My thoughts on Proposition 19

[kaysho]

October in California is the start of two seasons: the rainy season and the proposition season.  The first is a result of Mother Nature.  The second is a result of our penchant to want to vote on everything.  I happen to think both are pretty much all wet, but that's another story.

At the top of the ballot this year will be Proposition 19, which

Comments

[ext_75832]

I too am on the fence about it. I had considered the issue of the federal law overriding Cali, even if it is legal in this state" problem. However, you bring up a point about federal highway funding and such. It is a tough one to call and, like almost all vote days, it sometimes is about picking the less of two evils.

[kaysho]

The big challenge for me here is that the two reasons I would vote no are both "head" reasons, while the two reasons I would vote yes are both "heart" or "gut" reasons. Those are tougher to reconcile than if you have the same type of reasons on both sides. :)

[ext_75832]

I agree. Hmm....

[doco]

California's some sort of Inverse Switzerland in that regard - every time I find myself thinking "gee, wouldn't it be nice if we had some more direct democracy" I can immediately thwart that thought by thinking of California, because something stupid would then be much more likely to happen. :)

[kaysho]

California has two problems in that regard. First, the standard to get something onto the ballot is too low. It is easy for an organised, professional, corporate-backed idea to collect enough signatures of registered voters to get pretty much anything onto the ballot, no matter how self-interested that thing may be. The system was designed well before the advent of the professional signature collector

[thornwolf]

Your post brings up interesting points. I shall think about these come voting time!

I really don't care what people do with their time, and I'm essentially "for" legalized marijuana even though I myself don't partake, for the same reason I think people should be allowed to drink if they want to. It's essentially the same thing. There should be regulations, outright prohibiting something as relatively harmless (compared to things like heroin, that is) just causes unnecessary spending and police time wasted on people for possession of this substance when there's really bigger fish the police should be frying.

However, I am all for the benefit of the state, above all. I didn't think about how this would affect federal aid. That is something to consider.

[kaysho]

The whole Federal vs. state angle is something that a lot of people I know who wholeheartedly support Prop 19 aren't really looking at. You hear a lot of, "If Prop 19 passes, weed will be legal." No it won't. The only change will be that peace officers who are employees of the state or its agencies won't be bugging you about it, at least until that crazy-quilt gets set up. But your "legal" weed can still get you years in a Federal penitentiary. And I am honestly concerned that, if California takes an in-your-face attitude about it, the DEA could very well step in and restrict pot even more than it is now

[iisaw]

Basically, if I knew how the consequences would fall out, I'd know how to vote. As you said, it isn't very clear because there are so many variables involved.

The probability for positive/negative outcomes seems about equal.

Time for a coin-flip?

[kaysho]

The new state law that cuts possession to an infraction did actually shift the dynamics of the argument, I think. The state has pretty much said that it doesn't care; infractions are for violations of the law that don't cause immediate obvious damage in the individual case but are illegal because damage will inevitably happen if there are no restrictions at all (e.g. speeding tickets). Given the amount of effort and paperwork for a $100 fine, the new pot law pretty much tells state agencies, "Don't bother".

That shifts the status quo in a direction where having the Feds do more active enforcement would worsen the situation more than before. OTOH, it's still not nearly as good as an open, regulated environment where you can walk into a store and know what you're getting.

[ext_227120]

Actually, I think California is starting to look like a genuine land of fruits and nuts with all the goofball propositions over the eyars. You know the feds will do everything in their power to squash that even if it passes. Wouldn't it be better to get someone effective elected to federal offices and put them to work on fixing stupid federal laws and attitudes?

I'm waiting for someone to put "separate but equal" schools on the California ballot as a proposition. Or maybe just plain old segregation. How about making Christianity the official religion of California? I'll bet it would pass just like Prop 8 did.

[iisaw]

"Wouldn't it be better to get someone effective elected to federal offices and put them to work on fixing stupid federal laws and attitudes?"

I've tried that route all of my voting life. Didn't work once.

[ext_227120]

That's because the millions of dollars that are spent and all the drama that goes into promoting (or fighting) those popular vote "propositions" are never directed toward putting a candidate into office.

In the end, I'm convinced, most voters in America don't vote based on careful thought, but rather on their visceral reactions to media snips and snipes.

[iisaw]

Ya think? XD

[wolfstoy]

I've thought about this one pretty long and hard. First off, to refute one of your issues (on locality), transportation should not be a problem. According to the Wiki page for Prop 19 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19_(2010) )- "Allows for the transportation of marijuana from a licensed premises in one city or county to a licensed premises in another city or county, without regard to local laws of intermediate localities to the contrary

[kaysho]

I know, that's the flip side of my quite-cautious approach to the potential negative consequences: not much positive is likely to happen, either, unless someone throws down the gauntlet. :)

And yes, the part of me that opposes Prop 19 doesn't do so because of fundamental opposition, just more a concern that the whole thing could backfire. I am conceptually totally in favour.