I'm still ambivalent about this prop since I can't quite figure out what the benefits are for its passage besides (and this is a big deal) decriminalization for possession. I guess I have a day to figure all this out.
Hey O, a friend of mine works on a issues related to marijuana prohibition, and he's posted 2 articles to HuffPo this week about the prop and related issues. Czech it out.
I know you're not in hysterics about devil weed, but I think he makes some good points, and he's put in a lot of work researching the subject, albeit mostly focused on the NYC legal system.
I just read the prop and I think it's too vague. Plus some harsh prison sentences for people that bend the law. IDK.
It sounds like you are comparing this prop with what legalization would look like in an ideal world. You shouldn't. You should compare it to what we have.
I just read the prop and I think it's too vague. Plus some harsh prison sentences for people that bend the law. IDK.
It sounds like you are comparing this prop with what legalization would look like in an ideal world. You shouldn't. You should compare it to what we have.
Yeah I know. It's already de-criminalized so a vote for this is more of a send a message type thing. Yes on 19. That's my endorsement.
The people I have ever known who are against legalization are hardcore about gun rights and/or can't seem to moderate the amount of food/tobacco/alcohol they put in their bodies. So legal, regulated ownership and usage of a deadly weapon is a good idea, unlike the legal and regulated usage of a plant? My vice of choice is better than your vice of choice? Victorian hypocrites.
I don't think it will pass. There are too many people, motivated by religion or just because they are cranky old farts, who have their panties in a twist about about how others live their lives to allow that to happen. And there are those who don't smoke but think it should stay illegal because weed is bad because it's illegal and it's illegal because it's weed and, therefore, bad, so there. I'm sure the one-foot-in-door "medical marijuana" movement has done more harm than good, too ("those damn kids who aren't sick at all are gathering at these places, exposing my children to drugs, throwing blunt wraps and plastic pill bottles on my property..."). If it does pass, it will take only a matter of time before news stories of drivers crashing cars "under the influence of marijuana" or idiots robbing weed markets will be pimped and the backlash will begin.
Am I seeing things? Odub did you delete your last post?
Not to single you out, but every time you speak on this subject your logic baffles me. .
Huh?
I posted about this...TWICE. And I'm not sure what my "logic" is here. I described ambivalence over the supposed benefits of legalization. That's not even logic. It's a FEELING.
And I took down the second post because, on second thought, I didn't really feel like getting into a debate around Prop 19 and whether it will or will not have an impact on cartel violence south of the border. I don't think it would have a major difference personally but at this point, I've heard every talking point on the issue (viva local NPR) and realized I didn't need to hear anymore.
I voted yes. Despite my ambivalence (which I'll get to in a moment), it came down to a sincere belief that current drug policy is a fucking disaster and has ruined as many lives (if not more) via poor (and often times discriminatory) application, excessive dependence on incarceration as "treatment" and a slew of other onerous outcomes. So fuck it: let's try it a different way and see how that shakes out.
But that said, I remain highly discomforted about raising other drugs to the level that tobacco and alcohol enjoy. I understand the whole "it's hypocritical" argument except, if it were up to me, I'd be all for going the other way and banning alcohol and tobacco. That's just on some private mind garden level though. I'm not actually advocating for a return to Prohibition. But I think they're destructive social forces, whether legal or illegal.
So while I generally favor decriminalization for possession, the idea of legalization doesn't sit well with me on a gut level.
And despite that, I still voted yes. Because our current system is worse in reality than what my private mind fears can imagine in going the other way.
Me either, but I think it's failure will be due to the fact that a decent chunk of the left wing doesn't like this particular legislation, though it does like the general concept of legalization. In other words, it'll fall victim to "right idea, wrong law," though it won't be spun that way in the media.
And despite that, I still voted yes. Because our current system is worse in reality than what my private mind fears can imagine in going the other way.
Thanks Odub. The fact is that the current status quo is not right. This law may not be the best written one, but like you said, voting no means you agree with the way things are now, and that's just an untenable position.
And if the prop does pass as is, it doesn't mean they can't amend it in the future. I think its written vaugely because of that.
I really, really hope this passes in California, lead and let the rest of the nation catch up.
