California Ready to Legalize If Youth Can Rock Vote

[Jim Finnel]

A 56 percent majority of Californians are ready to legalize cannabis for personal use, a new independent poll found this week. A handful of TV stations hired the reputable Survey USA to ask 500 random Californians this question:

Should the state of California legalize the use of marijuana? Or not?

56 percent said yes, 42 percent said no, with 3 percent undecided.

Don't get too worked up. The margin of error on the poll was around four percent, and the poll did not account for mid-term voters, who tend to be older and more conservative. The last independent poll had the same problem.

Still, there's some interesting findings in the numbers. A supermajority of those under 34 favor legalization, which means time is on reform's side. Californians aged 35-49 are slightly against legalization (50 — 46) yet legalization is a dead heat (49-49) in the 50-64 bracket. Those 65 and older are still staunchy in the "no" camp (54-39). And since these are the folks who like to vote early and often in mid-terms, we're going to need to see some serious evidence that the kids are ready to rock Grandma's vote. Well, are you, kids?

Racially: whites, blacks and asians are for legalization, but 53 percent of Hispanics are against it.

Politically: independents are solidly for legalization, as well as Democrats. Republicans can't make up their minds. They are against it 46 to 53, which is well within the margin of error.

...

In other poll news, ABC News did a national poll that claims to have found 55 percent of Americans oppose legalization. But This is Your Country on Drugs author Ryan Grim, a Huffington Post reporter covering health in Washington DC, dug into the poll numbers and noted that:

when pot is compared to alcohol, support for reforming the laws surges. Forty-four percent of respondents said that "the regulations on marijuana [should] be the same as those for alcohol." Another 12 percent said they should be "less strict," meaning that a full 56 percent support the policy change — perhaps the highest number ever recorded in favor of legalization. (Alcohol is, after all, legal.)


Both of these polls are more valid than the bald propaganda engineered by drug war lobbyists Public Safety First, who conjured up a majority of Californians against legalization earlier this week using a loaded question and cherrypicked respondents.


NewsHawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE
Source: eastbayexpress.com
Author: David Downs
Copyright: 2010 East Bay Express
Contact: East Bay Express | Contact Us
Website: California Ready to Legalize If Youth Can Rock Vote | Legalization Nation | East Bay Express

• Thanks to MedicalNeed for submitting this article

 

[markscastle]

What isn`t being talked about when it comes to the poll is what comes to mind as Legalization. The idea most people have been misled into beleaving is the tax,regulate and control initiative keeps people out of jail when it fact it will cause more poeple to go to jail over marijuana.That it is only protecting smokers from a possible sitation and fine of $100 for violation/infraction of the Health and safety code.That will be replaced with taxes to the state of $50.00 per oz sold along with yet to be determened amounts added without any judicial restrains by local governing bodies.That way you are always `caught`. You will not go to jail if you grow up to a 5x5 area of marijuana but just how far will this little `legal` patch supply? Not enough for most users. Then it`s back off to the despenceries for your Taxed fix of cannabis! And where will you be allowed to smoke your `legal` marijuana? Not any place near a minor as defined as under 21 years of age.Have you looked around an seen very many places there are only those 21 and over? If you get caught smoking anywhere near a minor under 21 it will be jail time. You can however have a beer from a consession stand at a park,baseball game or even the county fair near minors. This law when fully explained to people has very little suport. It just doesn`t do much of anything of value and doesn`t come close to what people consider legalization of marijuana.It`s more a step backwards in fact.

 

[TorturedSoul]

Alcohol qualifies under the directives used in determining whether or not a substance is to be classified as a Schedule I Substance; cannabis does not.

Therefore, the argument that one can have a beer (in various places) around minors holds no weight with me because its premise is flawed - comparing anything against a thing that is invalid at its heart makes the argument itself a flawed one.

