The Next Prop 19

[OO]

After prop 19's slight failure in California, there seems to be little doubt as to whether a bill to legalize cannabis for recreational use will be on the ballot in 2012. As the trend is with bills like these that are repeat attempts, it will most likely be called Prop 19 like it was the last two times. My biggest concern ATM is that in order to make the bill appeal to more people, there will be even more restrictions, and in general, less freedom giving in the literature of the law. This would likely happen due to the failure of the last one mistakingly being attributed (I hope) to the large amounts of freedom that it granted.

Instead I would much prefer that the law went in the other direction, of complete legalization, and also still allowing each area to decide on their own policies.

Does anybody share my thoughts on this?

 

[djonkoman]

well I think more support could also be received by writing it better, I heard there was a lot of criticism on how prop 19 was formulated and a lot of legalisationsupporters who were against prop 19 because they thought the proposal itself wasn't good enough
now I don't know the specifics since it doesn't affect me that direct(since I'm not a US citizen)

but a wel written proposal, a good campaign and from now on making more positive weednews known to the public(not just the governmentpropaganda) could help a lot I think

 

[Nycdeisel]

it seems like there will always be two sides to the legalization movement, those who want regulation, and those totally against it, I dont know how the latter can get their way though...

I agree, I think that people will still be upset at how much more restrictive this bill is then the last 'Prop 19'

I dont think theres really a way that one bill can satisfy both parties, I think it will have to pass ad be altered from there. but that is just IMO.

 

[OO]

if you allow each jurisdiction to regulate it as they see fit, then both parties are satisfied.

if a jurisdiction feels that the drug needs a low level of government involvement, then they can choose to take a hands off approach, and visa versa.

my worry is that a very restrictive set of statewide regulations will be employed, and that each jurisdiction will have no say in their own individual policies.

 

[Nycdeisel]

Exactly, I have not seen mention that that kind of regulation separation is or will be part of the bill. that would work best though, just how like there are certain dry counties in different states, etc etc.

 

[Durden]

The people who are pro-mj and were against prop 19 were generally the ones making large amounts of money off its illegal nature and the general monopolies that currently exist. Add in the propaganda being fed by the anti-mj people and thats where most of the misinformation about prop 19 being bad or poorly written came from.

Many of them when pushed fall back to the "no one should be allowed to regulate a plant" type arguments, which are just ridiculous considering the current state of our agricultural regulations and food policy.

What you guys are discussing (local controls etc.) was included in the original prop.

We can't learn from the past unless we understand it, people need to read the actual text of prop 19 to have any real discussion on it or how future iterations will manifest themselves. Otherwise your making it easy and doing the work for others to manipulate and control the discussion.

 

[OO]

I actually voted for prop 19 after much in depth research.

I would hope that many who were pro marijuana and voted against prop 19 did so because they disagreed with how the law read and felt legalization should have gone a different route.
I understand that the previous proposition included the wording which would allow each locale to decide on their own regulation scheme, and that was one of the best parts of it.

I do feel there was wording in the law that was left open to interpretation, as there is in many laws on the books, and i understand that this would, and should dissuade many voters.
Think of who will be interpreting the wording in the law.
I know from personal experience that judges aren't who the public would hope they are, and that they often rule in ways that completely contradict the laws on the books.

I do feel we should regulate the plant, but not in the conventional way.

I also feel that if someone should be growing for personal use, they should be allowed to grow as much as they like (limited at around 99 plants). if you look into how much beer you can brew a year, the number is staggeringly high, more than anyone could consume in a year (this varies upon locale, i used mine for this example).

 

[momatik]

I'm a bit conflicted.

I feel like this passes, in whatever form, the pros of legalization will become quickly apparent and any of the more strict regulations will be ignored. Is it worth the risk of placing more strict regulations in the bill just to get it passed?

Not so sure.

 

[nealcassidy]

We can't learn from the past unless we understand it, people need to read the actual text of prop 19 to have any real discussion on it or how future iterations will manifest themselves. Otherwise your making it easy and doing the work for others to manipulate and control the discussion.

