Good % of marijuana becoming legal in California

RasTa

If it does, this is one I hope we follow. Think of the revenue....

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pot-campaign-20101018,0,624268.story (full story here)

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and every major candidate for statewide office oppose it. At least 38 newspapers in California have editorialized against it. The presidents of Mexico and Colombia said it would disrupt the fight against drug traffickers. U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder has vowed to "vigorously enforce" federal narcotics laws. The drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, has led the Obama administration's opposition but is wary of triggering a backlash by coming to California. "The last thing people want to see is someone parachuting into their state from inside the Beltway," he said.

Proponents are putting tremendous stock in the youth vote. Democrats have begun to study whether legalization measures on state ballots in 2012 could boost turnout for the presidential election.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtwFtCeprho

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpVLlnQ08OA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWbXQQG9B6c

DOC09UNAM

What's a "good %" work out at these days?

RasTa

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

What's a "good %" work out at these days?

50+

Tar.Aldarion

'becoming'? When it's not been voted on?

seamus

I love the short-sightedness of some people. Or maybe something more sinister. The presidents of Mexico and Columbia think that legalising dope in California will make the war on drugs more difficult. Their logic seems sound - if it's legal to sell in Cali, then production in those states will go through the roof.

Well, not really. Hemp is ridiculously easy to produce. If you make it legal to grow hemp in the State of California and impose punitive taxes on importation of it, then local growers will explode and the demand for dope from Mexico and Columbia will collapse - nobody will be looking to buy their overpriced, blood-soaked crap when they can get good quality stuff, homegrown and ethically produced.

The primary problem here will be for other states. If it's legal to grow and possess in California, are they going to have border patrols in Nevada, strip-searching everyone on their way to Vegas?

squeakyduck

If that comes in there are gonna be a load of kids smoking joints and throwing up when they learn to inhale properly. :rolleyes:

Pookah

I for one will be watching the vote with keen interest.

I don't believe cannabis is legal for recreational purposes anywhere in the world, though I stand to be corrected on this, which would make California the first, hopefully with others to follow, ending the current, ridiculous status quo.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

The primary problem here will be for other states. If it's legal to grow and possess in California, are they going to have border patrols in Nevada, strip-searching everyone on their way to Vegas?

I would imagine it would put pressure on surrounding states to decriminalise the possession of smaller quantities for personal use. They would need some sort of compromise. Besides, its such a common and easily obtainable substance such that people in surrounding areas would have access anyway.

thebigbiffo

when others states/countries see the tax revenues roll in they'll start changing their minds about its legal status - its all about the green people

The_Minister

Huller has already come out and said that they will continue to raid, shut down and prosecute cannabis growers, sellers and dealers.

The federal law remains unchanged.

EDIT: Sorry, his name is actually Holder.

Pookah

The_Minister wrote: »

Huller has already come out and said that they will continue to raid, shut down and prosecute cannabis growers, serllers and dealers.

The federal law remains unchanged.

I thought the federal laws only apply to interstate movement of the drug?

If it's grown, sold and smoked in California only, do federal laws apply?

The_Minister

Pookah wrote: »

I thought the federal laws only apply to interstate movement of the drug?

If it's grown, sold and smoked in California only, do federal laws apply?

Nope - they use the interstate clause to justify the ban, but they are entitled to conduct raids even on domestic users.


EDIT: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marijuana-holder-20101016,0,5547626.story

Pookah

The_Minister wrote: »

Nope - they use the interstate clause to justify the ban, but they are entitled to conduct raids even on domestic users.


EDIT: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marijuana-holder-20101016,0,5547626.story

Interesting that the federal government intend to quash the law in defiance of the will of the people, should it pass, but that's democaracy for you.

I think a telling paragraph is this one...

The measure's proponents noted that Proposition 215, the medical marijuana law, drew a similar federal reaction. "This is 1996 all over again," said Stephen Gutwillig, the state director of the Drug Policy Alliance. But he noted that, besides California, 13 states and the District of Columbia now allow medical marijuana. "All that happened without a single change in federal law."

The_Minister

Pookah wrote: »

Interesting that the federal government intend to quash the law in defiance of the will of the people, should it pass, but that's democaracy for you.

It's not really in defiance of the will of the people - the SC has said that regulating it is a federal power - the majority of Americans oppose legalisation.

Pookah

The_Minister wrote: »

It's not really in defiance of the will of the people - the SC has said that regulating it is a federal power - the majority of Americans oppose legalisation.

The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution no longer applies?