I do not know your situation, and therefore I do not direct this towards you specifically (and therefore must assume - and hope - that your use of the words "fix of cannabis" were simply ill-considered and not something along the lines of a Freudian Slip), but instead put it forth as a generalization: For most recreational users (who can maintain a decent garden), a 25 square foot grow area could provide all the cannabis that one person needs. This legislation, I believe, makes no statement that such space may only be used once per year. And when the legal restrictions on a garden (of that size) are removed then it becomes easier for both the quantity and quality of the cannabis produced from it to rise. Many people could pull 100 ounces per year of very high-quality cannabis from such a space. If one is using at a rate approaching two ounces per week (by their self) then I would, with respect, suggest that either they have a medical need for such a quantity - and therefore would fall under other laws - or they have passed the hazy boundary that separates recreational-use from addictive-use at a dead run.

I would ask you to consider the fact that many people who present grow journals on this very site grow in a space of this size or smaller and manage to produce enough cannabis to satisfy themselves. For many of those who do not, it is because of a fear of getting busted; I have read several threads posted by people that are afraid of adding the amount of light that I would consider to be the minimum because they have a fear of spiking their electric bill. And this is in many cases born out in grow journals where the authors are seen to mention that they'd gladly add more lights, but... Or they would happily add more plants if the smell wasn't a problem. Et cetera.

Such is the result of living in fear (whether or not such fears are warranted, and to what degree).

For those who wish to grow larger gardens, they may do so but they will have to pay tax. You compared cannabis to alcohol (which is questionable in my mind, but that is your choice). I believe that any adult in this country is free to make their own beer or wine for personal use. But there is a limit (and a very small limit) as to the amount that they may make without having to pay a tax for doing so.

I see this as being little different. Except that qualified (and one hopes that this legislation will help separate the qualified from the "qualified" and help limit the associated corruption of the medical-use phenomena in all its forms) medical users will NOT be limited by this bill and will not be taxed for their medical-use purchases or grows.

"This law when fully explained to people has very little support." I would suggest that the exact opposite would be true (not counting people who are growing large amounts of cannabis for financial gain and NOT currently paying tax on their income (who would be considered criminals in any event) of course) as long as such explanations were uncolored by anyone's opinions - yours, mine, or the next persons. Such opinions should in truth only be formed by each individual voter after carefully considering the facts - which should be the case with any piece of legislation that is to be voted on.

And... the above are my opinions. But I have carefully considered things before fully forming them. I have tried to give more consideration to their affect on people as a whole (yes, even those who choose not to use cannabis but will still benefit from passage of this legislation) than to my own possible benefit (or detriment), although that, too, was considered.

EDIT: In addition to the above, I would suggest that the current restrictions on industrial hemp farming in this country are doing no good at all to our farmers, our citizens, or our country as a whole and that, owing to the fact that the prohibition of growing hemp for industrial use stems from the prohibition of cannabis (as a "drug"), that any legislation that relaxes the restrictions/prohibitions on that use for the general public can only lead to an eventual relaxation and removal of the prohibitions on hemp-farming. I only hope that it comes in time. We already import a large amount of industrial hemp (in some form) and products made from it - 100% of that which we use, as a matter of fact, because we are not legally-allowed to grow it ourselves. Which is just one more nail in our economy's coffin.

 

[Calimann]

What isn`t being talked about when it comes to the poll is what comes to mind as Legalization. The idea most people have been misled into beleaving is the tax,regulate and control initiative keeps people out of jail when it fact it will cause more poeple to go to jail over marijuana.That it is only protecting smokers from a possible sitation and fine of $100 for violation/infraction of the Health and safety code.That will be replaced with taxes to the state of $50.00 per oz sold along with yet to be determened amounts added without any judicial restrains by local governing bodies.That way you are always `caught`. You will not go to jail if you grow up to a 5x5 area of marijuana but just how far will this little `legal` patch supply? Not enough for most users. Then it`s back off to the despenceries for your Taxed fix of cannabis! And where will you be allowed to smoke your `legal` marijuana? Not any place near a minor as defined as under 21 years of age.Have you looked around an seen very many places there are only those 21 and over? If you get caught smoking anywhere near a minor under 21 it will be jail time. You can however have a beer from a consession stand at a park,baseball game or even the county fair near minors. This law when fully explained to people has very little suport. It just doesn`t do much of anything of value and doesn`t come close to what people consider legalization of marijuana.It`s more a step backwards in fact.

