• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Prop Numbers Assigned, Marijuana Ballot Measure is Prop 19

Jetboogieman said:
If the DEA can come in and over-ride state law, then there is not much use to prop 19...
Click to expand...

There is plenty of use for it, the DEA can technically come in and over ride state medical marijuana use laws, yet they exist in 14 states now (after California lead with what seemed at the time a futile law), and the private user does not get harassed or persecuted, if the fed is to use their resources to undermine the law, then they will be using it to go for traffickers- even doing this will bring up legal challenges, and a much needed spotlight on the issue, it is a path to change, and although there will be speedbumps and potholes on the road does not mean that driving it is futile.

Ultimately it should get incorporated into the Constitution for added security, I am unsure on how the Amendment process for Ca works though
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
If the DEA can come in and over-ride state law, then there is not much use to prop 19...
Click to expand...

Obama has said that he won't enforce federal marijuana laws if a state legalizes it.
 
danarhea said:
That's right, folks. Legalization of weed is officially on the California ballot. What's good about this proposition if it becomes law?

1) California can tax it, thus raising badly needed money.

2) It will put a huge dent in drug lords' profits.

3) It will put law enforcement resources where they are actually needed.

4) And it will be a blow for personal freedom.

This is something that both Conservatives and Liberals need to get behind. Face it, the War on Drugs has been a complete failure, so let's now have a new war. Let's call it the War on Stupidity. Prop 19 will be an important battle in this war to wrest control of our own lives from complete idiots.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Something some people might not think about is how by being the first state to legalize weed, tourists from all over the world will come to the state to spend their money and smoke legally. Hotels, food, attractions, gas,... money will come from more places than just taxing the drug.
 
marduc said:
Alaskas legality is limited to possession in ones own home, and is a result of the state constitution and its guarantee to the right of privacy.

Article 1:

The Alaska supreme court ruled in 1975 in Ravin V. State:



Ravin v. State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not think this has been challenged at the federal level, and the issue ended with that case (more or less.. read the wiki article linked), and the feds are still able to enforce their laws in Alaska, but I think they are hesitant to piss on the state's constitution and upset the apple cart by busting down doors for misdemeanor posession.

The California initiative is not a Constutional issue (yet) and could face some serious hurdles, what they are doing is actually prohibited not just federally, but also by international treaty (Single Convention on Narcotic Substances). Alaska gets some wiggle room, especially when it comes to the Single Convention of Narcotic Substances because it is an issue of Constitutionality, which is an automatic exemption.



Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs - Wikisource
Click to expand...

Which federal laws do you think the state would enforce against California (or have failed to enforce against Alaska)?
 
Deuce said:
Alaska state law will not penalize you for 1oz or less in your own home. If the DEA kicks down your door in Alaska, though, they'll still hit you for it. I don't really know how that works, legally speaking.

I guess Obama could issue an executive order telling federal law enforcement agencies to ignore marijuana in California?
Click to expand...

I guesss thats the part i dont really understand and Im not being deliberately ubtuse...i really dont know...is there a federal law against marijuana use or just against illegal importation?
 
VanceMack said:
Which federal laws do you think the state would enforce against California (or have failed to enforce against Alaska)?
Click to expand...

trafficking, and manufacture laws mostly, they would go after the supply and distribution. There are federal laws prohibiting possession of any amount of cannabis, but they have limited resources and the DEA does not typically go after small fry as a result.

It will mirror what we have seen in the past with DEA raids on Medical MJ facilities. This is dependent on the executive branch and how they decide to prioritize this.. currently the Obama admin has instructed the AG and federal enforcement not to act unless there is a violation of both state and federal law, this is in regards to the medical MJ and the legal discrepancies there, will it change with the new law, or even will the med. MJ policy change with a new president? We shall see.
 
Deuce said:
Alaska state law will not penalize you for 1oz or less in your own home. If the DEA kicks down your door in Alaska, though, they'll still hit you for it. I don't really know how that works, legally speaking.

I guess Obama could issue an executive order telling federal law enforcement agencies to ignore marijuana in California?
Click to expand...

Just in doing some quick reading, Denver legalized marijuana possession several years ago and Massachusettes decriminalized posession under 1 Oz in 2008 (civil fine applies). Several states have medicinal marijuana laws. Interesting...
 
ScottD said:
Obama has said that he won't enforce federal marijuana laws if a state legalizes it.
Click to expand...

That should be the appropriate federal position on drugs.
 
VanceMack said:
Anyone explain how Alaska gets away with it? is there a law that says federal law can only be enforced int he 48 contiguous states?
Click to expand...

