California Proposition 19 - need your guys' opinions

Most likely if it passed, it would go straight to the courts and probably up to the Supreme Court. But at the Supreme Court it will probably be declared unconstitutional though.

"Supposedly" the FBI stated that they stopped raiding medical marijuana providers in 2009 though. I'm pretty sure if it does even pass (which it may not) it will get banhammered (in the sense of declared unconstitutional) pretty fast. Which is pretty unfortunate, but I guess CA will have to continue to spend all of the money on overcrowded jails (for nonviolent marijuana offenders) instead of education or other needs.
 
Last edited:
Most likely if it passed, it would go straight to the courts and probably up to the Supreme Court. But at the Supreme Court it will probably be declared unconstitutional though.

Tenth Amendment said:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
But I more mean the CA Supreme Court or the courts of appeals (maybe) depending on the location. I really don't see it being in favor in the courts (since some of the judges sitting on court circuits in CA are also against prop 19 and wrote against it as well in the book).

Also, with State rights, how do you explain the FBI invading the Medical Marijuana growers (legal in CA) because it violated Federal rights? The state's rights certainly weren't being honored in those situations despite CA trying to assert it's state rights. (Right?)
 
The CA government is being lazy or "forced" to. The federal government can yank benefits from them.
 
Ahh well I see, that's unfortunate. Well I guess we'll see what happens. But honestly I don't think support is big enough for it to pass. (It's still too back and forth for being in favor and against it as it seems.) It's too bad the issue only comes up every so often though.

(I honestly think it would save the CA government a lot of money to pass the bill and less crowding in jails and etc. More focus on bigger issues that are more of a threat than someone possessing marijuana.)
 
It would provide the state with a lot of money. But the private jails wouldn't like it.
 
The CA government is being lazy or "forced" to. The federal government can yank benefits from them.

This is an important point. While the legal drinking age across the US is 21, those are all state mandated. It is not a federal law. It might as well be federally enforced, though, because they threaten states with taking away highway funds if the limit is not kept. The same can (and I'm sure will) be done with marijuana.
 
One of the reasons Montana was forced to put a speed limit up. No speed limit, no highway funds.
 
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Amer...-tons-of-marijuana-in-Tijuana.-Does-it-matter

Mexico seizes 105 tons of marijuana in Tijuana. Does it matter?


Mexico City
It is another big coup in Mexico: more than 105 tons of marijuana confiscated in Tijuana this week.

With 15,000 packets counted, all found during raids in various houses in at least three neighborhoods around the border city, Mexico's national security spokesman Alejandro Poire Tuesday called it ?the largest seizure in the country's history of marijuana prepared and packed for sale and distribution.?

But will this make a dent in the bi-national effort to stem the power of drug trafficking organizations in Mexico?

Probably not.

Weapons, cash, and drug seizures, as well as top arrests of drug traffickers, are always touted by the government as signs of success. While they are no doubt good news ? and definitely give the government, normally battered by the ongoing violence in Mexico, a PR boost ? they do little to impact the overall structure of criminal organizations, experts say.

But that didn't stop Mr. Poire from trumpeting the news on Tuesday, when he announced that Mexico has confiscated more than 7,400 tons of marijuana this year.

"This administration has maintained an important effort in the eradication and confiscation of illicit substances," he said Tuesday. "This is an important milestone that demonstrates the ability of the Mexican state when security forces in three levels of government coordinate and take responsibility around a common goal."

Big announcements, little change
As we reported in August, the arrest of Edgar Valdez Villarreal ? "La Barbie" ? was touted as a major victory in government corners, but it provoked skepticism among observers that the illegal drug trade would be remotely reduced by the arrest.

?The arrest of these drug lords does not have any significant effects in terms of flow of drugs to the US. It did not happen in Colombia, where the government has dismantled the big cartels but they are producing more cocaine,? said Jorge Chabat, who studies the drug war at the Center for Research and Teaching in Economics in Mexico City.

Back in 2007, Mexican authorities confiscated $200 million in US cash from alleged methamphetamine producers in Mexico City. They hailed it then as the largest drug cash seizure in history. But the cases against the alleged meth producers have been thrown out. And the fallout from the drug trade continues, including political kidnappings and a death toll at over 28,000 in four years.

It's still significant, though
That said, the seizure Monday is significant for two reasons.

Poire said Tuesday that the Sinaloa Cartel, led by Joaquin ?El Chapo? Guzman, were the likely traffickers of this shipment of drugs, worth over $340 million. "There are signs that [the drugs] are linked to the Pacific organization," he said.

Many observers have criticized the Mexican President Felipe Calder?n's administration for heavily clamping down on drug trafficking organizations such as the Gulf Cartel while, they claim, leaving the Sinaloa group largely untouched.

Second, Tijuana sits right across the border from San Diego, and the seizure comes just as California voters are to head to the polls to vote on Proposition 19, which could legalize small amounts of recreational marijuana use. Poire said the drugs were US-bound.

Experts have debated whether the passage of the referendum would be a blow to revenue to Mexican drug trafficking organizations.

Could it be they are trying to get the drugs through before the potential passage of the referendum?

Much like alcohol prohibition, this is easy money for the "cartels". You have a fairly widely accepted product that is easy to move and distribute. And the only real negative is the law against it helps foster violence by those supplying it. Even the Christian Science Monitor (what a name BTW) agrees that this haul of 105 tons won't slow things down, or change the availability on the streets.
 
LP, has your opinion swayed one way or another?

In short: I'm voting yes.

In medium: After talking to friends and (some) colleagues, and of course talking to you guys, and thinking about it for myself, I just found it easier to say yes and see what happens.

In long: In 1964 when my father was growing up in the state of.... <TLDR>.... therefore I am voting yes. :p
 
Californians, please don't forget to vote tomorrow (whichever way your vote actually goes)!
 
Harr harr I already voted. xD Absentee voters get a ballot like a month ahead of time or so (I have it sent down so I can vote away from home).

I guess we'll see what really goes down tomorrow night though. A lot of the props were kind of weirdly worded for the official literature for CA though (my opinion).
 
Harr harr I already voted. xD Absentee voters get a ballot like a month ahead of time or so (I have it sent down so I can vote away from home).

I guess we'll see what really goes down tomorrow night though. A lot of the props were kind of weirdly worded for the official literature for CA though (my opinion).

Almost everything in CA government is weirdly worded. I'm a smart guy, but I had to read each question on the driver license written test two or three times to understand them.
 
Oh alright I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought that it was weird. It just seemed even more particularly odd than before to me though. I actually understood most of the props in the primaries, but eh. What I hated is that there were two sets of two props that were extremely similar and the one with the most votes would win. It was just weird.

But again, we have to wait for a while until we hear about it though.
 
It is worded strangely because it was written by a lawyer/s and they speak a different language than the rest of us English speaking Americans.
 
So far, it looks like Prop 19 is getting rejected yet again (according to the BBC). Well I guess we'll have to wait another few years until it comes back up as a prop.
 
It's not going to pass, but its not like it matters too much, it's still not allowed by the federal government.
 
Top