Good News: Sacramento Bee Opposes Proposition 19

Discussion in 'Marijuana News' started by oltex, Sep 23, 2010.

  1. Good News: Sacramento Bee Opposes Proposition 19
    OpposingViews / No On Prop 19 / 09,22,2010


    SACRAMENTO – The Sacramento Bee editorial board Sept. 20 recommended their readers vote NO on Proposition 19, the poorly written measure that would legalize the recreational use of marijuana in California.

    The editorial “Prop.19 Deserves to go up in Smoke" (9/19/10) called Proposition 19 "a deeply flawed measure that would create many more problems than it could hope to solve."

    "The measure on the Nov. 2 ballot is full of worrisome loopholes and ambiguities that would create a chaotic nightmare for law enforcement, local governments and businesses. It is so poorly drafted, in fact, that it almost makes you wonder: What were they smoking?”

    The editorial noted the discrepancies between what proponents of Prop. 19 claim and the actual language in the initiative:

    "Supporters say it would control and tax marijuana. It would do neither.

    “Indeed, many of the positives that proponents advertise aren't actually written into the measure. For instance, they say that legalization would generate a huge financial windfall for the state and local governments by taxing $14 billion in annual illegal sales, plus create thousands of jobs for California's struggling economy. They cite the state Board of Equalization's estimate last year of $1.4 billion in annual tax revenues, enough to take a huge bite out of the budget deficit.

    "But nowhere in the measure is a specific tax proposal. That issue is left entirely to the Legislature and local governments, so there are no guarantees about any pot taxes and whether they would be fair.

    The Bee editorial board also noted the measure would not have the impact on crime claimed by supporters:

    "This proposition would not magically end marijuana trafficking or put drug cartels out of business. A study by the respected Rand Corp. concluded that a sizable tax on pot – a bill introduced this year called for $50 per ounce – could create a whole new black market for cheaper drugs. Since it would still be illegal for those under 21 to possess marijuana, the illicit trade to feed the teen market would continue.”

    Finally, the Bee expressed concerns over public and traffic safety that have been ignored by Prop. 19:

    "The passage of Proposition 19 would also saddle businesses with even more legal murkiness in trying to keep marijuana-impaired employees out of the workplace, especially from behind the wheel of school buses or other jobs that could affect public safety. The active ingredient in marijuana can stay in the body for weeks, so current widely available tests can't tell how recently a worker might have inhaled.

    "The same uncertainty applies to enforcing driving-while-impaired laws. The measure has no definition of what would constitute driving under the influence of marijuana, unlike the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol standard for drunken driving.”

    Editorial boards across the state have almost unanimously come out against Proposition 19. They include:

    • Contra Costa Times
    • (Palm Springs) Desert Sun
    • Gilroy Dispatch
    • North County Times
    • Riverside Press-Enterprise
    • San Francisco Chronicle
    • Ventura County Star
     
  2. The Bee is respected here in Cali about as much as the National Enquirer:rolleyes:

    VOTE YES on prop 19:yay:
     
  3. #3 Olesmoky, Sep 23, 2010
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2010
    I love this guy! :hello:

    VOTE YES!!!

    "This proposition would not magically end marijuana trafficking or put drug cartels out of business. A study by the respected Rand Corp. concluded that a sizable tax on pot – a bill introduced this year called for $50 per ounce – could create a whole new black market for cheaper drugs. Since it would still be illegal for those under 21 to possess marijuana, the illicit trade to feed the teen market would continue.”

    :laughing: The illicit trade to feed the teen market like the one for alcohol? Oh wait... thats right everyone just finds somebody who is 21 to buy it for them rather than finding a new market.
     
  4. I knew something was up because the last four times I posted pro-legalization arguments
    with opeds,using facts and links to proof of the writers lies and myths,they did not print them. And there was not any name calling or even aggressive language in the posts.
    Just the facts,just the facts scares the hell out of prohibs though.
     
  5. #5 DankSeeker, Sep 25, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2010
    Never knew Prop19 authors were striving for Prop perfection. Thought they were providing a framework by which marijuana begins to become legal and regulated.
    Seriously, this is the first attempt at legalizing marijuana in this country. Nope...not perfect...but it can always be modified after it's passed as necessary to correct, modify, or whatever different aspects of the Prop, no differerent than SB420 did to 215, but lets get it legal first.
    Worry about this loophole and that shortcoming after it's been passed. Look at it for what it really is: the first opportunity in the country to reform marijuana laws and have a framework for it's regulation.
    Lets not fuck up this opportunity, because it's not worded perfectly...VOTE "YES" on PROP19.
     
  6. There was actually an attempt to legalize weed in cali in the late 60's or early 70's if i remember correctly. So this is probably the 2nd, maybe even 3rd or 4th time.

    Just letting you know, i think that gives it a better chance of passing if the bill is continuously reintroduced they cant keep ignoring it.
     
  7. Think about this.... Why would Newspapers , which are notoriously liberal, in a liberal California almost unanimously oppose prop 19? Perhaps it has to do with the reason William Randolph Hearst and his cronies helped to make cannabis illegal in the first place! Perhaps the reason the print media is so opposed to cannabis legalization is because of the paper industry which would stand to lose a LOT of money if cannabis were to be legalized. The fibers which comprise the leaves and stalks of cannabis are perfect for making paper FOR CHEAP. We cut a tree which has been growing for 22 years down for a couple reams of paper and a few 2x4s but NO god forbid we use the pulp from cannabis, which can grow 4 complete cycles in 1 year. It would make too much sense....

    In short, these print media conglomerates are against legalization because the nice guys who supply their paper for kind of cheap are deathly afraid of losing their corner on the market. The know that cannabis is a better and cheaper way to make paper and they stand to lose a large amount of money to "hemp papers" in Cali.

    :smoking:
     

Share This Page