For use in the discussion, here is a detailed overview of Prop 19:
http://tinyurl.com/prp19details

And the actual full text:
http://tinyurl.com/prp19full

 

[VWFringe]

I appologize for what i am about to write if it offends anyone, i know this thread was started with a specific topic...

my two cents, and its not a legal or expert opinion...

i read that just before the election the drug czar sent instr to all LEA offices in CA asking them to take it up a knotch and do what ever they had to to keep it from passing...days later we saw the "LA Driving Experiment" where several DJ's had their asses handed to them by the DA's office, and we saw they weren't doing an experiment, but instead planting an image in the voter's minds. Days after that we saw them brain-washing a lot of other voters by showing a bunch of MMJ candies, and warning people they might get mixed into their children's Halloween candy by those no-good-nic stoners.

my two cents, when a politician says, "the bill wasn't written too well," is politico speak for, "its not popular."

we need to overcome the mis-information the popular media is able to spread without regard for the way people in general see things, to stop them from being lead around by the nose ring they've so effectively planted in all of us...just look at how we were beguiled into believing their isht about iraq, and how they are currently "manufacturing consent" about iran and climate change.

the real question to me then is how do we spread the word about what real resonsible marijuana use by adults looks like, and what is the real info, not the spin?

I think people wanted real info, and still do, but they will not get it from the popular media, and we must mobilize somehow to get the word out...without spin, without moral considerations etc.


I've stopped watching news on Channel 7 and Fox News because after watching just a few shows of DemocracyNow.org I can see another side to things, and that "alternate dialog" has knocked loose some of the cobwebs...now i can be a hippie and say "stop the war" without feeling like a traitor. I'm just as American as anyone else, and I can say, they are lying to us thru the TV, and the popular media is colluding with the government to promote the world view of the elites (sorry, too strong?).

(did anyone else see how ABC news on 12-31 is trying to convert how people see the "baby boomers" as a drain on society now? really sleazy, and the pictures of Miley Cyrus with a bong...what's that about? making everyone think using a bong is...what? irresponsible and an abuse of her fame? tsk tsk tsk)

LEAP says the courts cost so much for drug violations, and that means a isht-load of families get their careers, money for homes and kids going to college, from MJ and drugs, so don't expect anyone to give up on it too soon, especially when it's become institutionalized to punish people for what they put into their bodies instead of what they do wrong. this ... the change we're suggesting, will have to come from the people at a grass-roots level. What we saw was a lot of people stepping outside of their comfort zones and saying "it's okay, we'll let you do it even tho we don't really like it" since only 2% of the population uses it on a daily basis...which was quite compassionate, i think, or maybe just an artifact of the popular media's recent up-tick on jokes about stoners and such in Family Guy, and other shows, which really don't give real info, but somehow make it seem somewhat acceptable. 46% voted "okay," but I wonder how much that number can be changed by just a few TV spots (meaning more mis-information by the drug czar).

Watching the movie, "The Corporation," Fox News was let off the hook for firing a couple of reporters who had research showing GMOs cause cancer, as the higher court said there is nothing illegal about mis-reporting the news...how can you fight something like that? the media integration between news outlets insures they can say whatever they want, promote whatever agenda they get paid to promote. I'm seeing shadows of this on all the tv stations except Link TV (and they certainly have an agenda, but it's a hippie agenda)

 

[VWFringe]

After prop 19's slight failure in California, there seems to be little doubt as to whether a bill to legalize cannabis for recreational use will be on the ballot in 2012. As the trend is with bills like these that are repeat attempts, it will most likely be called Prop 19 like it was the last two times. My biggest concern ATM is that in order to make the bill appeal to more people, there will be even more restrictions, and in general, less freedom giving in the literature of the law. This would likely happen due to the failure of the last one mistakingly being attributed (I hope) to the large amounts of freedom that it granted.

Instead I would much prefer that the law went in the other direction, of complete legalization, and also still allowing each area to decide on their own policies.

Does anybody share my thoughts on this?

I'm not a lawyer, but in my neighborhood people have little kids and don't know anything about this, so they wouldn't vote yes unless they felt safe, and perhaps if they really had hard evidence that the government colluded with big business to keep it under the table (forestry and energy industries historically have lobbied against it ... i think), or if they had a smoking gun about that LA Driving "Experiment"

 

[thedeserttortoise]

I appologize for what i am about to write if it offends anyone, i know this thread was started with a specific topic...

my two cents, and its not a legal or expert opinion...

i read that just before the election the drug czar sent instr to all LEA offices in CA asking them to take it up a knotch and do what ever they had to to keep it from passing...days later we saw the "LA Driving Experiment" where several DJ's had their asses handed to them by the DA's office, and we saw they weren't doing an experiment, but instead planting an image in the voter's minds. Days after that we saw them brain-washing a lot of other voters by showing a bunch of MMJ candies, and warning people they might get mixed into their children's Halloween candy by those no-good-nic stoners.

my two cents, when a politician says, "the bill wasn't written too well," is politico speak for, "its not popular."

we need to overcome the mis-information the popular media is able to spread without regard for the way people in general see things, to stop them from being lead around by the nose ring they've so effectively planted in all of us...just look at how we were beguiled into believing their isht about iraq, and how they are currently "manufacturing consent" about iran and climate change.

the real question to me then is how do we spread the word about what real resonsible marijuana use by adults looks like, and what is the real info, not the spin?