But that said, I remain highly discomforted about raising other drugs to the level that tobacco and alcohol enjoy. I understand the whole "it's hypocritical" argument except, if it were up to me, I'd be all for going the other way and banning alcohol and tobacco. That's just on some private mind garden level though. I'm not actually advocating for a return to Prohibition. But I think they're destructive social forces, whether legal or illegal.
Yes, you are advocating a return to prohibition. The fact that you think you aren't demonstrates your logic.
Me either, but I think it's failure will be due to the fact that a decent chunk of the left wing doesn't like this particular legislation, though it does like the general concept of legalization. In other words, it'll fall victim to "right idea, wrong law," though it won't be spun that way in the media.
This is just my impression but I don't think the pro-19 crowd was able to muster up a strong enough explanation to the public as to why this was a good idea. In contrast, the anti-19 crowd was far better organized in the months leading up to today and were blanketing television with a series of ads - most by law enforcement officials - suggesting that this was a really bad idea.
I don't recall seeing a single pro-19 ad.
So I don't think people who were pro-19 changed their minds. I think there were a lot of people who were undecided who were swayed by the anti-19 blitz and there was no comparable force to balance that out.
But that said, I remain highly discomforted about raising other drugs to the level that tobacco and alcohol enjoy. I understand the whole "it's hypocritical" argument except, if it were up to me, I'd be all for going the other way and banning alcohol and tobacco. That's just on some private mind garden level though. I'm not actually advocating for a return to Prohibition. But I think they're destructive social forces, whether legal or illegal.
Yes, you are advocating a return to prohibition. The fact that you think you aren't demonstrates your logic.
What's with the personal vitriol here? It's not a particularly strategic way to go about convincing people to vote in the direction you'd prefer.
I should also note:
Advocate:
1.
to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly:
Sharing a private mind garden thought is not the same thing as advocating. I'm not clear on why you don't see the difference.
Me either, but I think it's failure will be due to the fact that a decent chunk of the left wing doesn't like this particular legislation, though it does like the general concept of legalization. In other words, it'll fall victim to "right idea, wrong law," though it won't be spun that way in the media.
This is just my impression but I don't think the pro-19 crowd was able to muster up a strong enough explanation to the public as to why this was a good idea. In contrast, the anti-19 crowd was far better organized in the months leading up to today and were blanketing television with a series of ads - most by law enforcement officials - suggesting that this was a really bad idea.
I don't recall seeing a single pro-19 ad.
So I don't think people who were pro-19 changed their minds. I think there were a lot of people who were undecided who were swayed by the anti-19 blitz and there was no comparable force to balance that out.
We are dealing with the most written about and studied plant on earth. You have stated your ambivalence to the subject and refused to engage in a discussion. And then you blame the people who attempted to have that discussion??? Don't hide behind the phrase "the public" when you are obviously speaking of yourself.
If you read the actual proposed legislation, it's really not that radical. Still illegal to smoke in public. Can't have over a gram. Etc etc.
The irony is all the dudes I know who are really really for this don't have their shit together enough to be registered voters and aren't trying to rectify that - and that's just based on things I see around me. If you look at some of the insanely unconstitutional right wing props that have passed in the CA past, I say this is a pipe dream. A nice one, but not realistic. I'm voting yes to send a message but I don't think it will result in anything, kind of like voting third party.
No go ahead and get all mad about my opinion, and I've a nice day, to drive to some church in whittier to cast y ballot.
Me either, but I think it's failure will be due to the fact that a decent chunk of the left wing doesn't like this particular legislation, though it does like the general concept of legalization. In other words, it'll fall victim to "right idea, wrong law," though it won't be spun that way in the media.
This is just my impression but I don't think the pro-19 crowd was able to muster up a strong enough explanation to the public as to why this was a good idea. In contrast, the anti-19 crowd was far better organized in the months leading up to today and were blanketing television with a series of ads - most by law enforcement officials - suggesting that this was a really bad idea.
I don't recall seeing a single pro-19 ad.
So I don't think people who were pro-19 changed their minds. I think there were a lot of people who were undecided who were swayed by the anti-19 blitz and there was no comparable force to balance that out.
