For my fellow Californians: your thoughts on Prop. 19

It's over

 

Go to hell.

 

Because pot smokers found all the asinine reasons they could to vote no on Prop 19 because it didn't fit their perfect view of what weed should be. Meanwhile 850,000 Americans will be arrested for simple marijuana possession this year.

 

What a bunch of malarky, this was about legalization, get it?
Who gives a fuck about the other details, we could have hashed that shit out later.
Don't you see it was about a precedent that would have been the snowball that started the avalanche!
Godddamn it sometimes I think folks are just too fucking politicized these days for their own good. sheesh!

I'm with Madcap, fuck you to any pot smoker who was against this.

ZW

 

Maybe it is your 'fuck you' and 'go to hell' attitudes that turn the average American off and prevent wide acceptance. People will no longer listen to you or your opinion if your response is just an insult.

 

^^Oh, Howsabout you can suck eggs then, m'lady
You're the one that thinks it should be prescription only huh?

People that can tolerate alcohol being legal and not pot should be slapped.

People against the legalization of hemp should be jailed and put in re-education camps.

ZW

 

I was wondering about the tax / tax evasion part.. how was they going to enforce and collect it, and what happens to those people that fail to pay this tax.. ?

 

Ok first off because all of the people who voted YES are being degrading to the people who voted NO for prop 19 I thought I'd say something that actually validates why I voted NO.

Now let me make this clear, I think it should be legalized.

However I voted no because of the way the bill/proposition was written. NOT because I do not want marijuana legalized and taxed to help out the state budget.
---

Another issue I had with the proposition was because I'm really against people DRIVING while under the influence of drugs. If pot were legalized by this specific proposition, I'm not aware of any method that law enforcement can take to determine who is driving under the influence of pot or not because the chemicals of pot stay on your body for a long time.

As far as I know, there's no system of determining the rate of influence of a driver who used marijuana in legal terms, unlike with alcohol blood level tests.
---

Anyway in my opinion, that's why California's voted NO this time around. Some people had sensible reasons for voting NO.

Thanks

 

*Votes against good bill because it did not fully satisfy their special snowflake requirements, gets beat by their illegal drug dealer for $180*

Again though, the driving thing, it's fucking asinine. The lack of explicit prohibition against something in one legislative act doesn't equal legality. Driving under the influence is still illegal under other laws and the passage of this bill isn't going to make some wave of stoned drivers hit the road.

The fact remains if you are for marijuana legalization and voted no on Prop 19, there was no legitimate reason to, you brought into the propaganda, and remember propaganda for voting no was coming both from people against marijuana in general and from the owners of dispensaries and the growers, who helped to perpetuate things such as the driving issue to protect their own interests.

 

I'm blown away by people who say they want cannabis legalized yet voted no on prop 19.
Fucking surreal.

 

Seriously, fuck everyone who's against legalization. Enjoy your televison, fast food, cigarettes, "energy" drinks, drugs, alcohol, video games, pornography, then turn around and put your foot down when it comes to the legalization of an incredible plant that has the potential to heal millions. Hypocrites. Fuck you.

 

I'm not gonna go that far and say porn, beer, and video games are without their merits, but I'm just confused at people who want legalization, yet aren't willing to take the first step forward when the opportunity presents itself because of some technicalities.
As another said, all the details can and will be worked out later. If you wanted legal weed but said no because of "wording" or whatever, you kind of blew it. See you in 4 years or so maybe? Maybe not?
The people of California were asked if they wanted to legalize cannabis, and they said no. That's a pretty big step backwards.

I'm kind of just bitter b/c I was looking forward to watching the spectacle of the federal government trying to tell voters they are wrong.

 

The biggest problems were those who currently sell (deal weed) and the younger crowd, who for some reason didn't show up to vote. The dealers are greedy stupid fucks, if it was legalized they could potentially have more business. As for the younger crowd, well, youth and common sense usually never go hand in hand.

I was curious to see how that would play out as well.

 

Again I disagree. Legal wording is VERY important when you talk about the law.