I think people wanted real info, and still do, but they will not get it from the popular media, and we must mobilize somehow to get the word out...without spin, without moral considerations etc.


I've stopped watching news on Channel 7 and Fox News because after watching just a few shows of DemocracyNow.org I can see another side to things, and that "alternate dialog" has knocked loose some of the cobwebs...now i can be a hippie and say "stop the war" without feeling like a traitor. I'm just as American as anyone else, and I can say, they are lying to us thru the TV, and the popular media is colluding with the government to promote the world view of the elites (sorry, too strong?).

(did anyone else see how ABC news on 12-31 is trying to convert how people see the "baby boomers" as a drain on society now? really sleazy, and the pictures of Miley Cyrus with a bong...what's that about? making everyone think using a bong is...what? irresponsible and an abuse of her fame? tsk tsk tsk)

LEAP says the courts cost so much for drug violations, and that means a isht-load of families get their careers, money for homes and kids going to college, from MJ and drugs, so don't expect anyone to give up on it too soon, especially when it's become institutionalized to punish people for what they put into their bodies instead of what they do wrong. this ... the change we're suggesting, will have to come from the people at a grass-roots level. What we saw was a lot of people stepping outside of their comfort zones and saying "it's okay, we'll let you do it even tho we don't really like it" since only 2% of the population uses it on a daily basis...which was quite compassionate, i think, or maybe just an artifact of the popular media's recent up-tick on jokes about stoners and such in Family Guy, and other shows, which really don't give real info, but somehow make it seem somewhat acceptable. 46% voted "okay," but I wonder how much that number can be changed by just a few TV spots (meaning more mis-information by the drug czar).

Watching the movie, "The Corporation," Fox News was let off the hook for firing a couple of reporters who had research showing GMOs cause cancer, as the higher court said there is nothing illegal about mis-reporting the news...how can you fight something like that? the media integration between news outlets insures they can say whatever they want, promote whatever agenda they get paid to promote. I'm seeing shadows of this on all the tv stations except Link TV (and they certainly have an agenda, but it's a hippie agenda)

Hey VW.... very well put. I turned off my television about three years ago. I cruise the web and search out what truth I can find. I subscribe to a number of both liberal and right wing news letters. I'm a true constitutionalist at heart. Once people find that the mainstream media is not the answer we'll all get a little closer to the truth.... my heart still skips a beat when I remember that only two American journalists stood up against the Bush administration's incessant lies about the weapons of mass destruction that was used to instigate the war in Iraq. In a Bill Moyer interview, the editor and chief of the "Republic" latter apologized for his acceptance of the White House line and accepted his culpability for shoddy and unethical journalistic behavior. Also interviewed, I believe it was Dan Rather who said, "what am I supposed to do. My boss signs my check and I tell the people what he wants them to hear". And FOX news... there's a good one. I hear that one of the Saudi royal family is a majority stock holder. It just goes on and on... good to see that there is still people out there that question authority. I to, love being a hippie...


Edit.... hey fringe! I just visited your Blog site.... very interesting. I applaud your thinking. Really outside the box. Just be careful.... knowledge creates fanaticism....the more knowledge you get, the crazier you become simply because there is no way left to act upon that knowledge gained. We are now entering a cycle of evolution that may well prove to be mans biggest change. We have passed peak oil and are now on the downside of that curve. Water's the next big oil boom... and man it seems may have to take a step back and become more communally based to survive. The time of the tribe is returning.

 

[VWFringe]

I just filled out the next prop 19's questionare and wanted to share how i filled in the bottom space.

Any other feedback?

"show people the big picture and the small picture. this right must be allowed back into the public domain. show them what responsible adult use looks like.
prepare them for the media and government and corporate attacks, show them...oh, oh, make a documentary, like the one they did on walmart! that's enough, show it for free on Google Video, that's the ticket"

hahahaha - i'm such a kid