This law is not perfect but it is the best option we have. If we can pass this, it increases the pressure on Washington to reclassify cannabis. It will also lead to other states legalizing it as they become jealous of our new economy. I know this does not remove the federal penalties, but what are they going to do? Bust the whole state? I doubt it. I am tired of paying through the nose for pot, I can get by on a 5x5 per person, since I am married, that's 10x10 and she does not smoke. I can grow plenty, and I pay tax now, so what difference does that make? I pay my yearly tax to the pot doctor, my sales tax at the pot club. If they tax at 50 an ounce and the price drops to say 200 an ounce, that would equal half of what I pay now.
I dont want to smoke pot around people under 21, not really an issue for me, if I am going to a movie or game or whatever I can just eat some before I leave. The fine you say it only protects us from is for posession, not for growing, so you are just wrong there. I think we should give this law all the support we can, it will be a big step in the right direction even if it is not perfect.

 

[markscastle]

This law is not perfect but it is the best option we have. If we can pass this, it increases the pressure on Washington to reclassify cannabis. It will also lead to other states legalizing it as they become jealous of our new economy. I know this does not remove the federal penalties, but what are they going to do? Bust the whole state? I doubt it. I am tired of paying through the nose for pot, I can get by on a 5x5 per person, since I am married, that's 10x10 and she does not smoke. I can grow plenty, and I pay tax now, so what difference does that make? I pay my yearly tax to the pot doctor, my sales tax at the pot club. If they tax at 50 an ounce and the price drops to say 200 an ounce, that would equal half of what I pay now.
I dont want to smoke pot around people under 21, not really an issue for me, if I am going to a movie or game or whatever I can just eat some before I leave. The fine you say it only protects us from is for posession, not for growing, so you are just wrong there. I think we should give this law all the support we can, it will be a big step in the right direction even if it is not perfect.

One flaw is that 5x5 area is not written `per person` but per property. If you live in an apartment that means one 5x5 area for the apartment complex which would be on one piece of land. You really need to read the full version of the law. I think if more people did so you would all be on my side and vote no in November. It really is a sucky law. It`s not what you`d at all be so happy about and once in place it would be very hard to change.

 

[GanjaAL2]

LOL... yea everyone thinks it is going to be grand and the sky will open. But if they do not recognize the mmj laws now, what makes you think they are going to do it for legalization? Fix the med laws first and make these terrorists obey the will of the people first, then legalize!

 

[markscastle]

Your right GanjaAL2, local goverments don`t respect the state mmj laws.What this new `legalization law does is empower local goverments ferther.Not the way to go if you ask me. Ether way this vote goes won`t effect me that much.I`ll keep growing what ever, when ever , and how much I want.Been doing it before when it was a felony to even have a stem in Cali.And if you all want to be slaves to the despenceries that`s up to you. In fact if you want limited to 5x5 area go ahead and vote yes in November. I`m not in Humbolt Co. I don`t sell lbs and oz for a living.I sell seeds so I might even make more money as a mater of fact. Just don`t get all half cocked and say you weren`t warned about the Tax,control,and regulate your mind law before voting for it!

 

[GanjaAL2]

your so right... I see it as another way to make slaves out of the legalization movement.

 

[Seraphim]

So, Markscastle and GanjaLA2.... What do you suggest?

I mean .. i am having a difficult time trying to understand what the option is here.

Legalize ... which you say is not all that great.

or

WHAT? leave it as it is now???

Seriously? I dont know but unless someone can come up with some more specific facts about this law, I dont see why we as a cannabis friendly community we should turn our backs on it.

You make several statements regarding the limits imposed... such as 5 x 5 for a property, like an appt. building where many people may reside.. is this a fact? If so, lets talk about it.. what else is there?

As it stands ... I think this legalization is a step in the right direction. But please.. I am open to understanding why I may be wrong. Help me understand.

Thanks!

