Prop. 19 Failed Because The Marijuana Community Was Divided

[JackTheGrower]

I agree.

We also need to look to the 18+ for votes.

True they are the ones least likely to vote in a midterm from what I read but they will vote in Presidential year more.
We should be training them to Vote Period!

I am sure they will appreciate it later in life. I do.


Alcohol has been ranked the #1 most dangerous drug. Oh I have been a drinker and I have my experience to tell me what is really true about alcohol so I am all in favor of keeping alcohol a 21 age limit!

However Cannabis looks to protect the White Matter or Brain as we call it from alcohol damage LINK

 

[Purple Goose]

People have mentioned that there will be a large layoff of police and other drug enforcement officers if MJ is legalized but even if they cant bust us anymore there will be jobs for them they will end up being the security guards that protect the big commercial operations I kinda think if only one state legalizes at first the cartels who are going to take a major financial loss are going to prolly try hitting the big operations to cause supply shortages.

 

[herehere]

When you stop with the money thing it will be easier to "legalize" weed. Marijuana should never, ever, be sold. No one has the right to stop me from growing and consuming plants of any kind. What's next? Corn?

 

[ClosetCase]

The youth vote was low because prop 19 denied MJ to those under 21.Why would 18 year olds vote for that.Under 19 people under 21 would have to go outdoors if an adult lit a joint in the house.People who voted no did so because they took the time to read the prop.Mr.Lee can take his money back to Texas or wherever to build a weed monopoly.We dont need people from out of state trying to run the show.If you write a law that keeps the rights we now have in CA,and ads more freedom,not more restrictions,I might vote for it.Oh yes,dont forget the 18-21 year olds if you want their vote...

 

[G-Dog]

I hate to reiterate the fact that the majority of voters will not favor under 21 rec use. Sure we need their votes, but it aint gonna happen. If you look at the trend of alcohol age limits in the past 20+ years you see that any states that had an 18 year old drinking age have moved it to 21. That was the will of the people and the trend that is still in place. There are many trends related to alcohol that are moving away from people using it, such as the lowering of the limits of what is considered a drunk driver. Many folks, especially those that do not use MJ that lump it in with alcohol and especially when you use wording such as recreational use.

 

[markscastle]

I think everyone knows where I stand.Prop 19 would have been a bad law,but we still need a good law passed.18+ 100sq.ft.+ personal Sales for small growers+ comercial grows with lic & fees+ state wide standardised laws(instead of a jig saw of local regulations and taxes).cerification of organic grow+ no taxes on MMJ and sales taxes on Recreational. Public consumption where ever alcohal can be consumed+ And import laws in place to protect national grown MJ when it becomes internationally legal! Don`t want my MJ to become outsoursed ! Oh and I`m ready to contribute $ and time to see the right law put in place!

 

[Son of Stimpy]

The drop in voter turnout in this election was unusually skewed

Numbers of voters are always lower in mid-term elections.

Of course.

The extremely unusual thing about this past election is that the drop in voter turnout among liberals/Democrats, who are much more likely to vote to end cannabis prohibition, was far greater than the drop among conservatives/Republicans, most of whom oppose any form of cannabis decriminalization. That skew was enough to produce the biggest shift ever in the ratio of Democrats to Republicans in Congress, and was easily enough to defeat cannabis initiatives around the country.

 

[G-Dog]

I am sure that Most of the cannabis users, that normally do vote, turned out for this election in California. Many users that do not normally vote most likely did turn out. Who didn't turn out were the careless people that do not vote except during a presidential election. These people could care less about the senate races or the various initiatives that spring up, unless they would impact them personally.

I will give you a point in case, me. I vote via absentee ballot and get them in the mail. I see the things I am concerned about and vote on them. There are various other things that are on the ballot that do not concern me and I make an uneducated decision on the spot about it. If I were not a MJ user and I had a ballot in my hand I would be forced to vote on it one way or another. Because I get my ballot mailed to me it is convenient and I do vote.