It's just simply not enforced in Alaska unless it's huge amounts of it. And it's damned near impossible to enforce it there because of the vast amounts of land and the short but powerful growing season...Alaska probably produces in three months what it takes all of California and Oregon to produce in the whole year. Even if they were to catch 40% of the fields, it wouldn't stop the continual flow of it to the population.

Plus, in Alaska, no one really cares what you do in your own home.
 
Deuce said:
Alaska state law will not penalize you for 1oz or less in your own home. If the DEA kicks down your door in Alaska, though, they'll still hit you for it. I don't really know how that works, legally speaking.

I guess Obama could issue an executive order telling federal law enforcement agencies to ignore marijuana in California?
Click to expand...

The general rule in Alaska is that you may have up to four ounces without any trouble from the cops if A) it's all in one bag and not divided for resale (that will actually get you fried if they catch it like that) and B) you are not transporting it in a motor vehicle.

Also of note, Alaska treats DUI and DWI the exact same. Having marijuana in your car will land you a ticket comparable to an open container violation and DUI with all the accompanying penalties.
 
jallman said:
The general rule in Alaska is that you may have up to four ounces without any trouble from the cops if A) it's all in one bag and not divided for resale (that will actually get you fried if they catch it like that) and B) you are not transporting it in a motor vehicle.

Also of note, Alaska treats DUI and DWI the exact same. Having marijuana in your car will land you a ticket comparable to an open container violation and DUI with all the accompanying penalties.
Click to expand...

Really an open container won't put you in jail?

I remember here in Texas you could drive around with a beer.

Nowadays it is a whole different story after all we are the home of MADD whose president and a founder got popped.
 
winston53660 said:
Really an open container won't put you in jail?

I remember here in Texas you could drive around with a beer.

Nowadays it is a whole different story after all we are the home of MADD whose president and a founder got popped.
Click to expand...

I should have been clearer about that...an open container ticket has jail time (in addition to being carted off to jail immediately) as one of those accompanying penalties.
 
Opteron said:
About the funding for cartels part, I wish it were the case, but I think its the hard drugs like cocaine that the cartels sell that this ballot measure is not going to legalize or affect.
Click to expand...
All the more reason to legalize ALL drugs and put the money saved toward education, deglamorization, and treatment of drug addiction.

Opteron said:
I don't think I'm going to vote for it. I'm just against that legalizing it would mean that its ok to use, and I'm not really ok with drug use. Can you convince me otherwise?
Click to expand...
I'll try, but what do you mean by "ok" to use? Do you think it would encourage non-users to suddenly go out and become potheads? The laws have no known effect on the rate of use. Legalization doesn't mean it's "ok" to use in the sense that it would automatically become socially encouraged. It just means if someone wants to go to a liquor store and buy a joint instead of a six-pack, the law isn't going to tell them they can't.

Since the government's job is to preserve our personal liberties, there should only be legal consequences if people take actions that infringe on the liberties of others. The government should not infringe on the liberties of soverign individuals by dictating what they can and cannot knowingly and willingly put into their own bodies. It's their body, which means it's their choice and nobody else's business - especially not the government's.
 
VanceMack said:
Nope...I dont THINK they can (tho Im not a fed law scholar). See Alaska for example. People can use legally in Alaska and feds cant or dont arrest.

On the plus side...if it passes I'm buying stock in Pepsico (TacoBell) and FritoLays (doritos)!
Click to expand...

:prof You would have to buy YUM stock for Taco Bell.
 
Y'know, I got mixed opinion on this.

On one hand it's good that the people are given the oppertunity to choose their liberty. Most sensible people these days all agree it's time to decriminalize marijuana.

But, on the other hand, I have to stay firm on my past stated opinons lest I be branded a hypocrite.

It pissed me off when states would allow wedge issue referendums on the same ballots with politicians. It's an attempt to manipulate the vote. It's typical and neither the right nor left is above such dispicable behavior.

If a right leaning state wants to drive their right leaning constituents to the voting booths they would add a vote for gay marriage to the ballot. That would bring their supporters out in droves to make doubly sure the gays can't marry thus manipulating the vote for their candidate..

The left uses marijuana to bring in the liberals to the voting booths to manipulate the vote for their candidate.

Issues with merit should have their own election seperate from political-office elections.
 
Captain America said:
The left uses marijuana to bring in the liberals to the voting booths to manipulate the vote for their candidate.
Click to expand...

I disagree. This is not a left or a right issue. The bottom line is, the 'war on drugs' is PR bull**** and a total FAIL.

We are not fighting a war - we are just ****ing around. We do not shoot down drug planes. We do not hunt down the gangs growing pot in the National Park system. We will not go into Venezuela guns blazing to take out the airfields shipping this stuff to us. We are not cutting off heads and hands in Afghanistan when we find poppy farms. We give immunity to a pot smuggler so he can testify against Border Patrol agents. We use RICO **** to go after doctor-prescribed medical pot.

