USA: Dueling Statements

Great post. Rep +. I love that in CA they release the arguments for and against so I don't have to do too much searching.

I'm at a loss gang.

On the one hand, I want legalization so that the free market can affect prices and so that I can stop worrying and learn to love the bong but at the same time, it's pretty clear that Prop 19 is a weak bill and hurts just as much as it helps.

Do we deny Prop 19 and risk fueling the anti-cannabis debate (See? The voters don't want it!) or do we approve it and accept a weak bill that could bite us in the arse later. Could it possibly be setup to cause more issues so the anti-cannabis crowd can use it as evidence of the dangers of cannabis?

 

I apologize for not looking in to it more on my own, but what do you mean by " a weak bill"? What makes it so?

Thanks

 

baby steps man. if prop 19 passes it will be the most legal of anywhere in the world. cant expect the bill to be perfect on the first try. tweaking will be neccessary but i think its worth it to get the ball rolling.

 

Isn't MADD funded by Big Alcohol? Guess that's their way of getting in on the opposition quietly.

 

MADD= mothers against drunk driving. i dont think that they are funded by alc. companies.

 

all the argument against come down to the one thing many of us always thought they would try and use against us to begin with......they dont currently have a way to tell if you are high now...or just have it in your system because you smoked a few days ago......or what?


the fact that this is all they have to use against us now.....is a good sign.....it means they have run the fuck out of viable excuses ......because reality has shot too many holes in all their other excuses.....


plus the lady is from M.A.D.D.
sorry im against drunk driving myself....but most of the people who are "involved" in MADD are quite madd themselves.....many of them have lost someone themselves to a drunk driver......and are now using this organization as a way to vent their anger, over their loss, on the entire world.....

 

Like with all new bills that come to pass, nothing is perfect. It has to start somewhere, and I think this bill is a fantastic start. Californians will have more rights than people in the Netherlands. That's pretty effing significant in my book. There's an old saying, "You can't please all of the people all of the time." Both sides will have to compromise. The bill may not give all the cannabis supporters everything they want, but it's a hell of lot more than what they have now, which is basically nothing. And this bill will pave the way for the rest of the country to follow. I know that no matter what happens, Kentucky will still be the last to catch up with the rest of the country, but I'll take later over never.

 

yessss. exactly, some people want to bitch about the details/small stuff, but its such a huge step in the right direction. and like you said, it will be the most legal of anywhere in the fucking world! how can you argue with that?

you must spread reputation around before giving it back to pearl75

 

I've mostly been quoting what other people have said on the board. To summarize (as best I can, I apologize for not understanding the opposition better):

Prop 19 puts stricter limits on the general population that might be extended to medical patients.

Prop 19's tax burden is exclusively on growers.

It does little to protect citizens from the DEA.

Frankly, I'm in support of Prop 19. I figure a weak bill can be strengthened in the senate after the fact but getting it on the ballot again my be difficult if we lose momentum.

 

Very good point!

A few other things to think about regarding that article.


Why would the schools lose funding? Because of retaliation against the bill, or is it because the state would make so much money that they wouldn't need federal education money. If that's the case, state government is really who should be able to fund these schools properly. They care more about kids than wars.

The idea of marijuana being sold in school offices is clearly not going to come into fruition. It's a medicine, and all medicines in public schools are required to be processed by the nurse. They can only give out what is deemed appropriate by the doctor and parents.

If a school bus driver was to break his left index finger, and was on pain medication are they allowed to drive? Are you sure there are not rules already in place for this? If there aren't, that is an entirely separate issue which should be addressed by the education board regarding bus drivers and intoxicant prescriptions.

 

The whole damn con argument is full of cons....as in lies.

"For example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) strongly opposes Proposition 19 because it will prevent bus and trucking companies from requiring their drivers to be drug-free. Companies won’t be able to take action against a “stoned” driver until after he or she has a wreck, not before.

School districts may currently require school bus drivers to be drug-free, but if Proposition 19 passes, their hands will be tied – until after tragedy strikes. A school bus driver would be forbidden to smoke marijuana on schools grounds or while actually behind the wheel, but could arrive for work with marijuana in his or her system."

"Under current law, if a worker shows up smelling of alcohol or marijuana, an employer may remove the employee from a dangerous or sensitive job, such as running medical lab tests in a hospital, or operating heavy equipment. But if Proposition 19 passes, the worker with marijuana in his or her system may not be removed from the job until after an accident occurs."

ORLY??

"(c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected."

