for activists its less about making it legal with out federal interaction, its about showing the US that the PEOPLE want it legalized in that state and the message that sends to the goverment at least about peoples views in california about the war on drugs and the costs it brings them.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Californians might get a chance to vote on legalizing marijuana akin to alcohol.
- Thread starter Dumpy Dooby
- Start date
More options
Who Replied?for activists its less about making it legal with out federal interaction, its about showing the US that the PEOPLE want it legalized in that state and the message that sends to the goverment at least about peoples views in california about the war on drugs and the costs it brings them.
fartiusstinkius
Veteran XV
pretty much what he said. it doesnt even matter. even if it passes, under no circumstances and no string pulling will it matter. you'll still be able to be arrested by the federal government
Well it would actually make a very large difference. The majority of enforcement is on city or state level...
voting no
so we hear all the people are for it, but we have tons of people who just post no..
as a previous smoker, non resident of cali now I am curious on why people would vote no to more money coming into their state with less spent on housing them in jails.
I am not looking for some sort of troll argument, but just honestly curious what the "other side" views as reasons for saying/voting no. I would also be interested because I am the curious type if the people voting no smoke tobacco or drink alcohol
as a previous smoker, non resident of cali now I am curious on why people would vote no to more money coming into their state with less spent on housing them in jails.
I am not looking for some sort of troll argument, but just honestly curious what the "other side" views as reasons for saying/voting no. I would also be interested because I am the curious type if the people voting no smoke tobacco or drink alcohol
so we hear all the people are for it, but we have tons of people who just post no..
as a previous smoker, non resident of cali now I am curious on why people would vote no to more money coming into their state with less spent on housing them in jails.
I am not looking for some sort of troll argument, but just honestly curious what the "other side" views as reasons for saying/voting no. I would also be interested because I am the curious type if the people voting no smoke tobacco or drink alcohol
Just think about how much money cali would get back if they release all the pot smokers from jail, and make if they sell or tax pot. bye bye debt.
pretty much what he said. it doesnt even matter. even if it passes, under no circumstances and no string pulling will it matter. you'll still be able to be arrested by the federal government
feds won't bother with you unless you're growing a ton, or selling a ton.
otherwise they don't give a shit because it's not worth their time.
feds won't bother with you unless you're growing a ton, or selling a ton.
otherwise they don't give a shit because it's not worth their time.
thats bullshit. Last week in Ocean Beach they brought 30 agents plus vehicles and a command center to raid a medicinal use paitent who had 2 plants. TWO PLANTS.
They were wearing shirts under the DEA vest that said "No matter how small your grow, We will show". They are wasting HORDES of our tax payer money to make headlines.
SniperOmega
Veteran XX
i think it can be posted to be voted on, and wont be interfered with until then
fartiusstinkius
Veteran XV
you're right. sorry let me clarify. it won't even matter because the federal law still has the same power to override it.
Our state and local police enforce state and local laws. Hence if the state/cities says it's legal, only federal officers will arrest you for it. So let's say that 90% (no idea what real number is) of drug use arrests are done by local/state police. That would mean that 90% of drug use arrests would not occur. Hell since federal officers rarely get involved in small things, it would basically be the decriminalizing of marijuana...except for when you happen to smoke a bowl with an FBI agent walking down the street.
It really would matter.
It's just in the proposal stage right now, but with less than 700k more signatures (by Sept 5) they can get it put on the ballot in CA and the people would be able to vote on whether or not normal citizens could buy Marijuana from anyone with a license (I think the wording puts it in the same licensing category as alcohol). CA would tax the substance and regulate how it's sold in the same way alcohol and tobacco is currently. The proposal would also reclass weed in the same category as alcohol and tobacco instead of crack and heroine which is where it is now.
I think this is great. It's been 12 years since they legalized medical use of pot, and now they might get to vote on whether or not to make it fully legal. I don't really know how it would work in practice since it is federally illegal and even the state-run medical marijuana facilities are very secret so they don't get raided by feds (which does happen sometimes).
However, passing the law could pave the way for changing the federal laws and making it a state issue. That would be a magnificent step forward.
Here's the link to the short text, which also has a link to the full text.
California Secretary of State - Elections & Voter Information - Initiative Update
we already did a vote like this. we voted on a prop to make weed legal for medical uses.. it passed and the feds came in and said fuck off but NO!!!
and sorry but 12 years is wrong that prop was not that long ago
Last edited:
fartiusstinkius
Veteran XV
we already did this we voted on a prop to make weed legal for medical uses.. it passed and the feds came in and said fuck off but NO!!!
There are still very many medicinal marijuana dispensaries and they aren't going away simply because the feds don't have the money to prosecute all of them. California cops do not consider them illegal. Dispensaries just keep opening and all the feds' existence leads to is a little more legal preparation by those dispensaries (i.e. they pay some lawyers to give them the low-down and then plan for the contingency of federal prosecution).
So basically medical marijuana is still here and the feds aren't going to be able to really shut it down...they're only able to make it run less efficiently.
we already did a vote like this. we voted on a prop to make weed legal for medical uses.. it passed and the feds came in and said fuck off but NO!!!
and sorry but 12 years is wrong that prop was not that long ago
someone should do more research before talking shit, because no, you are wrong. Thats why its called the compassionate use act of 1996 fucktard. Ok well I guess it hasn't been "12" years, its only been 11 years and 4 months give or take a day or two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_215
Last edited:
Artemis Pockels
Veteran X
read as I can't find a valuable argument or answer to the question so I have to nit pick and make sure you can't use the biggest example in history of proving me wrong in your arguments!
In closing, Answer the question. What is more harmful to the state alcohol or marijuana. Which if legal would provide more benefits? Both Industrial, and Medicinal. Or lets just keep it simple, since you are AGAINST legalizing marijuana, why?
when you use a term like "time and time again" it would imply that there is more than one example (that example being prohibition which is hardly a clear cut case in support of what you are arguing for)
see, this is why potheads never accomplish anything: they dont understand that certain combinations of words mean certain things
for example: you state at the end of your post to "just keep it simple" by me answering a question, "why?", which calls for an answer that is inherently more complex than "what is more harmful to the state?"
do you even understand what you are typing?
when you use a term like "time and time again" it would imply that there is more than one example (that example being prohibition which is hardly a clear cut case in support of what you are arguing for)
see, this is why potheads never accomplish anything: they dont understand that certain combinations of words mean certain things
for example: you state at the end of your post to "just keep it simple" by me answering a question, "why?", which calls for an answer that is inherently more complex than "what is more harmful to the state?"
do you even understand what you are typing?
why not just answer the why question if ur gonna take time to read the thread and post responses?
why not just answer the why question if ur gonna take time to read the thread and post responses?
because he is trolling. I remember now why most of the time I don't answer any of his posts because its always the same bait and switch arguments and attempts to keep playing ring around the rosey.
You can tell by all the pot head comments he makes because he knows I am not a pot head and that I don't smoke.. but he figures its a good way to sound "funneh"
when you use a term like "time and time again" it would imply that there is more than one example (that example being prohibition which is hardly a clear cut case in support of what you are arguing for)
see, this is why potheads never accomplish anything: they dont understand that certain combinations of words mean certain things
for example: you state at the end of your post to "just keep it simple" by me answering a question, "why?", which calls for an answer that is inherently more complex than "what is more harmful to the state?"
do you even understand what you are typing?
dodging the question repeatedly makes you look like a retarded troll
oh yeah