Some folks, as mentioned above, do not vote on mid terms and others not at all. If they had the ballot in their hands they would probably vote, but they are not driving to some place to stand in line etc.

I am not saying that the election would have come out Any different if there was a larger turn out. In fact what I really think I am saying is that maybe it would have lost by a larger number because MJ users did turn out for this mid term. In the next presidential election you will see a bigger turn out (2012). If all of those that do want it legalized do turn out as well as that don't want it or do not care, we will probably not do any better and possibly worse than this election. Lack of election turn out probably didn't hurt our cause.

We do need a good law to vote on, we need some political backing and we all need to turn out. Campaign now with everyone. Tell your parents, friends and other relatives that you think the world would be a better place if they pass legalization or decriminalization legislation. Explain to them that people they are connected to are being discriminated against and persecuted because of a stupid racist law that is antiquated and initially driven by big business.

 

[Slizzard]

The youth vote was low because prop 19 denied MJ to those under 21.Why would 18 year olds vote for that.Under 19 people under 21 would have to go outdoors if an adult lit a joint in the house.People who voted no did so because they took the time to read the prop.Mr.Lee can take his money back to Texas or wherever to build a weed monopoly.We dont need people from out of state trying to run the show.If you write a law that keeps the rights we now have in CA,and ads more freedom,not more restrictions,I might vote for it.Oh yes,dont forget the 18-21 year olds if you want their vote...

Hahaha, no, if you would have been to light up in the house with an under 21 year old, you'd have been facing a steep penalty for exposing the underage kid to it if caught.
Don't get me wrong, I'm for the 18-20 year olds being allowed to smoke. The fact is though, it's just not going to happen. Mj, if legalized, would be legalized as an "intoxicant." They aren't going to legalize an intoxicant to under 21. If you don't know why the alcohol limit was finally established at 21, look it up. It's NOT the people's will that made it this way. In fact, states that don’t enforce or mandate the 21 year old drinking age law risk losing 10% of their federal funding for highway apportionment, under the Federal Aid Highway Act. Under 21 just won't be legal to use mj anytime in the near future if this does pass, nor will we be passing anything to legalize or decriminalize mj anytime soon if we try to implement 18+ as legal. It's as simple as that.

 

[Son of Stimpy]

I am sure that Most of the cannabis users, that normally do vote, turned out for this election in California.

Yes, people committed to the cause undoubtedly turned out to vote. It's the (mostly) Democrats who aren't political activists or cannabis users but who would have voted for Prop. 19 had they bothered to vote that could have changed the result.

I'll emphasize a basic point again because commenters here seem to be ignoring it: It's not a question of whether fewer people vote in midterm elections. Everyone knows that's true. It's the roughly 60% drop in turnout among Democrats compared to 2008 versus the 20% drop among Republicans that completely changed Congress and the political landscape on all issues, cannabis prohibition among them.

The argument that the wording of California Prop. 19 was a big part of the problem does not apply to initiatives in other states. The fact that they all did poorly argues against the wording of Prop 19 being a central issue, and supports the argument that voter turnout was the real issue.

The contention that Prop 19. would have done worse if everyone voted is contradicted by the stat that nearly 60% of Californians favor legalization of recreational use. The rebuttal to that is that many Californians who favor legalization nonetheless voted against Prop 19. I find that hard to believe, mostly because it would be so obviously self-defeating.

There's no way to know what percentage of people went through Prop 19 with a fine tooth comb, but in my experience, and as evidenced by various ballot propositions in California and elsewhere which have passed without most people realizing that they contained hidden agendas, few people take the time and trouble to consider all details and potential ramifications of ballot initiatives. They vote on the gist of the bill, in this case "allow regulated adult recreational use of cannabis."


To those who argued against Prop 19 as the "walmart-ization" of cannabis, I would point to the wine industry, which resembles the cannabis industry in important ways. There are certainly cheap mass-produced wines, but there are many many wineries big and small throughout the world. The existence of WalMart-quality wine has not pushed them out of existence. There's plenty of room for all of them, and there's plenty of room for all sorts of cannabis growers. Viva the cannabis connoisseur!