"2. This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others: Health and Safety Code sections 11357 [relating to possession on school grounds]; 11361 [relating to minors as amended herein]; 11379.6 [relating to chemical production]; 11532 [relating to loitering to commit a crime or acts not authorized by law]; Vehicle Code section 23152 [relating to driving while under the influence]; Penal Code section 272 [relating to contributing to the delinquency of a minor]; nor any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety."

"The California Police Chiefs Association opposes Proposition 19 because proponents “forgot” to include a standard for what constitutes “driving under the influence.” Under Proposition 19, a driver may legally drive even if a blood test shows they have marijuana in their system."

Under existing law, a driver may legally drive even if a blood test shows they have alcohol in their system, too. Under existing law, if you fail a sobriety test, you're DUI. DUI =/= alcohol only. If you can pass a sobriety test, where the fuck is the issue?!? This is another case of using a false premise to prove a conclusion, this false premise is that having ANY THC in one's system = impaired. The proposition didn't "forget" anything, because there are ARE already standards for DUI. If you're smashed on Vicodin and get pulled over and fail the sobriety test, guess what? You're DUI!! Same goddamn standard applies to Prop 19. Whaddya know, it explicitly says that, too.

"(a) This Act shall not be construed to affect, limit or amend any statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous activities such as driving, or that penalizes bringing cannabis to a school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12, inclusive."

"Employers who permit employees to sell cosmetics or school candy bars to co-workers in the office, may now also be required to allow any employee with a “license” to sell marijuana in the office."

Again, doesn't say that ANYWHERE. Fucking LIARS.

"(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale."

"(c) “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis:
(i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301"

Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:
(a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized;
(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale;
...
(g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300;"

"(vii) “licensed premises” is any commercial business, facility, building, land or area that has a license, permit or is otherwise authorized to cultivate, process, transport, sell, or permit on-premises consumption, of cannabis pursuant to any ordinance or regulation adopted by a local government pursuant to section 11301, or any subsequently enacted state statute or regulation."


"Public school superintendent John Snavely, Ed.D. warns that Proposition 19 could cost our K-12 schools as much as $9.4 billion in lost federal funding. Another error could potentially cost schools hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants for our colleges and universities. Our schools have already experienced severe budget cuts due to the state budget crisis.

The California Chamber of Commerce found that “if passed, this initiative could result in employers losing public contracts and grants because they could no longer effectively enforce the drug-free workplace requirements outlined by the federal government.”

I can't tell if these two paragraphs are supposed to be related or not. If not, they offer absolutely no support for the statements made in the first paragraph. Why would schools lose money? Just because?? WE KNOW the government has fucked up the education system by raping their budgets, how is that our fault? If they are related....how?? How would employers not be able to enforce drug-free workplace requirements any more than now? Again, Prop 19 does not prevent employers from firing employees who are high at work. To say otherwise shows either ignorance of the Proposition, or a willingness to lie to the public to maintain the status quo. Isn't that what the Democrats/Liberals are all about these days, changing the "status quo" simply because it's the "status quo?"

"Don’t be fooled. The proponents are hoping you will think Proposition 19 is about “medical” marijuana. It is not. Proposition 19 makes no changes either way in the medical marijuana laws."

Who in the fuck is saying Prop 19 is about medical MJ? Only assholes like Feinstein. Everybody in favor of Prop 19 say the exact same goddamned thing about MMJ that last sentence says. We all know it has nothing to do with MMJ, this is a straw man fallacy by all means.


Don't be fooled. Liars like Feinstein really couldn't care any less about her constituents, they care only about themselves. They can't stick with the truth to make their points, they have to lie and mislead you instead.

 

what is it about marijuana that makes sober people act so stupid? the whole arguement against prop 19 is based on lies/misunderstandings and they keep spreading them. if this was any other subject another politician would stand up an go "hey ah actually you're wrong, [insert zpyro's post]"

+rep for zpyro. i bet that post took a while to write, but i'm glad you made it. you have to work twice as hard to prove something than to disprove something.

 

I hate how we pay taxes, that are used against what we love to do.

 

their con argument proves legalization is only a matter of time

 

People already smoke and drive..legalization won't change that.. MADD's argument is pretty much.. yeah.

I wish people could see how stupid that sounds .. people drive high all the time.. alcohol.. prescription meds.. thats what DUI laws are for I guess right? Just not those shitty cannabis ones, woo hoo smoke a blunt get screwed for it weeks later ><