We are dealing with the most written about and studied plant on earth. You have stated your ambivalence to the subject and refused to engage in a discussion. And then you blame the people who attempted to have that discussion??? Don't hide behind the phrase "the public" when you are obviously speaking of yourself.
What's the refusal to engage? Am I not engaging here? Have I called for this thread to get shut down? And who the fuck am I blaming? Seriously, you're taking this really personal in a way I can't fathom to understand. It just also makes me wonder: do you think browbeating people is an effective voter strategy?
Just to note again: I voted yes. The question I was responding to was over how prop 19 went from carrying majority support in the summer to being predicted to lose today. If I were using "the public" as a proxy of talking about myself, then I would have voted no. But I was trying to explain how polling has shifted since the summer and that, to me, seems to have followed the same path of Prop 8 from two years ago: in the months leading up the election, the opposition campaigns (anti-legalization, anti-gay marriage) ramped things up and the pro-lobbies either lacked the same resources to do the same or made missteps in their strategies (I don't know if that's the case with Prop 19, but I do think the No on Prop 8 crowd underestimated the power of the churches and were ill-prepared to dent their organizing).
We are dealing with the most written about and studied plant on earth. You have stated your ambivalence to the subject and refused to engage in a discussion. And then you blame the people who attempted to have that discussion??? Don't hide behind the phrase "the public" when you are obviously speaking of yourself.
:grin:
Dude. I think someone needs to take a toke and chill out...
Not being in California I really haven't been able to hear the Pros or Cons as presented in ads, etc.
So on the Con side....what is the biggest fear/negative that they are using to drive their point home?
Depends on which "they" you're talking about.
There is, of course, the typical fearmongering/Reefer Madness/"do you want your surgeons and teachers and firefighters to be baked all the time? huh? Do ya?"/"Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!" crap going on, though that argument is suffering some seriously diminishing returns.
Also: The legislation as written basically leaves it up to each individual town to come up with their own rules, which could lead to a big-time mess of "well, in the Bay, I'm allowed to have this much, but down in LA, it's different, and each town in between has different rules, too." Beyond that, the taxation is being left up to local governments, too, which means each one would have to set up its own regulatory agency, which would make a huge dent in the tax revenue legalization is supposed to generate. That, to me, is the most compelling Con argument. Legalization is supposed to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue--which this state desperately needs--but Prop 19 is scuttling that opportunity.
I could certainly be wrong, but I think the issue is with this statement:
...if it were up to me, I'd be all for going the other way and banning alcohol and tobacco...
I don't smoke cigarettes and I don't smoke weed (I don't even live in California), but I am a grown man with a wife, kids, a family, a job, I pay my taxes, I participate in my community...but I like to have a glass of wine with my dinner...I like the occasional end-of-the-night drink...I like a nice cold beer on the weekend while I'm working in the yard. Please believe that I will come after you if you try to take that right away...
Personally, I'm for banning liberal arts education. Teaching kids to pick apart ideas instead of teaching them a useful trade is incredibly destructive to the social and economic fabric of this country. It produces young adults that think they're too good to work and would rather sit around in coffee shops polluting the air with their rhetorical bullshit. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I could certainly be wrong, but I think the issue is with this statement:
...if it were up to me, I'd be all for going the other way and banning alcohol and tobacco...
I don't smoke cigarettes and I don't smoke weed (I don't even live in California), but I am a grown man with a wife, kids, a family, a job, I pay my taxes, I participate in my community...but I like to have a glass of wine with my dinner...I like the occasional end-of-the-night drink...I like a nice cold beer on the weekend while I'm working in the yard. Please believe that I will come after you if you try to take that right away...
...except I'm not. Nor did I suggest, at any point, that I would. As I stated, repeatedly, it's a private mind garden thought that was meant to explain why the rationale that "if alcohol is legal, ergo, weed should be legal" doesn't really work for me since I'm not convinced legal alcohol is a great idea. Just so we're clear though, I think BANNING alcohol is an even worse idea.
Don't worry, I'm not coming for your glass of Malbec. Not the least of which is that I'd have to pry it out of my wife's hands first.
