[pigpenz]

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.

[Phil]

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.

[helene_t]

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.

[hrothgar]

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.

[JLOGIC]

hrothgar, on Aug 3 2010, 10:12 AM, said:

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?

[luke warm]

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

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Aug 3 2010, 10:41 AM, said:

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?

[hrothgar]

JLOGIC, on Aug 3 2010, 06:34 PM, said:

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.

[JLOGIC]

hrothgar, on Aug 3 2010, 11:04 AM, said:

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?

[hrothgar]

JLOGIC, on Aug 3 2010, 07:34 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Aug 3 2010, 11:04 AM, said:

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?

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.

[y66]

I strongly favor legalization.

[TimG]

helene_t, on Aug 3 2010, 10:05 AM, said:

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?

[RMB1]

TimG, on Aug 3 2010, 06:21 PM, said:

What's wrong with bacon?

Ask a pig.

[JoAnneM]

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.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Aug 3 2010, 10:43 AM, said:

luke warm, on Aug 3 2010, 10:41 AM, said:

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

[jdonn]

So making a decision and then undoing it to change things to exactly how they were before either decision was made changes everything? Interesting.

[luke warm]

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

[nigel_k]

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.

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Aug 3 2010, 02:54 PM, said:

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...

[cherdanno]

jdonn, on Aug 3 2010, 03:31 PM, said:

luke warm, on Aug 3 2010, 02:54 PM, said:

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)."