pigpenz Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 November ballot in California prop 19 which would legalize pot for those over 21 yrs of age and allow people to grow their own in a 5x5 foot area.....what do you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 I'm watching this one with interest. There are so many pluses for the state if this gets approved. The regulars on BBF are a pretty bright group, so I won't go into the benefits of this referendum, but I'd be interested in hearing from those that are considering voting against this, or why they think legalization is bad in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Yes sure. California could use the money saved on not having to prosecute and jail people for pot-related "crimes". Maybe in a perfect world people wouldn't smoke pot but then again, they wouldn't eat bacon and full-fat cheese either, to say nothing about alcohol and tobacco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 I consider this a really complicated issue. I am strongly in favor of legalizing pot (and most other drugs)I'm not so-sure whether an individual State should be able to enact this type of legislation. I haven't paid close attention to the actual proposition to understand whether the State is "just" decriminalizing pot at the State level or whether there are broader issues at play. I'd be much happier to see this enacted at the Federal level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 I'd be much happier to see this enacted at the Federal level. Agreed, but this seems like a good start. Do you think it could have a negative impact if implemented at the state level and not the federal level, or do you just think it's wrong that that could happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 i don't see this as being a federal issue anymore than states (or counties within a state) having their own liquor laws... there are still parishes in louisiana that are 'dry'... that seems to me to be a local matter... as far as i'm concerned, most all drugs should be legalized, but imo whether they are or not should be left up to the states Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 i don't see this as being a federal issue anymore than states (or counties within a state) having their own liquor laws... there are still parishes in louisiana that are 'dry'... that seems to me to be a local matter... as far as i'm concerned, most all drugs should be legalized, but imo whether they are or not should be left up to the states I'm sure you feel the same way about gun control? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Agreed, but this seems like a good start. Do you think it could have a negative impact if implemented at the state level and not the federal level, or do you just think it's wrong that that could happen? I think that the broader principles of Federal sovereignty is more important than legalizing pot in CA. Personally, I think that legalizing pot would be good for CA (and for the nation as a whole). Moreover, I'd even go so far as to say that individual letting states experiment with legalization strikes me as a good idea. However, I don't think that local plebicites should be able to strike down Federal drug enforcement laws. Much as I might sympathize with the aim of this particular proposition, I think that there are much broader issues at stake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 However, I don't think that local plebicites should be able to strike down Federal drug enforcement laws. Much as I might sympathize with the aim of this particular proposition, I think that there are much broader issues at stake. Fair enough, I honestly have not thought about and likely do not understand these broader issues at all, so all I'm thinking is that this is a good step towards eventual federal legalization, and a good thing for californians heh. Just call me a government n00b? :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 However, I don't think that local plebicites should be able to strike down Federal drug enforcement laws. Much as I might sympathize with the aim of this particular proposition, I think that there are much broader issues at stake. Fair enough, I honestly have not thought about and likely do not understand these broader issues at all, so all I'm thinking is that this is a good step towards eventual federal legalization, and a good thing for californians heh. Just call me a government n00b? :P There are a lot of different explanations that don't involve being a "n00b". For example, personal bias can be every bit as significant as knowledge. Case in point: Last week, I had to go through yet another Meyers-Briggs personality profile, that indicated - yet again - that I am a very sterotypically "INTP". (The last half dozen tests showed exactly the same thing) INTPs place a very high premium on logical and consistent structures. Its entirely possible that my thoughts are shaped more by this internal bias than any facts that I might have at hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 I strongly favor legalization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 Maybe in a perfect world people wouldn't smoke pot but then again, they wouldn't eat bacon and full-fat cheese either, to say nothing about alcohol and tobacco. What's wrong with bacon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 What's wrong with bacon? Ask a pig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoAnneM Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 jeez, how many people are we going to have to hire in California to go measure those 5x5' areas. You just know there will be entire backyards filled with the stuff, just like there are "vacant" houses being used right now for pot farms. I am not against legalizing, per se, but it will just unleash different ways for people to break the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 i don't see this as being a federal issue anymore than states (or counties within a state) having their own liquor laws... there are still parishes in louisiana that are 'dry'... that seems to me to be a local matter... as far as i'm concerned, most all drugs should be legalized, but imo whether they are or not should be left up to the states I'm sure you feel the same way about gun control? i felt the same way about prohibition (or what i've read about it)... now if they did the same thing with ganja, i.e. pass a constitutional ammendment banning it, and another ammendment rescinding that one, that would be one thing ... but if that doesn't happen, it should be left to the states as far as gun control, we're again talking about constitutional issues, meaning that it is by definition a federal issue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 So making a decision and then undoing it to change things to exactly how they were before either decision was made changes everything? Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 i think you missed the point... it was the constitutional ammendment banning alcohol that took the jurisdiction out of the states' hands... barring the same sort of thing, marijuana (really, all drugs) legislation should be a state issue... imo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel_k Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 I voted yes but I would much prefer if they also legalize selling it. Most people won't grow their own and there's no reason that only criminal groups should make money off it. The biggest problem with prohibition was the income it provided to organized crime. There are no 'broader principles of Federal sovereignty'. In fact there is no federal sovereignty at all. This particular issue is only subject to regulation by the federal government to the extent it affects interstate commerce. Which is hardly at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 i think you missed the point... it was the constitutional ammendment banning alcohol that took the jurisdiction out of the states' hands... barring the same sort of thing, marijuana (really, all drugs) legislation should be a state issue... imo That is some awfully creative (and utterly ridiculous) rationalization... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdanno Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 i think you missed the point... it was the constitutional ammendment banning alcohol that took the jurisdiction out of the states' hands... barring the same sort of thing, marijuana (really, all drugs) legislation should be a state issue... imo That is some awfully creative (and utterly ridiculous) rationalization... I think it's pretty consistent: "The constitution doesn't allow congress to meddle with this (unless you change the constitution)." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 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. The Federal Government has regulated many things under the guise of "interstate commerce" (including the use or possession of Marijuana) which IMO it should not have regulated (because it stretches beyond belief the concept of "interstate commerce"). Ain't Nobody's Business If you Do is an interesting read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted August 3, 2010 Report Share Posted August 3, 2010 i think you missed the point... it was the constitutional ammendment banning alcohol that took the jurisdiction out of the states' hands... barring the same sort of thing, marijuana (really, all drugs) legislation should be a state issue... imo That is some awfully creative (and utterly ridiculous) rationalization... how so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 lol 91.7% what a bunch of junkies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 i think you missed the point... it was the constitutional ammendment banning alcohol that took the jurisdiction out of the states' hands... barring the same sort of thing, marijuana (really, all drugs) legislation should be a state issue... imo That is some awfully creative (and utterly ridiculous) rationalization... how so? Perhaps we disagree about what "repeal" means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted August 4, 2010 Report Share Posted August 4, 2010 I am a strong believer in stopping the unconstitutional invasion of privacy that is the existing drug law scheme. That said, two thoughts... 1. Legalize everything except marijuana, but make marijuana (even at Snoop levels) a minor misdemeanor. Smoking pot is more fun if you can get in trouble. 2. What kind of F'ed up world are we now in, where pot smoking legalization is becoming an accepted idea but tobacco smoking is becoming less and less legal? I figure that in a few years I'll have to smoke a block down from the bar, just to not offend the pot smokers with my second-hand tobacco smoke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.