To the commercial growers who argue against legalization, I say get lost, you hypocrites and traitors to the true spirit of cannabis culture! Put aside your selfishness and greed for a minute and stop screwing the rest of us by sabotaging a movement that you know is in the right - and face the fact that legalization of recreational use will happen in spite of you.


To anyone who really did vote against Prop 19 because of wording or specific details, I exhort you to reconsider your reasoning:

Virtually no legislation is perfect. If you wait until a proposition comes along that suits all your preferences exactly, you'll wait forever. There are those who claim that the First Amendment to our Constitution is poorly worded. Would America have been better off if our founding fathers had ditched the First Amendment because they couldn't get the wording quite right?

Keep your eyes on the prize! We've already gotten past the hurdle of the breaking taboo against even speaking about cannabis in public. That's a huge gain! The last big hurdle to get over is ending prohibition of recreational cannabis use. If we get past that, even with a flawed bill, people in general will gradually come to see that decriminalization of cannabis use does not mean the end of civilization. There will be a sea change and no one will be able to stop the tide. Flaws in the legislation can be ironed out. To vote against an initiative because of details like setting the minimum age at 21 instead of 18 is to lose sight of the bigger picture.



Lots of people mention the wording of Prop. 19 or say it was poorly designed. I'd like ask them where were you when the proposition was being drawn up? But more importantly, I'd like to ask them specifically what they think the most serious flaws were, and most importantly of all, I'd like to urge them to tell us all how to get the details right the next time around, so that tens of millions of responsible decent Americans will stop being treated as if we're common criminals when the truth is that we're doing nothing wrong.

 

[Slizzard]

The argument that the wording of California Prop. 19 was a big part of the problem does not apply to initiatives in other states. The fact that they all did poorly argues against the wording of Prop 19 being a central issue, and supports the argument that voter turnout was the real issue.

Lots of people mention the wording of Prop. 19 or say it was poorly designed. I'd like ask them where were you when the proposition was being drawn up? But more importantly, I'd like to ask them specifically what they think the most serious flaws were, and most importantly of all, I'd like to urge them to tell us all how to get the details right the next time around, so that tens of millions of responsible decent Americans will stop being treated as if we're common criminals when the truth is that we're doing nothing wrong.

Ahh, this argument again. Okay, it is pretty much DEFINITE that the wording of the Proposition was the majority of the problem. Voter turnout.. eh, somewhat a problem, but if the wording had been worked on a little more, then the turnout that we had would have been just fine. 19 only lost by a few percent with the turnout we had, and that is with a fair percentage of the Mj community voting against 19. You should go read the text if you don't understand what people are talking about when they mention the poor wording, It's not very long. The way that the Prop was worded left too many loopholes, it would have caused utter chaos if passed due to how many Different rules and regulations that could have been created in different cities and such, and it would have literally screwed the medical community, mom and pop shops and dispensaries, and legal dealers. So, if the wording could have been fixed to have more universally friendly regulations, then Prop 19 would have been backed up by those groups who are for legalization/decriminalization but voted against the proposition bc they are better off now than they would have been with 19's passing, due to its poor wording. With No to 19 losing that number of votes and our side gaining them, there would have been more than enough votes for it to pass. So regardless of the turnout, the wording was the problem. I mean look at the results.. Obviously when you have some Mj smokers voting AGAINST the proposition for legalization/decriminalization, That fact alone is proof that it must be flawed

 

[Sonzor]