We cut deals with the traffikers and do jack **** while Mexico and other countries are infested with murder and corruption. earned NOTHING. Treatment is bull****, and has about as much a success rate as 'rehabilitating' child molesters and car thieves.

Legalize it
 
Captain America said:
Y'know, I got mixed opinion on this.

On one hand it's good that the people are given the oppertunity to choose their liberty. Most sensible people these days all agree it's time to decriminalize marijuana.

But, on the other hand, I have to stay firm on my past stated opinons lest I be branded a hypocrite.

It pissed me off when states would allow wedge issue referendums on the same ballots with politicians. It's an attempt to manipulate the vote. It's typical and neither the right nor left is above such dispicable behavior.

If a right leaning state wants to drive their right leaning constituents to the voting booths they would add a vote for gay marriage to the ballot. That would bring their supporters out in droves to make doubly sure the gays can't marry thus manipulating the vote for their candidate..

The left uses marijuana to bring in the liberals to the voting booths to manipulate the vote for their candidate.

Issues with merit should have their own election seperate from political-office elections.
Click to expand...

Well then, once it's legalized they wont be able to do that will they? (also you're wrong)
 
I say if we're going to experiment, let's do it somewhere where it won't cause that many problems if we are wrong. Kali would be a good place to start. Kali is already ****ed up
 
Captain America said:
Y'know, I got mixed opinion on this.

On one hand it's good that the people are given the oppertunity to choose their liberty. Most sensible people these days all agree it's time to decriminalize marijuana.

But, on the other hand, I have to stay firm on my past stated opinons lest I be branded a hypocrite.

It pissed me off when states would allow wedge issue referendums on the same ballots with politicians. It's an attempt to manipulate the vote. It's typical and neither the right nor left is above such dispicable behavior.

If a right leaning state wants to drive their right leaning constituents to the voting booths they would add a vote for gay marriage to the ballot. That would bring their supporters out in droves to make doubly sure the gays can't marry thus manipulating the vote for their candidate..

The left uses marijuana to bring in the liberals to the voting booths to manipulate the vote for their candidate.

Issues with merit should have their own election seperate from political-office elections.
Click to expand...

This is on the ballot because of a petition that collected 600,000+ signatures of California voters to get it on the ballot (5%+ of the voter turn out from the previous Gubernatorial race). It was not due to any partisan groups, nor is it due to an effort from either political party, it was an independent initiative that was backed by the voters of CA regardless of party affiliation who signed on and forced this issue to the ballot.
 
Last edited:
This will make for very strange bedfellows on the anti-legalization side. Mexican drug cartels, companies that supply the DEA, and religious nujobs all on the same side. Those are some strong vested interests with lots of money and influence, and I'm pessimistic about the pro-legalization side matching that kind of fervor, organization and resources.

Oh well, it isn't like those ****s will ever be able to stop me and several million of my compatriots from continuing to smoke weed, no matter how the Prop 19 goes.
 
Jetboogieman said:
If the DEA can come in and over-ride state law, then there is not much use to prop 19...
Click to expand...

That is why we have a 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which needs to be enforced.
 
Deuce said:
Well then, once it's legalized they wont be able to do that will they? (also you're wrong)
Click to expand...

Actually, he's 100% correct on his assessment. Anyone who has paid any attention to politics for the last 12 years or so knows that wedge issues have been used for the purpose of driving out the vote and both sides have done it repeatedly.
 
While this ballot measure may have an effect of drawing out more younger (and presumably more liberal) voters, it is on the ballot because of non partisan affiliated signature drives and efforts, it is not designed nor intended to be a wedge issue, that is just a side effect
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
While this ballot measure may have an effect of drawimg out more younger (and presumably more liberal) voters, it is on the ballot because of non partisan affiliated signature drives and efforts, it is not designed nor intended to be a wedge issue, that is just a side effect
Click to expand...

Which side supports which choice though? Generally the republican party has been shifting to a more libertarian stance, so they would be much less outraged over the idea of legalization then they would have been a decade ago, but I also doubt democrats would oppose this either.

This might be an issue that doesn't divide based on party lines, but divides based on something else.
 
I was on the verge of editing my post to add that this is and should be a non partisan issue, people on both sides are spit on whether they are for or against this. It is still viewed as a liberal issue though, and it is certainly an issue that will draw more younger voters, who typically are more liberal in nature.

This is one of those issues that is not partisan, although it is viewed as socially liberal, and the religious right would likely be in knee jerk opposition to this (at least it is not the ultimate in evil.. homosexuality issues.. although people might turn gay if stoned enough :2razz: )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom