Prop 19 (Legalizing Marijuana) in CA going down in flames..

[cwalner]

Man,

This really harshes my mellow.

Ok, somebody had to say it. Now back to our regular bickering.

 

[zaphod2016]

I voted "no" since I thought the law was a mess as proposed. However, I do support legalization, but under more strict circumstances

I voted against it, even though I support legalization.

Forgive my ignorance (I'm on the wrong coast) but what changes would Prop 19 require in order to gain your support?

I find it somewhat counter-intuitive that people who favor legalization would vote for prohibition. Can someone clue me in?

EDIT: From Alt+F4's link:

- Needs a non-discrimination clause so people don't lose their jobs for consuming a legal substance

- The proposed tax scheme is a real mess

- quote: The proposition does not affect current laws against driving while impaired by cannabis, but it does allow passengers to smoke in a moving vehicle, proponents acknowledge

WTF? C'mon folks, I'm for legal weed as much as anyone, but driving impaired is just dumb. Our right to get high does NOT include the right to impose additional risk on our fellow motorists.

 

[dudalb]

Forgive my ignorance (I'm on the wrong coast) but what changes would Prop 19 require in order to gain your support?

I find it somewhat counter-intuitive that people who favor legalization would vote for prohibition. Can someone clue me in?

EDIT: From Alt+F4's link:

- Needs a non-discrimination clause so people don't lose their jobs for consuming a legal substance

- The proposed tax scheme is a real mess

- quote: The proposition does not affect current laws against driving while impaired by cannabis, but it does allow passengers to smoke in a moving vehicle, proponents acknowledge

WTF? C'mon folks, I'm for legal weed as much as anyone, but driving impaired is just dumb. Our right to get high does NOT include the right to impose additional risk on our fellow motorists.

Problem was you would still have the Federal Laws against Pot in place.

 

[hgc]

Problem was you would still have the Federal Laws against Pot in place.

I don't see that as a reason to vote "No" on this initiative. If a person generally supports marijuana legalization, then voting for a state to legalizing it (especially Calif), and passage, could have a positive influence on the progress of federal law.

 

[Alt+F4]

I don't see that as a reason to vote "No" on this initiative. If a person generally supports marijuana legalization, then voting for a state to legalizing it (especially Calif), and passage, could have a positive influence on the progress of federal law.

Prop 19 was never going to legalize marijuana in the entire state of California. This prop had too many loopholes and ambiguities, wrong way to start the battle for legal recreational marijuana.

 

[R.Mackey]

I see all these references to the proposed law being a mess. I hadn't heard that before. Can anyone elaborate? Is it really more of a mess than the marijuana criminal adjudication infrastructure?

Forgive my ignorance (I'm on the wrong coast) but what changes would Prop 19 require in order to gain your support?

These are good questions. I'll give you my answers, feel free to see if you concur.

A lot of people I know supported Prop. 19 half-heartedly, something along the lines of "yeah, it's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction." Treating it like a trial balloon to be fixed incrementally.

Well, as it turns out we have a trial balloon already. I'm referring to the famous Prop. 215, which amended California law to legalize marijuana for medical purposes in 1996. This law had similar flaws, but I voted for it, and it passed handily. It followed 1991's Proposition P in San Francisco County, and Santa Cruz County Measure A in 1992. I also voted for the latter, which passed overwhelmingly.

Like Prop. 19, Prop. 215 leaves many details of implementation up to local jurisdictions -- how much one can cultivate, whether it has to be all for one's personal use or not, how it can be distributed, and so on. Creating, just as one would expect, the typical hodge-podge and bureaucratic labyrinth one always gets. However, there is one important difference -- this is not for profit, and was not seen as a way to raise taxes. (Until 2009, anyway, when Oakland became the first and I believe only city to levy a sales tax.)

Since there's relatively little money involved for local government, rules on cultivation and dispensaries have been confusing but largely left alone under Prop. 215. The envisioned, possible nightmare of serious government interference hadn't materialized. There was a great deal of pushback at the Federal level, of course, but I'll get to that part later.

Early on, some counties refused to comply with Prop. 215 at all -- San Bernadino and San Diego Counties had to be forced to comply by California Supreme Court. But over time, county and city governments pretty much settled into a detente with the medical marijuana folks.

Until the last couple of years, that is. In Los Angeles County, a series of ordinances were passed that began severely and arbitrarily restricting who could run a dispensary, where, who they could serve to, and so on. Ultimately it was decided that there were "too many" dispensaries in Los Angeles. How was this decided? Who knows? But the County finally chose to enforce a moratorium passed in 2007, which was later mysteriously extended to allow a select few to sneak in later (even though this extension was ruled unconstitutional by LA Superior Court). Those who weren't on the special list have been purged. Apart from those lucky new business owners with friends in high places, it is currently unclear if anyone can ever open a new one, or if the ones currently in operation can be transferred. Those that remain are now subject to rather large and arbitrary "special fees."

This problem has been the subject of articles in the Los Angeles Times for about a year (here's one, there's lots more).