Ahh, this argument again. Okay, it is pretty much DEFINITE that the wording of the Proposition was the majority of the problem. Voter turnout.. eh, somewhat a problem, but if the wording had been worked on a little more, then the turnout that we had would have been just fine. 19 only lost by a few percent with the turnout we had, and that is with a fair percentage of the Mj community voting against 19. You should go read the text if you don't understand what people are talking about when they mention the poor wording, It's not very long. The way that the Prop was worded left too many loopholes, it would have caused utter chaos if passed due to how many Different rules and regulations that could have been created in different cities and such, and it would have literally screwed the medical community, mom and pop shops and dispensaries, and legal dealers. So, if the wording could have been fixed to have more universally friendly regulations, then Prop 19 would have been backed up by those groups who are for legalization/decriminalization but voted against the proposition bc they are better off now, than they would have been with 19's passing, due to its poor wording. With No to 19 losing that number of votes and our side gaining them, there would have been more than enough votes for it to pass. So regardless of the turnout, the wording was the problem. I mean look at the results.. Obviously when you have some Mj smokers are voting AGAINST the proposition for legalization/decriminalization, That fact alone is proof that it must be flawed.

I am trying my hardest slizzard to understand your stance or understand what the heck you are trying to get at. I think what you are saying is Prop 19 did not have anything in it to protected the Mom and Pop's, dispensaries, and growers bottom line and for them to continue making the kind of money they have become accustomed to.

For me, one who does not buy, or sell except for maybe seeds this prop is a godsend, can not see why any MJ user would appose it, really can not understand why anyone would appose it period except for greed.

I have read through the bill many times and what it would do is.

- Make Medical MJ more accessible than ever before.
- It would bring down the price for the Medical MJ and recreational users.
- It would stop people from going to jail and prison.
- It would make it easier for legit collectives to grow and thrive, providing Medical MJ users with medicine for free or pretty close to it, in many cases.
- It would make legal for any adult to use MJ as they see fit.
- It would make it illegal for the cops to come take my plants or MJ.

Is the prop perfect? No, would it have made life better for millions? absolutely, would the people you are trying to protect (dispensaries, commercial growers) feel a negative affect in there pocket book? Absolutely, they would have to adapt and change. But a prop that protects there bottom line would be insane. Its a plant owned by anyone who wants or can grow it. And putting provisions in the prop to protect some businesses bottom line seems just plane wrong.

You keep bringing up the medical community. I would love to hear how Prop 19 would have had a negative affect on us. Give some examples please.

As for MJ being legal for 18 to 20 year old kids, personally I would prefer that they don't use Marijuana, but legally, Not my call but if my 18 to 20 year old son can vote, can buy a pack of smokes, can drive a car, or can sign his life away to the military and go fight in a war, I think he/she should be able to make up there mind if they are going to use Marijuana or have a drink.

Slizzard Please give some examples you keep saying the wording needs to be worked on. Please give examples of things in the Prop that needed to be changed and things you would have liked to see in there. Convince me please.

Son of Stimpy very well put, not sure I agree with the turn out being the major contributing reason the prop did not pass but you make a lot of very good points..

And a little disclaimer, I value everyones opinion, yes even yours Slizzard and the debates and discussions are what is going to get us where we need to be. So please don't take offense to anything I say. Just trying to get a good understanding of what the heck happened with Prop 19.

 

[Son of Stimpy]

You should go read the text if you don't understand what people are talking about when they mention the poor wording.

Thank you for prompting me. I have just read the text of the proposition. I'm now less convinced and more suspicious than ever by the "poor wording" argument. I find it to be written well, certainly as well as most ballot propositions.

In many states, alcohol regulations have been severely balkanized for decades, with each little town having its own rules. It hasn't caused chaos. On what basis do people make the claim that a cannabis law modeled along those lines would produce utterly different results?

Neither do I see how it would have "literally screwed" the medical community. Do you say that because cannabis would be available more cheaply from non-medical dealers? It would have produced more competition. That's a good thing. It would have forced existing providers to be more efficient, and yes, that would have caused some of them some pain, so it's understandable that they would oppose the legislation, but that opposition is based on structural market issues which no amount of tinkering with the language would have affected.

Obviously when you have some Mj smokers voting AGAINST the proposition for legalization/decriminalization, That fact alone is proof that it must be flawed

No. It doesn't prove anything. Some of those people were mislead. Others were motivated by their own financial considerations, which are not really valid from a general perspective.

(The response from the 420 staff to your comment says many other things I'd have said (and some I hadn't thought of!), and said them at least as well as I could have, so I'll leave it there.)