Yes, I am aware that driving under the influence of Marijuana would still be illegal, however that wasn't my point. My point was that there was no way to test for it and Marijuana might be present in your system if say your not really that high on it at the given moment.

Hopefully the issue can again return to the ballot in 2012, and I will vote accordingly then. Hopefully I can vote yes that time around because I do realize the benefits legalizing it would have on the economy and the war on drugs.

And I'm sorry that some of you feel the "driving under the influence" argument is insufficient. But for me that's a big issue cause I've lost a friend due to driving under the influence of alcohol/drugs. It's not something I take lightly.

--
The other issue that complicates things but doesn't deter me from voting yes, is that the feds could possibly make things harder for CA, by pulling federal funding if weed was legalized in CA.

Did we think of those complications though?

 

Then do tell how you'd word a bill to address this issue. Since there was no provision in the bill otherwise DUI stops would proceed as always, if you appear to be under the influence the cops will give you a sobriety test or check your eyes, if they think you're high, they'll search your car, if they don't find anything you'll be let go, otherwise it's DUI. You're just looking for excuses. You're waiting for a problem to be solved that medically can't be solved yet. It'd be more of a concern if there was a severe epidemic of people crashing while under the influence of weed, but the fact remains this bill in no way would've changed people's driving habits and weed DUI's are negligible as it already is compared to alcohol and human error.

 

What sickens me is the people who are concerned that the small farmer
Will no longer be able to make a living. GOOD!
The ones who are not legal providers have been getting the underground price of up to 400$ oz in the not too distant past, and the legal growers are getting 200$ oz! It's fucking robbery!

Weed is vastly easier and cheaper too grow than tobbacco. There is no reason whatsoever for these outrageous prices besides greed. If large corporations grew and distributed weed it would be a fraction of the price of tobacco. For fucksake, If weed were even as cheap as tobacco I would jump and fucking shout!

I just wanna grow my own in my backyard anyway, fuck all else.


I say legalize weed to the point where you take the money out of it! Let me and anyone else grow as much as we want...Don't tell me what herb I can grow in my own garden, it's an assault on my fucking birthright as a human on this earth!

A "green revolution" would tend to put the chill on corporations profits. If enough people grow it, there will be plenty to share with those that aren't able.
's the way it should be with alotta shit...:beatnik: (END RANT MODE)

 

If you are so high that you can't maintain your lane or drive correctly, and an officer sees that, you're going to be pulled over and it's probably fair to say the average cop is savvy enough to recognize someone under the influence of cannabis when he sees them. Whether that means he smells it, sees it, or just notices your behavior is off (not to mention you're erratic driving) I'm sure there is something that they could do to ensure that you don't continue to drive home.
Just because there is no breathalyzer for weed yet doesn't mean everyone is going to be burning rubber in the streets and mowing down children and there's nothing law enforcement can do to stop it.

 

Did I imply that there would or wouldn't be an increase in those who drive under the influence of weed?

Answer: No I did not.
--

I'm well aware of the fact that those who smoke weed probably drive a bit while under it's influences regardless of the legal status of doing that.
--
And I'm not trained in legal speak so I can't phrase it or write a bill as of yet. I can't believe one of you actually request I do that here on the forums.

However, I will write to my congressmen requesting to get something written in the next proposal about legalizing weed that sets parameters of driving under the influence of weed and testing for that, just as we have a legal blood alcohol levels and tests for that.

I see the point of TheMadcapSyd, but I don't feel comfortable having a heresay or informal judgment from cops to determine a DUI from weed.

I think it would be a weak argument in court if the person pulled over decided to take it to court. And since weed stays in your system longer, unlike alcohol, I raised this issue up for discussion here.
--

Sorry but I think I have a valid point here and don't think I deserve to be lumped into the category of "someone who doesn't think for themselves, and buys into propaganda".

Good day (Or night depending on your timezone)

 

I call nattering ney-bob...
Tell me you didn't join HF just for this thread?....:coffee:


ZW