Given this problem, it is clear to me that there needs to be a uniform guideline on how Prop. 215 should be implemented, at the state level. Being a classic liberal, I would prefer the law amended to restrict oversight by city and county government, but I would also accept a statewide regulatory board monitoring local compliance and arbitrating grievances.

But that's for medical marijuana. For recreational use and commercial sales, I see it getting a whole lot worse. Now you're adding money to the equation. Prop. 19 was sold on the idea that it would be a rich source of tax revenue. This is practically begging the cities and counties to tinker with the system, much worse than is already going on. And if some counties step up and decide not to allow it at all, it's going to be much harder to overturn those decisions -- there's no case to be made that denying access would be harmful on medical grounds, because we're now talking for-profit.

I want to see Prop. 215 shored up first to eliminate the kind of shenanigans going on in LA County and elsewhere. Let's improve it until we're happy, and then gradually expand legalization using those lessons.

What I was afraid of with Prop. 19 is that it would validate, and make even harder to revoke, these kinds of legal problems. We'd literally be starting on the wrong foot, down an unhappy path paved with legal precedence.

I find it somewhat counter-intuitive that people who favor legalization would vote for prohibition. Can someone clue me in?

That's pretty much the way alcohol is regulated, but I don't see many people preferring prohibition to the current hodge-podge of alcohol laws.

One thing that may not be clear to those outside California is that a "no" vote on 19 was not a vote for prohibition. Let me explain how it works here now.

The medical marijuana laws currently on the books are abused. This is a fact. (A few official statistics.) Practically anyone can get a doctor to write him a medical waiver. My mother worked for a "pot doctor" for several years, and while his practice was rather strict -- the vast majority of their marijuana prescriptions were for terminal cancer cases -- it's not difficult to find others with much looser interpretations of the statute. Which, frankly, is how it should be.

I had one friend who used marijuana legally because of poorly defined "back pain" suffered in high school -- I am not a doctor, but this pain did not prevent him from competing in paintball events or competitive auto racing, so draw your own conclusions. The LA Times, again, sent veteran columnist Steve Lopez to risk life and limb finding out how hard it was to game the process -- it's easy.

This is the state of affairs. Everyone who wants access to marijuana can get it. Everyone knows it. Law enforcement knows it. It doesn't strictly follow the letters of the law, but an agreement exists between people, government, and medical professionals.

Passing Prop. 19 might legitimize many folks with questionable justification, but it's not a game changer on the ground. It's just a different flavor of legalese. So, in my opinion, if that's all it does let's make sure we get the legalese right.

This reality also puts in question the claim that Prop. 19 was going to raise lots and lots of money. They can already follow Oakland's lead or LA's lead and raise money. Passing this bill would not lead to more consumption, and it wouldn't create new ways to raise revenue. All it would have done is add some slightly different restrictions to what's already in place.

Prop 19 was never going to legalize marijuana in the entire state of California. This prop had too many loopholes and ambiguities, wrong way to start the battle for legal recreational marijuana.

So there is still the unsolved problem of how to reconcile Federal law. Prop. 215 also offers some guidance here.

Through most of Prop. 215's evolution, the BATF aggressively prosecuted many people who were legal under State law -- cultivators, distributors, users. Mostly the distributors. They're the most vulnerable. This activity increased under W and peaked in 2007. Since then, it's tapered off to almost nothing. Why?

Simple. The Feds require State assistance. California Attorney General (our "new" Governor) Brown simply stopped cooperating. Soon afterward, President Obama and Attorney General Holder reciprocated, deciding they were going to selectively not enforce the Federal laws in these cases.

This is how it starts. For Prop. 19's successors to gain Federal approval, it has to begin with strong support in Sacramento, and an agreement has to be hammered out with the Executive. That, of course, is subject to change with every new presidential election, so once in place it needs to be backed up by Federal legislation.

This is another problem I saw with Prop. 19. Spotty regulation makes it much harder to reach this kind of agreement. It took twelve years for Prop. 215. On the other hand, if the State gets behind it and takes responsibility for it, and shows that it can work, it becomes a much easier sell at the Federal level.

That's my opinion, and what I want to see on the ballot next year -- total decriminalization and simple, uniform guidelines for regulation and taxation. Forget trying to appease different groups with little details and hints and special exemptions, because that's how we got Prop. 19 in the first place.

Disclaimer: All opinions mine alone. I'm also not personally interested in marijuana at all, whether or not it's legal -- my drug of choice comes in a bottle with a cork.

 

[INRM]

I don't smoke pot, but I honestly think the amount of power the government has gained to go after drug dealers has gone way out of hand and legalization is the best choice.

 

[cwalner]

I don't smoke pot, but I honestly think the amount of power the government has gained to go after drug dealers has gone way out of hand and legalization is the best choice.

you should try it. It releives anxiety and you might not worry about the government so much.

 

[MattusMaximus]

What were the final results?

 

[hgc]

you should try it. It releives anxiety and you might not worry about the government so much.

But seriously, that whole "releives (sic) anxiety" thing could backfire, iykwim.

 

[cambion]

you should try it. It releives anxiety and you might not worry about the government so much.