Personally, I'm for banning liberal arts education. Teaching kids to pick apart ideas instead of teaching them a useful trade is incredibly destructive to the social and economic fabric of this country. It produces young adults that think they're too good to work and would rather sit around in coffee shops polluting the air with their rhetorical bullshit. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Also, BAN PIPES.
I'm pretty sure both of those will be on the 2012 ballot.
I could certainly be wrong, but I think the issue is with this statement:
...if it were up to me, I'd be all for going the other way and banning alcohol and tobacco...
I don't smoke cigarettes and I don't smoke weed (I don't even live in California), but I am a grown man with a wife, kids, a family, a job, I pay my taxes, I participate in my community...but I like to have a glass of wine with my dinner...I like the occasional end-of-the-night drink...I like a nice cold beer on the weekend while I'm working in the yard. Please believe that I will come after you if you try to take that right away...
...except I'm not. Nor did I suggest, at any point, that I would. As I stated, repeatedly, it's a private mind garden thought that was meant to explain why the rationale that "if alcohol is legal, ergo, weed should be legal" doesn't really work for me since I'm not convinced legal alcohol is a great idea. Just so we're clear though, I think BANNING alcohol is an even worse idea.
Don't worry, I'm not coming for your glass of Malbec. Not the least of which is that I'd have to pry it out of my wife's hands first.
Maybe I'll get to your other points after lunch, but this is just fucking moronic. And please believe I am calmer than you.
Rock: The ads I've seen have all been by police officials talking about how crime will increase if you pass Prop 19 (or some iteration of that basic point).
I could certainly be wrong, but I think the issue is with this statement:
...if it were up to me, I'd be all for going the other way and banning alcohol and tobacco...
I don't smoke cigarettes and I don't smoke weed (I don't even live in California), but I am a grown man with a wife, kids, a family, a job, I pay my taxes, I participate in my community...but I like to have a glass of wine with my dinner...I like the occasional end-of-the-night drink...I like a nice cold beer on the weekend while I'm working in the yard. Please believe that I will come after you if you try to take that right away...
...except I'm not. Nor did I suggest, at any point, that I would. As I stated, repeatedly, it's a private mind garden thought that was meant to explain why the rationale that "if alcohol is legal, ergo, weed should be legal" doesn't really work for me since I'm not convinced legal alcohol is a great idea. Just so we're clear though, I think BANNING alcohol is an even worse idea.
Don't worry, I'm not coming for your glass of Malbec. Not the least of which is that I'd have to pry it out of my wife's hands first.
Maybe I'll get to your other points after lunch, but this is just fucking moronic. And please believe I am calmer than you.
I don't see how you could know this unless you're sitting next to me. All I know is that you've managed to insult me at least three times in a thread so far. I don't know what this massive stick up your ass is but I'm going to take my own advice on such matters and just use the ignore function.
Even as someone who enjoys both alcohol and tobacco ??? I am not too far from agreeing with O.
If we are speaking about private mind gardens, where people do not get shot over this and addictions are treated as health issues and not crimes, I would gladly switch corporate/chemical tobacco for marijuana as far as the law books and enforcement are concerned.
Alcohol is much more difficult ??? akin to gun control ??? there is a good argument for keeping it legal and accessible if you didn???t have those who abused its use.
And culturally, I think it will be much more difficult to demonize it like we have with tobacco???despite drunk driving, despite reputations ruined, regrettable morning afters, violence, tomfoolery and general fckery when wasted. The fact that people are willing to overlook all kinds of things with a simple ???oh s/he drank waaay too much??? is a huge obstacle imo.
Rock: The ads I've seen have all been by police officials talking about how crime will increase if you pass Prop 19 (or some iteration of that basic point).
The classics never die.
I once had a cop tell me....
"If I see someone driving 85 mph in a 55mph zone they are usually drunk and if they're driving 25mph in a 55mph zone they are usually stoned".
Comments
Hey O, a friend of mine works on a issues related to marijuana prohibition, and he's posted 2 articles to HuffPo this week about the prop and related issues. Czech it out.
I know you're not in hysterics about devil weed, but I think he makes some good points, and he's put in a lot of work researching the subject, albeit mostly focused on the NYC legal system.