The_Minister

Pookah wrote: »

The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution no longer applies?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

Pookah

The_Minister wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us/19holder.html




It's also possible that the statement from Holder, of intention to prosecute, in defiance of any new State law, is just noise in the run-up to the elections, with Obama keeping an eye on votes in other states.

The_Minister

It's a definate possibility, but we just don't know.

Pookah

The_Minister wrote: »

It's a definate possibility, but we just don't know.

True. It's all a little moot, until passed.

Anyway, here's hoping.

celtic Liger

RasTa wrote: »

If it does, this is one I hope we follow. Think of the revenue....

we wont. we only copy the brits. not the yanks, especially not west cost yanks.

Cavehill Red

Pookah wrote: »

I for one will be watching the vote with keen interest.

I don't believe cannabis is legal for recreational purposes anywhere in the world, though I stand to be corrected on this, which would make California the first, hopefully with others to follow, ending the current, ridiculous status quo.

Not quite legal for recreational so much as spiritual purposes, in certain states of India.
Needless to say this gets utilised by Western tourists as well as devout Hindus who may or may not have the same religious practices in mind when they smoke.

Manic Moran

If you make it legal to grow hemp in the State of California and impose punitive taxes on importation of it, then local growers will explode and the demand for dope from Mexico and Columbia will collapse - nobody will be looking to buy their overpriced, blood-soaked crap when they can get good quality stuff, homegrown and ethically produced.

Most of it is already homegrown in California. The drug wars are really being fought over the hard stuff, it's estimated that all of 3% of cartel income is from MJ. Granted, 3% of a gazillion dollars is still no small change.

Interestingly, the residents of Humboldt County, the Weed Capitol of the US, are against the proposition. If passed, prices will fall dramatically and the county's residents' income will drop accordingly.

Pookah wrote: »

I thought the federal laws only apply to interstate movement of the drug?

If it's grown, sold and smoked in California only, do federal laws apply?

Theoretically no. In practice, yes. The Gonzalez vs Raich case linked to by the Minister confirmed the principle, but in reality there was no way of determining if any particular piece of MJ found in one state originated in another. The principle is being taken to court again in MSSA vs Holder, the difference being that the items in this case are made of metal and have 'Made in [State]' engraved into them. Currently it's at the 9th Circuit level, at least eight States are supporting it.

NTM

thee glitz

Teutorix

The_Minister wrote: »

It's not really in defiance of the will of the people - the SC has said that regulating it is a federal power - the majority of Americans oppose legalisation.

Let them have a national referendum then. even though they dont even do that for the presidential elections.

bluto63

I feel bad for Amsterdam. Their tourist industry will suffer when Americans realise they don't have to go around the world to get legal weed

Scuid Mhór

RasTa wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpVLlnQ08OA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWbXQQG9B6c

hahahaha i hope this isn't your idea of a politically winning soundtrack.

snowyeoghan

Even if it passes(prop 19), the Feds will step in.

Law enforcement have made their opinions clear in the past few weeks by raiding several dispensaries (that weren't in breach of any law).

I will be voting for the legalization, even though I'm not a user.

Besides, if you want it that bad, its very easy to get a medical card here.

Manic Moran

It's not really in defiance of the will of the people - the SC has said that regulating it is a federal power - the majority of Americans oppose legalisation.

Let them have a national referendum then. even though they dont even do that for the presidential elections.

Why do people persist in this ridiculous idea that the US is a single body made of one population? It doesn't matter what the majority of the population believes, it matters what the States believe. Just because the Constition basically says that for all external matters only the Federal Government is authorised to act on behalf of the fifty States as a whole does not mean that the nation internally must act the same way, and it's designed not to.

NTM

Manic Moran

snowyeoghan wrote: »

Even if it passes(prop 19), the Feds will step in.

Law enforcement have made their opinions clear in the past few weeks by raiding several dispensaries (that weren't in breach of any law).

Two issues with this. Firstly, the post could be read that there is an implication that the law enforcement agencies involved were Federal. Just want to make it clear to all that this is not usually the case.

Secondly, looking at some of the raids from this month, I'm not convinced of the 'not in breach of any law' comment.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Medical-Marijuana-Dispensaries-Raided-Local-Man-Arrested-105031959.html

San Diego County narcotics detectives, working with Santa Barbara deputies, also raided the home of James Harder on Lake Decatur Avenue. Harder, 30, is suspected of running the Helping Hands Wellness Center in San Diego as well as two other dispensaries near Santa Barbara. He has been arrested on charges of felony drug trafficking and felony money laundering

http://blogs.pe.com/news/digest/2010/10/region-investigators-raid-inla.html

Los Angeles County sheriff's Capt. Ralph Ornelas, who oversaw Wednesday's raids, said they targeted a single group of criminals illegally making and selling cocaine, meth and marijuana at the dispensaries.

http://www.sgvtribune.com/news/ci_16281596

The Alternative Medicine Collective of Covina, 20050 E. Arrow Highway, Suite B, was forced to close its doors after a multi-agency task force seized its products, along with four other dispensaries in the four-county operation, Los Angeles County sheriff's officials said. No one at the Covina dispensary was arrested.