I know it was a joke, but that stuff gives a lot of people MAJOR anxiety, myself included. Which is why I hate it. However, that might explain all the conspiracy theorists I see around hippie concerts.

 

[Manopolus]

Excellent point. Check out this Wiki article that touches on alcohol laws by state:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alcohol_laws_of_the_United_States_by_state

Check out the blurb for Kansas:

Hmm... it seems to be slightly incorrect. There were bars here in Kansas before 1987 -- I was in them. I'm assuming that's what is meant by on-premises sales. If it meant something else, inform me.

 

[zaphod2016]

These are good questions. I'll give you my answers, feel free to see if you concur.

Excellent post. Thank you for your insight.

I am down in Florida, where everyone does everything, and yet nothing is legal. I can completely understand your points re: "anyone who really wants it is getting it just fine; prop 19 doesn't change anything on the street". You are totally right- this is all about setting a strong legal precedence for legalization at a national level.

Through most of Prop. 215's evolution, the BATF aggressively prosecuted many people who were legal under State law -- cultivators, distributors, users. Mostly the distributors. They're the most vulnerable. This activity increased under W and peaked in 2007. Since then, it's tapered off to almost nothing. Why?

Simple. The Feds require State assistance. California Attorney General (our "new" Governor) Brown simply stopped cooperating. Soon afterward, President Obama and Attorney General Holder reciprocated, deciding they were going to selectively not enforce the Federal laws in these cases.

I though the DEA was Federal, and those were the guys busting your distributors.

That's my opinion, and what I want to see on the ballot next year -- total decriminalization and simple, uniform guidelines for regulation and taxation. Forget trying to appease different groups with little details and hints and special exemptions, because that's how we got Prop. 19 in the first place.

I'm a little curious to see these uniform guidelines myself. I assume it would be taxed at the same rate cigarettes are, which varies from state to state, and even within a state (e.g. NYC has an additional tax on top of the NYS tax for cigs). And when it comes to the issue of cultivation, I imagine again this is the sort of thing that can vary wildly. If I live in a 2-bedroom in South Central LA, I suppose limiting the number of plants I grow makes sense. If I'm living in suburbia, my neighbor doesn't want to get a contact high while gardening. Fine. I can keep it X feet away from the property line or what have you. But what if I buy 20 acres up in Humboldt to start me a weed farm? Would this same 6-plants rule apply?

In other words, are you sure a "one size fits all" legislation makes sense? I'm not in favor of loopholes and bureaucracy, but I do see value in letting townships and counties set their own rules. And on a macro level, I think the best statistic for the eventual end of prohibition will come from comparing "pot friendly" counties with "anti-pot" counties and finding no measurable difference in crime. In other words, I subscribe the 'ole "let 'em battle it out in the marketplace of ideas" philosophy.

I look forward to the day when America's elderly try the "Pepsi Challenge" for themselves, and become the largest demographic of potheads in American history (again). A fitting end to the so-called "Baby Boomers".

Disclaimer: I bust my ass 80 hours per week as a small business owner so I can afford to be the one schmuck in Florida still paying his subprime mortgage on time, and after mowing my lawn on Sunday, and edging the sidewalk nice and neat, I like to kick back and enjoy a spliff. If you'd like to come lock me up for that, be my guest. At this point, I think I'd welcome it as a much-needed vacation anyway.

 

[R.Mackey]

I though the DEA was Federal, and those were the guys busting your distributors.

You could be right. I was never close to any raids, of course. "Feds," however, for sure.

In other words, are you sure a "one size fits all" legislation makes sense? I'm not in favor of loopholes and bureaucracy, but I do see value in letting townships and counties set their own rules. And on a macro level, I think the best statistic for the eventual end of prohibition will come from comparing "pot friendly" counties with "anti-pot" counties and finding no measurable difference in crime. In other words, I subscribe the 'ole "let 'em battle it out in the marketplace of ideas" philosophy.

No, I'm not sure one-size-fits-all is the way to go. There could be some local tailoring. But there has to be some kind of state-level guidance. It could be proposed as an adjunct to Commerce or the State Board of Equalization, for instance, where each county or city could propose their own regulations and tax rates, but the growers and suppliers would have the opportunity to challenge these and have them reviewed at the state level before having to lawyer up and go to court.

Instead, with Prop. 19 the way it was, I think we'd see total chaos -- Orange County banning it outright, LA County charging 100% sales tax on any consumed within county limits regardless of source, Humboldt offering tax breaks to anyone willing to cultivate over 100 acres... I forsee "pot licenses" becoming even hotter commodities than liquor licenses, ultimately attainable only through bribery or mob connections. That I don't want. That doesn't solve much of anything.

I have a feeling that if we deregulated it utterly, it might work out. As far as I'm concerned if you want to grow some Category 5 hydro and smash your brains out for days at a time, it ain't the Man's business so long as you aren't loose on the street endangering other people. Yelp would soon have a comprehensive listing on who to see for every grade and every budget.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm not a lawyer at all. I'm just sure we can do better than the bill that was just defeated.