 

[Slizzard]

Haha, its all good. We're all looking for the same goal.
I didn't say I PERSONALLY thought it needed improvement. All i was doing was explaining why the WORDING was the main problem. The wording is fine with me the way it is seeing as how I wouldn't have been affected medically or as a grower. Bc you seemed so taken aback by it, I was just naming some of the people who did have a problem with the wording and even though they are for legalization/decriminalization but opposed this proposition. If you have read it through and you have researched this then I really have no clue why you are trying to ask me. You can google proposition 19 and find result after result of peoples opinions of how the proposition should have been worded if that's what you're looking for. Or you can look up the views on the proposition of people who support legalization but opposed 19. Why are you asking me mine since I am neither?
As for the medical users getting screwed. I saw an AWESOME video of a lawyer (who is also a medical patient) breaking down the proposition and explaining why she didn't support 19, and urging other mmj patients not to support it either. I just went to look for the video but the user has removed it. She went on for about 15 minutes just about how the medical community was going to take a big hit if it passed. She mentioned some things about ungodly fines that mmj growers would end up having to pay to grow, and something about prop 19, regardless of what it says, will end up trumping mmj law and mmj patients will have to submit to the all the same regulations everyone else would have. I cant remember much of it but ill try to find another copy somewhere for you. Its really informative. You say you've researched this but all these questions you are asking are all easy answers to find if you would go spend a little time. You're asking me to relay everything I've read. Why not go read for yourself? If there is something you can't understand then look it up. If it's from one of my posts then you'll be able to google just about anything from it.

 

[Son of Stimpy]

not sure I agree with the turn out being the major contributing reason the prop did not pass.

I'm not sure either.

But I'm certain that the extreme skew between Republican and Democratic voter turnout made this a highly unusual election, and that that skew affected not only candidates but all ballot issues where there is substantial disparity of opinion between the two major political parties. Cannabis prohibition is such an issue.

The people I've spoken to who are politically active and aware but are not involved with cannabis prohibition thought my point about turnout was obvious, so the objections on this forum surprised me a bit. But maybe that just reveals that my perspective is more aligned with political activists on the left than with the CA cannabis community.

Here in Arizona, Proposition 203 was expected to pass easily, but didn't. The same trend happened across the country. I can't believe that voters suddenly took a last minute turn to the right or that proposition wording was the issue in all of them. It seems pretty obvious that voter turnout was the big issue. But who knows, Prop 19., being about recreational use, was a different animal.

My skepticism about the "divided community" thesis is based mostly on my sense that, while opposition from the provider side of the community is to be expected, that group is so much smaller in number than other factions that their vote wouldn't have been enough to tip things substantially.

 

[Sonzor]

Sighs*
I didn't say I personally thought it needed improvement. All i was doing was explaining why the WORDING was the main problem. The wording is fine with me the way it is seeing as how I wouldn't have been affected medically or as a grower. Bc you seemed so taken aback by it, I was just naming some of the people who did have a problem with the wording and even though they are for legalization/decriminalization but opposed this proposition. If as you say you have read it through and you have researched this then I really have no clue why you are trying to ask me. You can google proposition 19 and find result after result of peoples opinions of how the proposition should have been worded if that's what you're looking for. Or you can look up the views on the proposition of people who support legalization but opposed 19. Why are you asking me mine since I am neither?
As for the medical users getting screwed. I saw an AWESOME video of a lawyer (who is also a medical patient) breaking down the proposition and explaining why she didn't support 19, and urging other mmj patients not to support it either. I just went to look for the video but the user has removed it. She went on for about 15 minutes just about how the medical community was going to take a big hit if it passed. She mentioned some things about ungodly fines that mmj growers would end up having to pay to grow, and something about prop 19, regardless of what it says, will end up trumping mmj law. I cant remember much of it but ill try to find another copy somewhere for you. Its really informative. You say you've researched this but all these questions you are asking are all easy answers to find if you would go spend a little time. You're asking me to relay everything I've read. Why not go read for yourself? If there is something you can't understand then look it up. If it's from one of my posts then you'll be able to google just about anything from it

Don't mean to offend you in any way but that is the biggest cop out of an answer if I have every heard one... Why even bother.... Very silly.... If you did not want to have a discussion or did not have answers to back up your opinion, why would you even bother posting anything. Are you a politician? If your not, you would make a great one with that response.... On a side note, I will do a little more thorough research on the real reasons for people not voting for Prop. 19. So one good thing came out of all those words you wrote...