 

[Calimann]

One flaw is that 5x5 area is not written `per person` but per property. If you live in an apartment that means one 5x5 area for the apartment complex which would be on one piece of land. You really need to read the full version of the law. I think if more people did so you would all be on my side and vote no in November. It really is a sucky law. It`s not what you`d at all be so happy about and once in place it would be very hard to change.

Where are you reading this? When I read the law it said 5x5 per person over 21 at a residence. Legalization in any form is better than what we have now, except for the people charging big money for small bags of pot.

 

[Calimann]

Where are you reading this? When I read the law it said 5x5 per person over 21 at a residence. Legalization in any form is better than what we have now, except for the people charging big money for small bags of pot.

You are right, it's 25 sq per residence.
Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.

it also legalizes hash which is technically still illegal

"Marijuana" and "cannabis" are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preparation of the plant, or resin.

So, it is not perfect, but I went to jail 3 times over pot when I was growing up, and the law must be changed. It is a start, not an end product. Voting against it because it is not everything you want, would be like voting against prop 215 back in 96, and look what that rolled into.

 

[TorturedSoul]

You are right, it's 25 sq per residence.
Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.

If you are the renter of a house, apartment, trailer, igloo, or tipi and are lawfully the renter (those sneaky unofficial sub-lease people would be technically not, I suppose), whether you are renting month-to-month or have a long-term lease... then you are the lawful occupant and it is considered to be your private property for most cases not exclusively the purvey of the property's owner (such as whether or not the property gets sold).

And the cultivation may be subject to approval by the property owner. That's a gray area and it would be common sense to have a firm knowledge of what is and is not spelled out in your lease (and the month-to-month renter can generally be told to move out for no cause in any event). The best and smartest thing would be to ask the landlord if you are in a situation where he/she - or his/her designated agents (maintenance people, for example) might discover your grow. Getting an approval in writing wouldn't hurt either but I'd not expect that being able to get it would be a given at first (and maybe not at all if your landlord has doubts about you as a tenant and wishes to keep an "escape hatch" open; but the same could be said for many possible activities that aren't expressly guaranteed by a lease or by the various non-discrimination laws).

In short, be a good tenant.

 

[GanjaAL2]

What needs to be done is have clear and consise laws and have the officials obey the laws. If you think for one second that the problems we have now are going to go away with legalization, I do not think so. It is going to open a whole other can of worms. We need to hold these elected officials accountable for their actions and have clear language on the medical side. Once we have them fallowing what we have voted in then we can push for legalization accross the board. But until we can get them to obey the laws we voted in... the elected officials and LE will not care what we vote and have passed.

 

[markscastle]

You are right, it's 25 sq per residence.
Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.

it also legalizes hash which is technically still illegal

“Marijuana” and “cannabis” are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preparation of the plant, or resin.

So, it is not perfect, but I went to jail 3 times over pot when I was growing up, and the law must be changed. It is a start, not an end product. Voting against it because it is not everything you want, would be like voting against prop 215 back in 96, and look what that rolled into.

Do me a favor mark off 5 ft x 5 ft area and ask yourself if you grow out plants that take two weeks to sprout,and three weeks to get out of seedling and ? amount to veg (depends on your grow style) and two + months to flower how much would you have when you are all done dry wieght. Now that is all you`d be able to grow until the next cycle is done for how ever many people are on one property. It might be enough for a single person if they smoke light.

Now what you going to do if you run out? Despencery time! High cost with high taxes.

If this law passes you can smoke MJ legal but where? In your home? yes(if you have no minors under 21 in your home) Anywhere in public? No because you would be near a minor and could go to jail.

Right now if you have an oz.If your medical and a cop comes up nothing.If not you can get a ticket for an infraction of the health & Safety law.No jail time even in public! And cops can`t get a warrant for a infraction of the law so your safe as long as you don`t allow them in your home.

This law offers smokers what? High taxes instead of a possible fine (if you get caught). A record of arest and possible loss of work/job if you smoke anywhere near children,even in your own home.You will be able to grow a small patch if local zoning laws don`t stop you,and many cities and counties have or will soon have them.They are called nusance laws.

