California Prop 19

[melm00se]

ever thought you might find yourself on the same side as a conservative (or if you are a conservative troll: on the same side as a progressive)?

well, depending upon your support of California Prop 19, you very well might.

Prop 19
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pot-campaign-20101018,0,624268.story

Federal Government's response:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/16/local/la-me-marijuana-holder-20101016

This has the earmarks of a states' rights issue. As long as the product in question doesn't cross state lines in an organized commercial way, upon what does the federal government's ability to override the will of the People stand? There does not appear to be a Constitutional right of the People being infringed (like with slavery in the 19th century) so the Feds' power should be blunted.

How say you? Where do you stand?

[laughingliberal]

1. Voter "YES" on Prop 19.

:hi:

[Le Taz Hot]

2. This is most definitely

a states' rights fight and is protected under Section 10, Article 2 of the Constitution. And in that none of the states are feeling particularly warm & fuzzy about the feds these days, I can see the possibility of this escalating into something akin to a second American Revolution. That's not a prediction, mind you, but I've studied enough history to recognize a brewing situation when I see one.

[melm00se]

3. I don't think you have the right section of the Constitution

Article 1, sec 10 deals with powers prohibited of the states (they can't sign treaties, coin $$, issue letters of marque, no import/export duties and restrictions on military)

you sure you aren't referring to 10th Amendment (Powers of the States and People: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.)?

[slackmaster]

8. I slap melm00se and Le Taz Hot with a raw fish

The Constitutional basis for all federal drug law is derived from the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Article I, Section 8.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8

[melm00se]

9. That power only should be exercisable

if/when California attempts to export across state lines.

If they do not, then what is the basis of the feds power?

[slackmaster]

11. Do you feel the same way about gun laws? Several states are trying to exempt...

...firearms that are manufactured and sold only within their state, from federal gun laws.

Federal gun laws are also based on the power to regulate interstate commerce - Article I, Section 8.

[melm00se]

22. I am fully aware

of the Interstate Commerce clause. I also see the ICC to be amongst the the most abused of Constitutional powers.

If a product is used for in-state consumption and not for export across state lines, honestly, I see no place for the federal government to invoke the ICC. Unlike some here at DU, I am a strong believer in the role of the 10th Amendment in which powers belong at what level of government.

[slackmaster]

23. I'll take that as a "Yes"

I'll bet you didn't know you were a radical supporter of the right to keep and bear arms.

;-)

[melm00se]

25. I guess being a gun owner

would also classify me as a "radical" RKBA supporter.

[slackmaster]

26. In the eyes of some of our fellow DUers, it would indeed

:hi:

BTW, I'm ambivalent about federal gun laws. I think firearms are sufficiently dangerous that they should be regulated, which they are; but I don't like the extent to which the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce has been expanded.

[Le Taz Hot]

29. Oy vey,

that's what I get for trying to rely on memory after two Bloody Marys. I had the right idea (interstate commerce), just the wrong #'s. Thanks for the correction. :hi:

[court jester]

4. When Arizona talks States Rights it's a bad thing and the Feds need to sue ASAP

When it's a different issue, it's a whole 'nother ball of interpretation.

It's moot anyway, if 19 passes the feds will sue, like they're doing in AZ to much cheering on and since fed law trumps, 19 will be tossed.

Which may be a good thing because 19 is a bunch of BS. And very very few supporters have any idea what's in the details, which is madness.

Pass it on: The Truth about 19 http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/

[lunatica]

5. And Schwartzennegger decriminalized possession of marijuana

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 1449 — which reduces adult marijuana possession charges from a criminal misdemeanor to a civil infraction. You pay a fine of no more than $100 with no court appearance, no court costs, and no criminal record.

(snip)
Passage of this bill will save the state millions of dollars in court costs by keeping minor marijuana offenders out of court. The number of misdemeanor pot arrests has surged in recent years, reaching 61,388 in 2008.