 

[Slizzard]

Don't mean to offend you in any way but that is the biggest cop out of an answer if I have every heard one... Why even bother.... Very silly.... If you did not want to have a discussion or did not have answers to back up your opinion, why would you even bother posting anything. Are you a politician? If your not, you would make a great one with that response.... On a side note, I will do a little more thorough research on the real reasons for people not voting for Prop. 19. So one good thing came out of all those words you wrote...

Call it a cop out if you want but it doesn't change the fact that its not. I can back up anything I have or will write. The only thing I haven't fully backed up is the medical patients being screwed. That's only bc I cannot find the video of the Lawyer/MMj patient which is where I originally got that info from. I told you I will look for another copy of it somewhere and get back to you with it when i find it.

[I'll keep editing this post as i look up some stuff, but here are reasons many mmj users opposed 19]
-Prop 215 states that the medical patient can grow for "personal use" but never states what personal use is. Well Prop 19 states personal use as being 5x5 sq. feet. Well with Prop 19's passing, "personal use" would have been defined and the medical patients gardens would have to obey the 5x5 rule.
-

Actually, rather than listing a bunch of facts, you can simply look up Dennis Peron, the father of medical mj in the US, and see why he thinks there is not a single reason that prop 19 should be passed. Im sure you will find his answers better than mine. And i just want to say, no matter what I've said for or against the proposition, For the record, I support it.

 

[G-Dog]

Yes, people committed to the cause undoubtedly turned out to vote. It's the (mostly) Democrats who aren't political activists or cannabis users but who would have voted for Prop. 19 had they bothered to vote that could have changed the result.

I'll emphasize a basic point again because commenters here seem to be ignoring it: It's not a question of whether fewer people vote in midterm elections. Everyone knows that's true. It's the roughly 60% drop in turnout among Democrats compared to 2008 versus the 20% drop among Republicans that completely changed Congress and the political landscape on all issues, cannabis prohibition among them.

The argument that the wording of California Prop. 19 was a big part of the problem does not apply to initiatives in other states. The fact that they all did poorly argues against the wording of Prop 19 being a central issue, and supports the argument that voter turnout was the real issue.

The contention that Prop 19. would have done worse if everyone voted is contradicted by the stat that nearly 60% of Californians favor legalization of recreational use. The rebuttal to that is that many Californians who favor legalization nonetheless voted against Prop 19. I find that hard to believe, mostly because it would be so obviously self-defeating.

There's no way to know what percentage of people went through Prop 19 with a fine tooth comb, but in my experience, and as evidenced by various ballot propositions in California and elsewhere which have passed without most people realizing that they contained hidden agendas, few people take the time and trouble to consider all details and potential ramifications of ballot initiatives. They vote on the gist of the bill, in this case "allow regulated adult recreational use of cannabis."


To those who argued against Prop 19 as the "walmart-ization" of cannabis, I would point to the wine industry, which resembles the cannabis industry in important ways. There are certainly cheap mass-produced wines, but there are many many wineries big and small throughout the world. The existence of WalMart-quality wine has not pushed them out of existence. There's plenty of room for all of them, and there's plenty of room for all sorts of cannabis growers. Viva the cannabis connoisseur!


To the commercial growers who argue against legalization, I say get lost, you hypocrites and traitors to the true spirit of cannabis culture! Put aside your selfishness and greed for a minute and stop screwing the rest of us by sabotaging a movement that you know is in the right - and face the fact that legalization of recreational use will happen in spite of you.