It sounds like you are comparing this prop with what legalization would look like in an ideal world. You shouldn't. You should compare it to what we have.
Yeah I know. It's already de-criminalized so a vote for this is more of a send a message type thing. Yes on 19. That's my endorsement.
I don't think it will pass. There are too many people, motivated by religion or just because they are cranky old farts, who have their panties in a twist about about how others live their lives to allow that to happen. And there are those who don't smoke but think it should stay illegal because weed is bad because it's illegal and it's illegal because it's weed and, therefore, bad, so there. I'm sure the one-foot-in-door "medical marijuana" movement has done more harm than good, too ("those damn kids who aren't sick at all are gathering at these places, exposing my children to drugs, throwing blunt wraps and plastic pill bottles on my property..."). If it does pass, it will take only a matter of time before news stories of drivers crashing cars "under the influence of marijuana" or idiots robbing weed markets will be pimped and the backlash will begin.
Until this is acceptable by the word of the law I can't support it.
Huh?
I posted about this...TWICE. And I'm not sure what my "logic" is here. I described ambivalence over the supposed benefits of legalization. That's not even logic. It's a FEELING.
And I took down the second post because, on second thought, I didn't really feel like getting into a debate around Prop 19 and whether it will or will not have an impact on cartel violence south of the border. I don't think it would have a major difference personally but at this point, I've heard every talking point on the issue (viva local NPR) and realized I didn't need to hear anymore.
I voted yes. Despite my ambivalence (which I'll get to in a moment), it came down to a sincere belief that current drug policy is a fucking disaster and has ruined as many lives (if not more) via poor (and often times discriminatory) application, excessive dependence on incarceration as "treatment" and a slew of other onerous outcomes. So fuck it: let's try it a different way and see how that shakes out.
But that said, I remain highly discomforted about raising other drugs to the level that tobacco and alcohol enjoy. I understand the whole "it's hypocritical" argument except, if it were up to me, I'd be all for going the other way and banning alcohol and tobacco. That's just on some private mind garden level though. I'm not actually advocating for a return to Prohibition. But I think they're destructive social forces, whether legal or illegal.
So while I generally favor decriminalization for possession, the idea of legalization doesn't sit well with me on a gut level.
And despite that, I still voted yes. Because our current system is worse in reality than what my private mind fears can imagine in going the other way.
Me either, but I think it's failure will be due to the fact that a decent chunk of the left wing doesn't like this particular legislation, though it does like the general concept of legalization. In other words, it'll fall victim to "right idea, wrong law," though it won't be spun that way in the media.
Thanks Odub. The fact is that the current status quo is not right. This law may not be the best written one, but like you said, voting no means you agree with the way things are now, and that's just an untenable position.
And if the prop does pass as is, it doesn't mean they can't amend it in the future. I think its written vaugely because of that.
I really, really hope this passes in California, lead and let the rest of the nation catch up.
Yes, you are advocating a return to prohibition. The fact that you think you aren't demonstrates your logic.
This is just my impression but I don't think the pro-19 crowd was able to muster up a strong enough explanation to the public as to why this was a good idea. In contrast, the anti-19 crowd was far better organized in the months leading up to today and were blanketing television with a series of ads - most by law enforcement officials - suggesting that this was a really bad idea.
I don't recall seeing a single pro-19 ad.
So I don't think people who were pro-19 changed their minds. I think there were a lot of people who were undecided who were swayed by the anti-19 blitz and there was no comparable force to balance that out.
What's with the personal vitriol here? It's not a particularly strategic way to go about convincing people to vote in the direction you'd prefer.
I should also note:
Advocate:
1.
to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly:
Sharing a private mind garden thought is not the same thing as advocating. I'm not clear on why you don't see the difference.
We are dealing with the most written about and studied plant on earth. You have stated your ambivalence to the subject and refused to engage in a discussion. And then you blame the people who attempted to have that discussion??? Don't hide behind the phrase "the public" when you are obviously speaking of yourself.
So on the Con side....what is the biggest fear/negative that they are using to drive their point home?
Pot lollipops in Halloween bags.
Cool......At what address??