The new law, which takes effect on Jan 1, 2011, will have an effect even if Californians vote to legalize marijuana by passing Prop 19. Proposition 19 leaves misdemeanor possession penalties in place for public use and smoking in the presence of children; under SB 1449, these offenses would be simple infractions.

http://blog.norml.org/2010/10/01/norml-action-alert-schwarzenegger-signs-marijuana-infraction-measure/

[Hepburn]

6. I am a Calif voter and I voted absentee already...

...Prop 19 got a YES from me.

[lunatica]

10. Me too. I also voted NO on prop 23

I'm still feeling the afterglow. It was very satisfying to vote this time because I didn't have to hold my nose.

[Hepburn]

13. Ditto on 23...

...and, of course, voted for Jerry Brown! :hi:

[slackmaster]

7. STATES HAVE NO RIGHTS!!! States have powers.

Only PEOPLE have rights.

As long as the product in question doesn't cross state lines in an organized commercial way, upon what does the federal government's ability to override the will of the People stand?

Great question for Constitutional scholarship n00bz. Here's where that all started:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

I plan to vote Yes on 19 on purely libertarian grounds. I believe humans have a natural right to grow and use any species of plant that exists in nature, and that the laws against cultivating and using cannabis infringe on that right.

[court jester]

12. nothing libertarian about 19

it makes new laws that aren't on the books now

most importantly it makes private sales illegal, while the author of the proposition owns a dispensary. Why are people so willing to grant this carpetbagger a quasi monopoly?

Nothing "libertarian" about having to get permission from your landlord to grow in your little 5x5 (per house, not renter) plot of land.

Nothing "libertarian" about capping the amount you can have "in public" to under an ounce.

19 does not legalize cannabis. It legalizes it in very restrictive circumstances.

Have you read it or any objective analysis of it? I'd bet $5 bucks (i'm broke) you haven't. And what is the wisdom of supporting something one doesn't fully understand?

see: Health Insurance

http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/

[slackmaster]

14. Nonsense, court jester - 19 doesn't create any new laws at all

It has a couple of "Local government may..." clauses, but doesn't specifically create any new laws.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_19,_the_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative_%282010%29

[court jester]

20. yet another supporter who doesn't know what they're supporting

"Section 11301(g) states:

Prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300.'

obtained lawfully

"Thus, the initiative’s exact words—“prohibit and punish... the possession... of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully... from a person who is licensed or permitted to do so”—mean exactly this: It will be against the law to possess marijuana that was purchased anywhere other than a licensed dispensary—effectively making it illegal to buy from the black market, even though that is not against the law now.

Believe it or not, it is not a crime to buy marijuana in California. Your dealer could get busted for selling it, but you couldn’t get busted for buying it. You can’t even get busted for having it as long as it’s one ounce or less. But if Prop. 19 passes, possessing marijuana you bought off your dealer would make you a criminal..."


--Currently, anyone with a Prop. 215 recommendation can legally provide marijuana. Under Prop. 19, however, only licensed vendors may distribute marijuana. Although specific licensing arrangements are left up to local governments, Oakland, birthplace of the initiative, has already set the precedent for what other cities will likely follow. Oakland’s licensing process for commercial vending is prohibitively expensive for ordinary citizens. A license costs $60,000 per year—not to mention the application process itself, which is so rigorous that even well-established, law-abiding dispensaries have been denied

--Prop. 19 prohibits smoking marijuana “in any space while minors are present.” Although this is an entirely reasonable restriction, designed to protect children from the dangers of second-hand smoke as well as appeal to more conservative voters, the vague wording of this prohibition carries with it great potential for unintended consequences...."

there's much much more (http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/ ) but I've an appointment

People should just admit they haven't read it, or any analysis. That they heard "legalize marijuana" and said hey that sounds good, without ever asking for the details.

[slackmaster]

21. "a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law..."