To anyone who really did vote against Prop 19 because of wording or specific details, I exhort you to reconsider your reasoning:

Virtually no legislation is perfect. If you wait until a proposition comes along that suits all your preferences exactly, you'll wait forever. There are those who claim that the First Amendment to our Constitution is poorly worded. Would America have been better off if our founding fathers had ditched the First Amendment because they couldn't get the wording quite right?

Keep your eyes on the prize! We've already gotten past the hurdle of the breaking taboo against even speaking about cannabis in public. That's a huge gain! The last big hurdle to get over is ending prohibition of recreational cannabis use. If we get past that, even with a flawed bill, people in general will gradually come to see that decriminalization of cannabis use does not mean the end of civilization. There will be a sea change and no one will be able to stop the tide. Flaws in the legislation can be ironed out. To vote against an initiative because of details like setting the minimum age at 21 instead of 18 is to lose sight of the bigger picture.



Lots of people mention the wording of Prop. 19 or say it was poorly designed. I'd like ask them where were you when the proposition was being drawn up? But more importantly, I'd like to ask them specifically what they think the most serious flaws were, and most importantly of all, I'd like to urge them to tell us all how to get the details right the next time around, so that tens of millions of responsible decent Americans will stop being treated as if we're common criminals when the truth is that we're doing nothing wrong.

Son of Stimpy, a very excellent post and I hand you pos rep. Lots of good stuff in there. Man I would love to quote many of the things you said and compliment you on them individually.

Very few people are getting "Rich" illegally selling bud. Many of them are probably just making a good living, albeit tax free. However, those people's daily lives and way of life were in jeopardy with this proposition, and like most people that do vote, they do it how it concerns their pocketbook. I have to admit that I spent most of my voting life supporting the party that favored less taxation. I will not use a word as strong as hate, but I highly dislike all politicians. They are ALL a bunch of sell-outs to the least common denominator, smiling talking heads, hypocrites, liars, and worse. I would not smoke a joint with any of them for sure, Obama or Bush, but I did vote for the one that made my pay check look the biggest (traditionally). I think that is how most people vote when it is time to decide what they are going to do. I cannot believe that an 18 year old voted no on decriminalization because he or she was not old enough yet.

One point about the mid term turn out. If you have something you are passionate about in a mid term you will show up. If you do not you may not. I really think we had better chances for that reason alone in the mid terms. The swing voters, those that do not benefit one way or another will be voting more in 2012 and we have 2 years to convince them otherwise or we will not win then either.

 

[Sonzor]

Call it a cop out if you want but it doesn't change the fact that its not. I can back up anything I have or will write. The only thing haven't fully backed up is the medical patients being screwed. That's only bc I cannot find the video of the Lawyer/MMj patient which is where I originally got that info from. I told you I will look for another copy of it somewhere and get back to you with it when i find it.

All I asked was for you to provide some sort of examples of facts. That is so we all can learn, if you have the answers or facts provide them. If not, then don't, it just dangerous to hear or read something, assume and put it out as gospel. By no means do I know everything or even most things for gosh sakes. But one thing I can guarantee is that everything I say, especially about something as important as this is it is a educated, researched opinion, not always correct of course and I welcome people to prove me wrong or to change my thinking with facts. There are just too many people out there with a agenda that will use miss direction, scare tactics and down right lies to get what they want. That's why MJ is illegal in the first place for gosh sakes.

 

[Slizzard]

To be honest, I'm not really sure why you are still arguing with me. Plenty of the Mmj community who opposed the proposition have posted all over the web that they didn't like the wording and why. You can argue that YOU like the wording and that its completely fine all you want, but in the end it all boils back down to Prop 19 NOT passing bc its wording had a fair amount of smokers who support decriminalization, opposing the proposition.
I think the outlook for 2012 looks pretty good though. With the proper preparations, planning, editing of the proposition, time for the messages to sink in, and time for the country to realize that decriminalization is inevitable, the fact that we only lost by a few percent this year shows that if we can unify the Mj community, it would have no problem passing in the future, in my opinion.