Why on earth would anyone vote for this law? I do think we need to change things up, but really it would not be that easy to change that law as it would to scrap that bad law and try for a much better law in the first place.Once in place many people would just as soon it stays because the state would be making money and many others would fight any changes because they would be making money off smokers.Look at how much money is being put out for advertising now because of the possibility they could make money! You don`t think they would put up a fight to keep the money coming in once they start making it? It would be ten times as hard to change the law as it would to scrap this law and start from scratch with a law most people could live with.

 

[Calimann]

Do me a favor mark off 5 ft x 5 ft area and ask yourself if you grow out plants that take two weeks to sprout,and three weeks to get out of seedling and ? amount to veg (depends on your grow style) and two + months to flower how much would you have when you are all done dry wieght. Now that is all you`d be able to grow until the next cycle is done for how ever many people are on one property. It might be enough for a single person if they smoke light.

Now what you going to do if you run out? Despencery time! High cost with high taxes.

If this law passes you can smoke MJ legal but where? In your home? yes(if you have no minors under 21 in your home) Anywhere in public? No because you would be near a minor and could go to jail.

Right now if you have an oz.If your medical and a cop comes up nothing.If not you can get a ticket for an infraction of the health & Safety law.No jail time even in public! And cops can`t get a warrant for a infraction of the law so your safe as long as you don`t allow them in your home.

This law offers smokers what? High taxes instead of a possible fine (if you get caught). A record of arest and possible loss of work/job if you smoke anywhere near children,even in your own home.You will be able to grow a small patch if local zoning laws don`t stop you,and many cities and counties have or will soon have them.They are called nusance laws.

Why on earth would anyone vote for this law? I do think we need to change things up, but really it would not be that easy to change that law as it would to scrap that bad law and try for a much better law in the first place.Once in place many people would just as soon it stays because the state would be making money and many others would fight any changes because they would be making money off smokers.Look at how much money is being put out for advertising now because of the possibility they could make money! You don`t think they would put up a fight to keep the money coming in once they start making it? It would be ten times as hard to change the law as it would to scrap this law and start from scratch with a law most people could live with.

I used to know a guy that would grow one plant, one large plant, maybe 8 ft tall and it would yield enough to supply him all year as well as some to raise a little cash. I really doubt if someone is going to come and measure your plot as long as you dont get ridiculous. The law talks about ground space, it does not specifically say the branches may not extend beyond that. There are indoor methods that will produce plenty of smoke in an area that size, that's only the actual grow area not the room size.

Why would I vote against this law? Lower prices and political movement are good things in my opinion. People not going to jail for pot is a good thing. You say it is better to have none than to only have some? I say I don't think so. This law will have national impact. It will put pressure on Washington to reclassify cannabis, or come up with some reason why not, and we know they don't have one beyond "drugs are bad".

Even if I have to buy some of my pot, so what? Right now I buy most of my pot. I would rather spend the money I spend on my med card for pot. I also want to see the law passed to stop all this bullshit pre-employment screening for drugs finding pot that you smoked weeks ago. Even if it was yesterday, unless it was out in the parking lot before you walked into work, it does not affect you at work. If we legalize pot it will be harder for people to get fired and easier to get hired.

 

[markscastle]

I used to know a guy that would grow one plant, one large plant, maybe 8 ft tall and it would yield enough to supply him all year as well as some to raise a little cash. I really doubt if someone is going to come and measure your plot as long as you dont get ridiculous. The law talks about ground space, it does not specifically say the branches may not extend beyond that. There are indoor methods that will produce plenty of smoke in an area that size, that's only the actual grow area not the room size.

Why would I vote against this law? Lower prices and political movement are good things in my opinion. People not going to jail for pot is a good thing. You say it is better to have none than to only have some? I say I don't think so. This law will have national impact. It will put pressure on Washington to reclassify cannabis, or come up with some reason why not, and we know they don't have one beyond "drugs are bad".

Even if I have to buy some of my pot, so what? Right now I buy most of my pot. I would rather spend the money I spend on my med card for pot. I also want to see the law passed to stop all this bullshit pre-employment screening for drugs finding pot that you smoked weeks ago. Even if it was yesterday, unless it was out in the parking lot before you walked into work, it does not affect you at work. If we legalize pot it will be harder for people to get fired and easier to get hired.

Won`t be lower prices as the only place to get your smoke will be the same clubs that charge high prices now and they will be adding taxes on top of that.

There is nothing in this law to protect employees from screening and firing you for smoking marijuana even legally!

More people will go to jail than do now for marijuana if this law passes.Right now it`s a fine and after the law anyone under 21 will get at least 3 years.Also adults will get time for smoking anywhere `near` a minor.The law is unclear as to what is near a minor but LEO will be glade to work that one out in court is my gess.

Are you sure they won`t measure your grow space? In areas that have medical laws that are based on grow space they sure do and even one branch outside that allowed area will get you time in jail!

I can`t see the US goverment caving into 14 states with medical laws and I don`t think one or two states changing there laws will put much pressure on the feds to re classify cannabis.On that note, I wish it would though.

 

[TorturedSoul]

Won`t be lower prices as the only place to get your smoke will be the same clubs that charge high prices now and they will be adding taxes on top of that.

This legislation includes a state-wide moritorium on new cannabis businesses? I did not see that. I would think if anything there would be an encouragement to separate medical-cannabis establishments from recreational-cannabis ones (which would require MORE businesses) - but I didn't see that either.

There is nothing in this law to protect employees from screening and firing you for smoking marijuana even legally!

Which means - that in that respect - it is neither better nor worse than the current status quo, and can therefore be discarded as an argument.

But - and this is admittedly just conjecture on my part - an entire state of adults who have the legal right to consume cannabis might just mean that some portion of them start actively fighting the current drug-testing laws on the grounds that current testing procedures make no distinction between them consuming at or directly before work and them consuming on their own time.

More people will go to jail than do now for marijuana if this law passes.Right now it`s a fine and after the law anyone under 21 will get at least 3 years.Also adults will get time for smoking anywhere `near` a minor.The law is unclear as to what is near a minor but LEO will be glade to work that one out in court is my gess.

I still cannot see how that could be the case unless they are either a very inept personal-use grower or are a commercial-grower that chooses to exchange the things that cause him to be considered illegal under the current statutes for tax-evasion.

As for smoking around minors, I don't have a problem with that. On one basis, because anyone that has so little regard for their own or others' children as to smoke ANYTHING around them ought to be locked up. On another, the likely reason that a person would be turned in for violating such a law would be because their children turned them in; and that wouldn't speak very highly for their parenting skills.

Are you sure they won`t measure your grow space? In areas that have medical laws that are based on grow space they sure do and even one branch outside that allowed area will get you time in jail!

Are you sure that's even going to present a problem for the biggest percentage of people who will fall under this legislation in the first place? I realize that as a seed-breeder, you would have a hard time keeping to the "personal use" space requirements - but then again, you're not growing purely for personal use anyway and therefore by definition shouldn't.

I can`t see the US goverment caving into 14 states with medical laws and I don`t think one or two states changing there laws will put much pressure on the feds to re classify cannabis.On that note, I wish it would though.

What I can see is that while the various states' medical laws (and the people that fall under them) have been ignored - more-or-less - by the federal government, legislation that legalizes cannabis for every adult in an entire state - especially a state as populous as California - will have one of two effects almost immediately: It will either cause the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I narcotic to change... Or it will precipitate a Constitutional crisis in this country as it will clearly go above and beyond the debate as to whether or not cannabis has any value as medicine and land squarely in the "states' rights vs. federal rights" arena by providing a direct challenge under the "all rights not expressly granted to the federal government in the US Constitution are exclusively the rights of the individual states" bit.

Personally, I would figure that the federal government will quietly (or not so quietly if it is deemed politically-beneficial) remove cannabis from the list of controlled substances. While I would actually prefer the other possibility as it would bring up a confrontation about how things are in this country that is many decades overdue, I do not see that as being at all likely.

 

[markscastle]

This legislation includes a state-wide moritorium on new cannabis businesses? I did not see that. I would think if anything there would be an encouragement to separate medical-cannabis establishments from recreational-cannabis ones (which would require MORE businesses) - but I didn't see that either.



Which means - that in that respect - it is neither better nor worse than the current status quo, and can therefore be discarded as an argument.

But - and this is admittedly just conjecture on my part - an entire state of adults who have the legal right to consume cannabis might just mean that some portion of them start actively fighting the current drug-testing laws on the grounds that current testing procedures make no distinction between them consuming at or directly before work and them consuming on their own time.



I still cannot see how that could be the case unless they are either a very inept personal-use grower or are a commercial-grower that chooses to exchange the things that cause him to be considered illegal under the current statutes for tax-evasion.

As for smoking around minors, I don't have a problem with that. On one basis, because anyone that has so little regard for their own or others' children as to smoke ANYTHING around them ought to be locked up. On another, the likely reason that a person would be turned in for violating such a law would be because their children turned them in; and that wouldn't speak very highly for their parenting skills.



Are you sure that's even going to present a problem for the biggest percentage of people who will fall under this legislation in the first place? I realize that as a seed-breeder, you would have a hard time keeping to the "personal use" space requirements - but then again, you're not growing purely for personal use anyway and therefore by definition shouldn't.



What I can see is that while the various states' medical laws (and the people that fall under them) have been ignored - more-or-less - by the federal government, legislation that legalizes cannabis for every adult in an entire state - especially a state as populous as California - will have one of two effects almost immediately: It will either cause the classification of cannabis as a Schedule I narcotic to change... Or it will precipitate a Constitutional crisis in this country as it will clearly go above and beyond the debate as to whether or not cannabis has any value as medicine and land squarely in the "states' rights vs. federal rights" arena by providing a direct challenge under the "all rights not expressly granted to the federal government in the US Constitution are exclusively the rights of the individual states" bit.

Personally, I would figure that the federal government will quietly (or not so quietly if it is deemed politically-beneficial) remove cannabis from the list of controlled substances. While I would actually prefer the other possibility as it would bring up a confrontation about how things are in this country that is many decades overdue, I do not see that as being at all likely.

First off this is not legislation but a state Initiative,now a proposition that will come before the voters in November and if passed will become law.It will be inforced as written without prejudice of intent of it`s writers or the voters.It doesn`t include a moritorium of business`s but leaves a great deal of power to local goverment that could include zoning laws that might disallow such business.I don`t see any wording that would discern operations outside medical venues.

There are no state or fedral laws that prohibit an employer from treminating an employee without any reason.Simply you are employed at your employers pleasure.Marijuana laws will not change this.

I have a problem with the idea you can go to jail for smoking marijuana around a `child`.A child is regarded as anyone under 21 years of age,even if they are members of our Armed Forces! Remember under this proposistion if a minor is caught smoking marijuana they will recieve no less that three years and a record that will follow them there whole life,not just a ticket as they would now! This to me is unexceptable! I am very sure that this will be a big problem if the proposistion passes.I don`t beleave most people understand the proposistion and if they did they would not be in favor of it passing in November.That`s why I am standing against it! It is very missleading!

As a seed vender I do not break the law as for plant count or space because I am a legal medical grower.my only risk is in selling the seeds.That would not change,except I could make more money if this proposistion passes.However I am not behind this proposistion.

I would like to point out what happened in California when the Fedral Goverment impossed a maximium speed of 55 mph to conserve energy and california legislated the limit back to 70 mph.The Fedral Goverment threatend to withhold Fedral Tax moneys to California unless we fell into line.After some debate the 55 mph limit was again impossed on California Hwys and then later after the then energy crisis was over the limits became 65 mph unless posted otherwise. If California passes this porposistion the Fedral Goverment has a tool bag of ways to deal with this and it is not known how it would react.I dout it would cause anything favorable to citizens of the state of California.

Please don`t vote yes because this is a marijuana porposistion on the ballot.It need not be the only choice as the cat is out of the bag now and a new,hopefully better, proposal will come up soon.And please don`t vote yes because of what you hear from it`s comercial sponcers.Read the full Insisitive and use you own mind to deside for your self.This is a very important issue ether way.