The proposed 11301 doesn't impose any specific regulations or set up any system for licensing, permits, fees, or taxes. It does not compel any local government to impose a licensing system for distributors.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Text_of_Proposition_19,_the_%22Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010%22_%28California%29

[Lyric]

24. Isn't that the whole point of the thing? To eliminate "dealers"?

Dealers are often just the retail front for the drug cartels. If you want to hamstring the cartels, you have to eliminate dealers who aren't authorized by the state. We've been arguing for years that the biggest and most important reason for legalization is to curb drug violence related to cartels, and that argument is probably the best one we have. Please stop trying to undermine it. If marijuana is legal, then you need to obtain it by legal means--either an authorized dealer (who has been verified as not working for a violent cartel) or by growing your own.

Legal does not mean "completely unregulated".

[Hepburn]

16. The sale of liquor is also regulated...

...and it is inspected and there are laws which make it safe to consume. Why should pot be any different? You want anyone to be able to sell harmful shit to the public, laced with gawd only knows what, to increase profit?

If it is legal, OF COURSE, it is regulated by Health & Safety rules. Do you think that anyone can distill booze at home and sell it to the public? So why would grass be different?

[slackmaster]

17. 19 is poorly written in that it provides no specific means of regulation

But that's not a good reason to oppose it IMO.

[Hepburn]

28. I agree...

...and that was my response about regulating the sales of MJ. Get it legal...and stop the BS War on Drugs. Like MJ is really a problem?

[melm00se]

18. read through

the wiki entry on Filburn and the basis of the decision was that Filburn's production of wheat allowed him to not purchase open market wheat which would, presumably, have downward pressure on prices.

Applying this decision to marijuana: there is no legal national/interstate commerce of marijuana so I am struggling to see how this decision would apply.

[slackmaster]

19. There is a very small amount of interstate commerce in legally produced MJ.

It's controlled directly by the federal government. The product is used for federally-funded research.

[asdjrocky]

15. Prop 19 is my only good reason to vote this cycle. nt

[letterwriter]

27. Lettter to Editor I wrote

Here's a letter to the editor I wrote supporting Prop 19.

Attorney General Eric Holder has his priorities wrong what he says that he is going to “vigorously enforce” federal marijuana laws calling it a “core priority”. Statement like that makes me wonder, “What’s this guy smoking?” Maybe the justice department should make catching the criminals that ripped off the banking system a core priority? Or make prosecuting the criminals in the Bush administration who got us into a war in Iraq through falsifying evidence a core priority? Maybe the should make going after Meth labs, drugs that really are dangerous, a core priority?

If Eric Holder thinks that going after pot smokers in California is a core priority then he has the wrong core priorities. I say that if the attorney general doesn’t have a clue about priorities then he should be looking for a new job. I encourage California to Vote YES on Proposition 19 and tell the Feds they have better things to do.

[amiga de la gente]

30. prop 19- Cronyism at it's worst - It is not Legalization or decriminalization

Prop 19 doesn't decriminalize the crimes people go to jail for. It will still be illegal to sell a joint( and you will still go to prison for it). The only "prison able crime" aka felony it changes is growing a 5x5 garden of pot( which is ridiculous - because almost all growers in prison are there for larger gardens- maybe all of them). The real effect is to allow AGRAMED INC to dominate the market as well as a select few rich drug dealers and corporations to get state sponsorship and tax money to enforce against their smaller( and still illegal) competitors. These rich pot dealers spent millions to co-opt NORML and the public mind to pass a bill that serves only them. It is purposely written vaguely enough to give lip service medical marijuana but doesn't really protect cultivation Medical marijuana. It is a terrible bill and the "official opposition" website is a joke. There are lots of reasons why people who want to legalize and decriminalize pot should not vote for it, and simply put those reasons come down to the fact that it doesn't legalize or decriminalize marijuana. So I am voting NO. ( and I want legalization).