides that it doesn't want it citizenry to be feeling this good, and makes the growing and possession of heirloom tomatoes illegal. The theory is that feeling good from tomatoes will lead to abuse of other hard core vegetables. Further, our youth might be enticed into experimentation with tomatoes. Stiff prison sentences are imposed.

Far fetched analogy? Maybe not. But if we use this analogy, I am sure that heirloom tomato lovers would take their gardens underground and a black market would be created. Over time, our prison population would swell with those who really loved heirloom tomatoes and those who only sought to profit from their prohibition. Also, over time, we would forget exactly why the government decided they didn't want their peeps feeling that good.

If marijuana were legalized, there would only be a fraction of the population who would be more stoned than they are now. Most of the attraction of it to teens is the thrill of rebellion...that would disappear. I would say that if you asked a high school student TODAY to produce a bag of weed, they could do so within a half an hour. Legalized, the price of an ounce of pot might fall to say $5 and people could decide for themselves if it made them feel good or just more stupid.

Hemp produces cloth that is finer and stronger than cotton and makes paper finer, stronger and longer lasting than wood pulp paper. The Declaration of Independence is written on hemp paper. Not to mention it grows faster than trees so trees can be saved for lumber production.

Help seeds are high in protein and Omega 3s and can be pressed for biofuel. In fact the first diesel engine was designed to run on vegetable oil including hemp oil. The stalk can be used for cellulose.

The tomato analogy is apt. Marijuana was criminalized in order to eliminate an excellent natural product so that synthetics like rayon for ropes and diesel synthetics could make their producers rich. When it was discovered that rayon ropes stretched in seawater, the cultivation of hemp was hastily re-introduced and even forced during WWII, then re-criminalized afterwards. This prohibition was overturned as unconstitutional in 1970 then re-criminalized by Nixon to get all those Vietnam war protesters off his lawn.

It continues to be effective in identifying and destroying the lives of young persons who are less than obedient. Although some do get away with it. We've all seen the photo of Arnold smoking.

As far as cannabis now being stronger, it is a plant, so it can be bred to be weaker, too, or more anesthetizing for pain relief, or more cerebral for artists and musicians.

Even law enforcement is against prohibition.

Funnily enough, a side use of the initial 1937 law was to drive out Mexicans competing for American jobs. Now it is not only illegal to enforce federal or state immigration laws against Mexicans, but they are actually getting rich and murdering with impunity all along the border towns, BECAUSE marijuana is not legal. So they turned prohibition to their benefit.

The drug cartels in Mexico will love it. They can run tractor trailer loads of marijuana into California with impunity, because it is legal. Then use that money to buy guns to continue their overthrow of the Mexican government.

States next to California will have the increased cost of increasing their border security.

At least I can hope that all the dopers in Oregon will move south to California and you guys down there can support them on your welfare dollar.

The drug cartels in Mexico will go bankrupt!!!

Actually, they will just switch to other products.

Liquor was Illegal not long time ago and people went to jail for drinking or dealing in it. Drugs are legal in Holland and hart attacks in Holland is a small fraction of what we have here. You have my vote. Our soldiers in Afghanistan are healthy and happy because they enjoy opium over there. It is a shame that the Government has to put their dirty nose in every thing. You have my Vote.LOL

If it passes, I don't think the drug cartel would like it at all. If legalized, a tariff could be placed on it like any other import. With California such a major producer of other agricultural products, I don't see any reason why California couldn't meet its own demand with locally-grown produce.

ROFLMAO; Foolishpleasure, if you really think our soldiers in Afghanistan are all hopped up on opium you better think again! LOL Trust me; been there done that never been high there. I'm not arguing that no soldier has gotten high, but it's an extremely low percentage. Now, as to the original Cannibis question, I don't care much either way.

You still have me laughing! lol

California cannabis is far superior to Mexican cannabis. Has anyone heard of Humboldt Co? Rather, I think we could get into the strange situation of smuggling CA pot into Mexico, where it is illegal. There seems to be less interest in pot in Mexico than CA though.

It only makes sense. Decrease costs in law enforcement, prisons, and diminish the power of the drug cartels. It makes too much sense to pass but I gave it my +1.