The irony is all the dudes I know who are really really for this don't have their shit together enough to be registered voters and aren't trying to rectify that - and that's just based on things I see around me. If you look at some of the insanely unconstitutional right wing props that have passed in the CA past, I say this is a pipe dream. A nice one, but not realistic. I'm voting yes to send a message but I don't think it will result in anything, kind of like voting third party.
No go ahead and get all mad about my opinion, and I've a nice day, to drive to some church in whittier to cast y ballot.
What's the refusal to engage? Am I not engaging here? Have I called for this thread to get shut down? And who the fuck am I blaming? Seriously, you're taking this really personal in a way I can't fathom to understand. It just also makes me wonder: do you think browbeating people is an effective voter strategy?
Just to note again: I voted yes. The question I was responding to was over how prop 19 went from carrying majority support in the summer to being predicted to lose today. If I were using "the public" as a proxy of talking about myself, then I would have voted no. But I was trying to explain how polling has shifted since the summer and that, to me, seems to have followed the same path of Prop 8 from two years ago: in the months leading up the election, the opposition campaigns (anti-legalization, anti-gay marriage) ramped things up and the pro-lobbies either lacked the same resources to do the same or made missteps in their strategies (I don't know if that's the case with Prop 19, but I do think the No on Prop 8 crowd underestimated the power of the churches and were ill-prepared to dent their organizing).
Dude. I think someone needs to take a toke and chill out...
Depends on which "they" you're talking about.
There is, of course, the typical fearmongering/Reefer Madness/"do you want your surgeons and teachers and firefighters to be baked all the time? huh? Do ya?"/"Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!" crap going on, though that argument is suffering some seriously diminishing returns.
Also: The legislation as written basically leaves it up to each individual town to come up with their own rules, which could lead to a big-time mess of "well, in the Bay, I'm allowed to have this much, but down in LA, it's different, and each town in between has different rules, too." Beyond that, the taxation is being left up to local governments, too, which means each one would have to set up its own regulatory agency, which would make a huge dent in the tax revenue legalization is supposed to generate. That, to me, is the most compelling Con argument. Legalization is supposed to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue--which this state desperately needs--but Prop 19 is scuttling that opportunity.
I don't smoke cigarettes and I don't smoke weed (I don't even live in California), but I am a grown man with a wife, kids, a family, a job, I pay my taxes, I participate in my community...but I like to have a glass of wine with my dinner...I like the occasional end-of-the-night drink...I like a nice cold beer on the weekend while I'm working in the yard. Please believe that I will come after you if you try to take that right away...
Also, BAN PIPES.
...except I'm not. Nor did I suggest, at any point, that I would. As I stated, repeatedly, it's a private mind garden thought that was meant to explain why the rationale that "if alcohol is legal, ergo, weed should be legal" doesn't really work for me since I'm not convinced legal alcohol is a great idea. Just so we're clear though, I think BANNING alcohol is an even worse idea.
Don't worry, I'm not coming for your glass of Malbec. Not the least of which is that I'd have to pry it out of my wife's hands first.
I'm pretty sure both of those will be on the 2012 ballot.
Maybe I'll get to your other points after lunch, but this is just fucking moronic. And please believe I am calmer than you.
The classics never die.
I don't see how you could know this unless you're sitting next to me. All I know is that you've managed to insult me at least three times in a thread so far. I don't know what this massive stick up your ass is but I'm going to take my own advice on such matters and just use the ignore function.
If we are speaking about private mind gardens, where people do not get shot over this and addictions are treated as health issues and not crimes, I would gladly switch corporate/chemical tobacco for marijuana as far as the law books and enforcement are concerned.
Alcohol is much more difficult ??? akin to gun control ??? there is a good argument for keeping it legal and accessible if you didn???t have those who abused its use.
And culturally, I think it will be much more difficult to demonize it like we have with tobacco???despite drunk driving, despite reputations ruined, regrettable morning afters, violence, tomfoolery and general fckery when wasted. The fact that people are willing to overlook all kinds of things with a simple ???oh s/he drank waaay too much??? is a huge obstacle imo.
I once had a cop tell me....
"If I see someone driving 85 mph in a 55mph zone they are usually drunk and if they're driving 25mph in a 55mph zone they are usually stoned".