• 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!

Proposition 19 to legalize marijuana defeated....

Yeah abd Heroin, coke and every hard drug and then we can get stoned out of our ****ing minds get out on the high way and play bumper cars........one big 300,000,000 million stoner party..........

who said anything about Heroin and Coke? You do realize nobody in the known history of mankind has ever died from consuming Marijuana right?
 
I would caveat what the Rev said with the opinion that no public money be spent on any pot smoker that gets himself in trouble with it. Your freedom is your responsibility. Don't bitch if you lose your job, your health or anything else.
 
I would caveat what the Rev said with the opinion that no public money be spent on any pot smoker that gets himself in trouble with it. Your freedom is your responsibility. Don't bitch if you lose your job, your health or anything else.

Yet we spend millions every year keeping them locked up. You don't mind that?
 
I would caveat what the Rev said with the opinion that no public money be spent on any pot smoker that gets himself in trouble with it. Your freedom is your responsibility. Don't bitch if you lose your job, your health or anything else.

fine with me if Alcohol users and Tobacco users are treated the same....
 
I doubt it. Every business has a right to tell you not to drink at work obviously, but at work? No they can't do that it's your time and it's legal to drink. It would probably revert to a mouth swab which typically only works if you had smoked the same day. btw why do cops go to poison control if "exposed" to marijuana that cracks me up. Is that a protocol thing or what?

A business can still tell you that you can't smoke, just like they can tell you that you can't smoke cigarettes if they want to.

And, WTF are you talking about with all this poison control rambling.
 
Right and wrong aside, it comes down to a factual basis. I think we should look at a law objectively, with a preponderance of evidence burden. If we can show evidence equal to or outweighing any negative evidence we should vote the law into effect. The means by which we vote it into effect can make up for the difference between the positive evidence and the negative evidence; ie, the better the law, the more underhanded tactics you can use to get it passed, IMO.

Of course, this all is based upon the ability to quantify the effects of a given law.

No argument here, in fact, I totally agree.

But my overall point was the idea of putting any particular wedge issue on the same ballots that include, both left and right, Democrat and Republican, candidates. I view it as an obvious attempt to manipulate a vote.

Simply put, if the right leaning officials in, say, Alabama wants to manipulate the vote by drawing more republican voters to the polls, they would would include a wedge issue proposition on it like "Should gays be allowed to marry?" If left leaning officials, say, in California wanted to draw out more liberals, to increase the chances of their democrat candidates winning the election, they might put a wedge issue on the ballot such as proposition 19.

Certainly, wedge issues deserve their ballot. But not on the same day and time as a political election that determines our representatives. It just too easy for the powers that be to manipulate the winning parties that way. It's a pretty easy concept to understand and I don't see how anyone can logically argue for these antics without bastardizing our democratic voting system. It should always be protected and above government sanctioned manipulation.
 
Last edited:
Officials did not put this on the ballot, in Ca if you have X amount of people sign a petition as a percentage of voters from the last election cycle then it goes on the ballot, officials do not have a choice in this matter.

This initiative and the signature collection effort was spear headed by the founder of Oaksterdam university, and further promoted by word of mouth and other pro-legalization organizations, not democrat operatives, they had nothing to do with the signature drive, nor enforcement of the law which allowed (mandated) this to go on the ballot when x amount of signatures were collected.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't alcohol destroy brain calls?

Doesn't second hand tabacco smoke cause Cancer...

Doesn't over use of Tylenol lead to liver problems...

You do realise we aren't the smartest species on this planet. If anything, we are by far the dumbest. We know whats good for us, yet we don't do it.

A study recently published found that the drug by far most harmful to Society was alcohol. You simply cannot refute that. I don't see weed causing broken families, I don't see weed causing a husband to beat his wife and children.

Now granted weed can have negative effects, I have felt some of them. But don't start waving the effects in peoples faces and saying "HEY LOOK ITS BAD FOR YOU!" Who the **** cares whats bad for us? Certainly not as bad for you as a ****ing Triple Whopper I'll tell you that.

Even broccoli makes you fart.
 
Officials did not put this on the ballot, in Ca if you have X amount of people sign a petition as a percentage of voters from the last election cycle then it goes on the ballot, officials do not have a choice in this matter.

This initiative and the signature collection effort was spear headed by the founder of Oaksterdam university, and further promoted by word of mouth and other pro-legalization organizations, not democrat operatives, they had nothing to do with the signature drive, nor enforcement of the law which allowed (mandated) this to go on the ballot when x amount of signatures were collected.

So, if I wanted to get more democrats to get off their ass and come out to vote for my democrat candidate, how would I accomplish that? Oh! I know, get a democrat wedge issue put on the ballot! They can't stop me! It's the law!

And vice versa.

I get it.

Bad law.
 
So, if I wanted to get more democrats to get off their ass and come out to vote for my democrat candidate, how would I accomplish that? Oh! I know, get a democrat wedge issue put on the ballot! They can't stop me! It's the law!

And vice versa.

I get it.

Bad law.

If I wanted pot to be legal or was against the drug war how would I go about this?? I know! take advantage of a law that said if I got X amount of signatures it would go up for a vote, and then go get x amount of signatures, despite someone thinking my motive was to use it as a wedge because it inexplicably is more popular with a certain segment of voters. This is what happened, it was not some democratic ply to get more D's to go vote.

It was on the ballot because people want to end this asinine drug war..any tendencies to draw a certain segment of the population were just a side effect.

I do agree with you, and feel that it would be awesome to separate the elections for candidates and issues but this issue was not some Democrat plot to get their vote out (although I am sure they did not mind riding its coattails while not commenting about it), it was a plot to get a vote on making marijuana legal.

btw the major Democrat candidates (Boxer- Senate, Brown- Governor) opposed prop 19, and although not for reelection Sen. Feinstein (D) actually chaired the "No on 19" campaign.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom