- Thread starter
- #41
SnowBender
New Member
Call all your friends and family in cali and get them to vote now!
How will (or would) you vote on Prop. 19?
- Thread starter SnowBender
- Start date
PhishyPhil
New Member
any word on the results yet?
exit polls?
anything?
exit polls?
anything?
jeffs0418
New Member
I voted yes. We lost by not a whole lot. I am optimistic about the future.
We must endure the status quo for now.
We must endure the status quo for now.
Slizzard
New Member
Well, although it wasn't a pass, it is still a huge victory in a sense. Now we have 2 full years to prepare and get the ball rolling for 2012. I would think this will get more attention during a presidential election year.
Slizzard
New Member
to 420magazine paw-paw 
without a doubt!
PhishyPhil
New Member
id think more politicians would be afraid to back it in 2012, but i could just as easily be wrong. we need people that profit from black market sales to vote yes next time.
and while i know prop 19 lost (this time), many people heard about it, and it got many people and networks to actually talk about it, getting the word out is part of the battle as well.
being that almost 50% of the people voted yes (i think the final numbers were like 46% or 47% in favor of prop 19, correct me if im wrong please), it's only a matter of time before it's passed. its flat out absurd for people to be going to jail for something that almost 50% of people don't even think should be a criminal offense.
start getting people registered, and wanting to vote!! i'm sure that if all the stoners who were either too lazy, or not registered, went out and voted, we'd all be puffin tuff in peace
and while i know prop 19 lost (this time), many people heard about it, and it got many people and networks to actually talk about it, getting the word out is part of the battle as well.
being that almost 50% of the people voted yes (i think the final numbers were like 46% or 47% in favor of prop 19, correct me if im wrong please), it's only a matter of time before it's passed. its flat out absurd for people to be going to jail for something that almost 50% of people don't even think should be a criminal offense.
start getting people registered, and wanting to vote!! i'm sure that if all the stoners who were either too lazy, or not registered, went out and voted, we'd all be puffin tuff in peace
thanx for the welcome, slizzard. did i read that proposal right? u'de be allowed 25sq. ft. of garden space & only 1oz. in posession. how does that work? u'de have to be a pretty poor gardener to only produce 1oz. that sounds like an excuse for the cops to bust down u're door & find more than 1oz. or did i read that wrong?
Slizzard
New Member
No problem. And yeah that's pretty much correct. I've read somewhere that the Feds wouldn't be intruding into peoples homes and stuff. So the way i took it was just that you are allowed to have only an ounce on you. Bc as you say, 25sq ft of garden = more than one ounce. I did hear some nightmarish stories about gardens being checked though. You gotta realize, 25sq ft is actually really small to be honest. That's only 5x5. I heard they'd have been enforcing that garden size fairly strictly bc you'd have to pay a tax to even have a garden. So one source I read stated that the Feds wouldn't be entering residences or anything, but a different source said that the local government would be "regulating gardens." Going on further to mention that gardens would be checked and leaves/branches are not to extend outside the 5x5 (25sq. ft.) garden and if that was happening then there would be a fine. I just personally hope that the proposition receives a lot of work and editting over the next 2 years, bc although I'm a supporter, I would hate for the poor wording and unspecified regulations to turn around on the citizens much the same way I read that the garden size enforcement would be doing.
PhishyPhil
New Member
good points Slizz. and to add on to your point, the biggest complaint ive heard from people is exactly that about the poor wording in the proposition.
- Thread starter
- #53
SnowBender
New Member
-just like most of the arguments that were against 215.
WillyBudz
New Member
In your poll you needed a choice for Vote No because the law is written very poorly. I am for legalization but if i lived in California I would have voted no on 19. The way it is written would do more harm than good.
WillyB
WillyB
In your poll you needed a choice for Vote No because the law is written very poorly. I am for legalization but if i lived in California I would have voted no on 19. The way it is written would do more harm than good.
WillyB
Didn't realize we had so many legal scholars here at 420!
- Thread starter
- #57
SnowBender
New Member
If I remember correctly one of the main arguments against 215 was how poorly it was written.
What part of 19 'stuck in your craw' the most?
WillyBudz
New Member
Nothing in particular stood out except the vagueness. Getting the door open with the semi-vague MMJ law 215 is one thing BUT, full legalization without a more concrete framework leaves the door open for the State and Local governments to totally f*ck it up.
One Example of many:
Prop 19 Section 11301: Gives local governments all kinds of power to regulate etc cannabis. One thing missing in 19 tho is it says nothing about how this "regulation" does or does not apply to 215 and medical cannabis. The way 19 is written there is HUGE potential for 19 to actually make 215 a screwed up mess.
Can't remember where I got this but this is a copy / paste and I happen to agree with it.
“People think it’s legalization, it’s being sold as legalization—even though it’s the opposite of legalization.” – Dennis Peron, author of Prop. 215 that legalized medical marijuana in California.
The late Jack Herer, legendary marijuana activist known as the father of the legalization movement, vehemently opposed the initiative. In the last words of his impassioned final speech, moments before the heart attack that would eventually claim his life, he urged people not to support it. Proposition 215 author, Dennis Peron, likewise denounced the initiative, saying it is not legalization, but “thinly-veiled prohibition."
(Source: Stoners Against the Prop. 19 Tax Cannabis Initiative)
“From an attorney’s perspective, I cannot endorse a bill that I feel is poorly written, even if I am pro-legalization. A bad law is NOT better than no law. Bad law will be interpreted against this industry. In a very bad way. In ways you cannot possibly imagine. I’m not holding out for a perfect law. Of anyone, those of us in the legal industry know that is not possible. But I am holding out for a law that is not going to stagnate the progress this industry has made and can make in the near future and is not written so loosely that it can be interpreted so drastically against recreational users. I’m also holding out for a law that doesn’t punish someone 7 times higher for selling a minor cannabis than alcohol. I’m holding out for a law that doesn’t totally suck.
Because this bill allows the individual municipalities to determine the commercial aspects of recreational use, it is highly likely that cultivation and distribution commercially will be banned in most cities and counties in California. Politicians must only take the path of least resistance – do nothing – and the commercial aspect of recreational cannabis will be banned in their municipality. There are currently over 120 cities in California that are banning medical marijuana distribution. How likely is it that these cities will be convinced to allow recreational distribution? Los Angeles took five years to pass a medical marijuana ordinance. Many cities still have not finalized a medical marijuana ordinance."
– Jennifer Soares, California Attorney
When this issue comes up in 2012 in Colorado I hope they have it together a little better.
WillyB
- Thread starter
- #60
SnowBender
New Member
If we dug around a bit Im sure we could find similar quotes by similar persona's before 215 passed...
I still dont see why local local governments shouldn't be allowed to regulate MJ sales.
Munis regulate all sorts of businesses, why not the sale of pot as well? to me that's like saying states shouldn't have their own laws. local muni rights = states rights on a smaller scale.
one of the nice things about 19 was it did not allow for cites or counties to regulate personal, not for sale, grows. the 5x5 personal recreational use per residence was going to be statewide.
Call it regulation if you want, but it was way better than what we have now.
I still dont see why local local governments shouldn't be allowed to regulate MJ sales.
Munis regulate all sorts of businesses, why not the sale of pot as well? to me that's like saying states shouldn't have their own laws. local muni rights = states rights on a smaller scale.
one of the nice things about 19 was it did not allow for cites or counties to regulate personal, not for sale, grows. the 5x5 personal recreational use per residence was going to be statewide.
Call it regulation if you want, but it was way better than what we have now.
Similar threads
