Prop 19's biggest fault was that it advertised in the wrong way. It allowed each town to set their own limits on how many plants you could grow or how much your allowed to carry, and set up some rough minimums as guidelines for the states. I never saw that part getting enough publicity. I feel if the general population really understood why that's brilliant townships would have voted yes but just restricted the growing for selling in their town after the prop was passed. They all thought the bill would push a lot of laws that they didn't need or care about on to them and that's really not at all what prop 19 would have done. Prop 19 was a frame structure, a base-level law that would allow the possibility of legal cannabis in your town. If prop 19 passed the state would have at least two months to tweak their regulations on the plant before the law took affect. I don't think having townships with different laws would have made a chaotic state situation. There were specific sections in prop 19 that stated examples like if you were driving through a county that limited how much bud you could carry to an ounce, but the county you lived in was two ounces, the cops had no right to bust you for it if you were planning to take it back to your county. This is EXACTLY like alcohol laws here in CT (and i assume every state too). I can buy as much booze as i want in my town but i can drive only a half hour and get to a town where selling booze is outlawed, but I'm still allowed to have my bottles in my car and take to them to my friend private residence and drink them. There no chaos here in CT, its way to stagnant actually. Hartford was the first CITY (Jamestown did it before) in the USA to enforce a law that mandated every citizen in the city to grow a "tablespoon of cannabis seeds." Damn, where'd that spirit go? The next proposition might focus on this point a little more: each town can adjust their cannabis laws. Really make this the sticking point. People that don't even want growing in the communities might still vote yes then. I think the more simple the prop is the more effective it will be. It should spell out cannabis usage as completely legal 100% of the time. It should also be written in bold that DUI laws will be enforce on those driving high. Then, it should allow each town to decide if it wants cannabis shops and how much you can grow. Almost just like prop 19 but worded to better show how convenient it is.
Sorry but I don't think you interpreted that quite correctly. Prop 19 set statewide limits on possession and cultivation for personal use. The provisions for local ordinances pertained to cultivation, transportation, and possession for sale. In other words each town could not set their own limits on how many plants you could grow or how much you're allowed to carry. Each town could only regulate sales. Edit: Actually there is a provision that would allow local authorities to set higher limits for personal possession and/or cultivation.
I figured out that at least here in Norway you have to explain a lot to actually get attention and have people listening. The approach i have taken in my "activation time" is explaining the "harm" of cannabis, then a little history just to explain how idiotic it is that the law excist, then the black market and how legalization is the only way to do something with this problem, decriminilasation won't help in the long run, but as a temporarly solution it could work. So with all this information to get out, offcourse it's hard to change people's minds when they have already set their mind. But it doesn't seem like anyone thought of this breaking up from the inside, dispensarie owners and other stoners who voted no should have been prevented.
Actually they allowed local governments to enact regulation that did not conflict with state regulation. There would be a state standard, and then a local county/town one based on that. As prop 19 made a broad general standard, this left alot of counties with alot of free room. (Section 11301 defines what a local government could enact, barring any other state or local law/provision) ABX6-9 would've provided more state regulations(a state regulatory body, 16oz possession min, $5000 max cap of initial license, $2500 max cap of annual renewal, $50 max tax per oz, which can be lowered yearly if programs run through the tax can be operated at a lower rate). Counties would still have been free to be dry or wet, but if they choose to be wet, there would be certain minimums and maximums they must accept in their own regulation.