Under California's Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, medical marijuana dispensaries are only allowed to operate as non-profits, Capt. Ralph Ornelas of the Sheriff's Narcotics Bureau said.

"This organization was definitely working outside the law," he said.

NTM

Dizraeligears

In 1997 I visited the Cannabis Buyers Club in downtown San Francisco to meet Dennis Peron,who was running for Governor of California at the time.
His office was covered in election posters,etc.Im sorry i didnt nab one at the time-they are collectors items now!
And yes,after telling me all about the club,showing me around,etc,we went back to the office,and blew a fat one....
Isnt there a pic somewhere of Schwartzenegger having a toke?Big mad wired head on him too....

Dizraeligears

http://http://www.fugly.com/videos/5285/arnold_schwarzenegger_smoking_a_joint.html

Dizraeligears

Sorry people, links not working it seems

snowyeoghan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Two issues with this. Firstly, the post could be read that there is an implication that the law enforcement agencies involved were Federal. Just want to make it clear to all that this is not usually the case.

Your right, I should have made myself clearer.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Secondly, looking at some of the raids from this month, I'm not convinced of the 'not in breach of any law' comment.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Medical-Marijuana-Dispensaries-Raided-Local-Man-Arrested-105031959.html

I was basing my comment on the (more local) raid in Santa Clara http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_16351051

Make of it what you will.

Manic Moran

snowyeoghan wrote: »

I was basing my comment on the (more local) raid in Santa Clara http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_16351051

The first paragraph seems to indicate the police had some reason to believe the place was operating beyond the law.

One local and influential police chief said other pot clubs in the South Bay are in danger of the same fate if authorities find they are illegally profiting from providing marijuana to sick patients

Generally speaking dispensaries that stay off the radar tend not to get raided.

"I think the law enforcement implication is that any one who is operating a marijuana collective or dispensary should pay close and careful attention to attorney general's guidelines,"

NTM

biko

Bump because today Californias vote on Proposition 19.

For the first time in almost four decades, Californians will vote on an initiative that would legalize possession and cultivation of marijuana. The measure, on the Nov. 2 ballot, would make it legal for anyone 21 or older to possess, share or transport up to an ounce of marijuana for personal use and to grow up to 25 square feet per residence or parcel. Cities and counties would be authorized to regulate and tax commercial marijuana production and sales.

zonEEE

What time should the vote be in at? Any good coverage of it?

biko

Polls should open in a bit, it's currently half 7 in the morning in LA.

thebigbiffo

i feel more stressed about this vote than i did about the lisbon treaty - the potential is here from today for one of the most influential states in the world to show the rest of us how progressive societies deal with their problems (that'd be by logical thinking btw)...

fingers crossed...

what the opinion on whether it passes guys?

FatherLen

I don't believe cannabis is legal for recreational purposes anywhere in the world, though I stand to be corrected on this, which would make California the first, hopefully with others to follow, ending the current, ridiculous status quo.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not quite legal for recreational so much as spiritual purposes, in certain states of India.
Needless to say this gets utilised by Western tourists as well as devout Hindus who may or may not have the same religious practices in mind when they smoke.

eh holland.......

thebigbiffo

FatherLen wrote: »

eh holland.......

no, common misconception. it's not legal for recreational use officially, it's decriminalised. coffee shops operate in a sort of legal limbo.

FatherLen

ah i seeeeeee

Gunsfortoys

This is pretty big.

I would bet once all other countries see the economic benefits that this will bring revenue wise, they will swiftly follow suit.

I really hope it goes through and fair play for giving the people the right to vote.

Misanthrope

The gro-culture in Cali is so established that the state probably won't reap as much revenue as they think.People will grow their own more.Especially if the quality is compromised in the legal product,which it most likely will if Tobacco is anything to go by.

They will have to ensure a top grade dynamic product range at a very competitive price in order to compete with the underground cottage industry that already exists.

biko

Where to follow
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/ballot-measures/19//

TPD

Fingers crossed, but I'd imagine the drinks companies etc. have spent a lot of money campaigning for a 'no' vote.

PanchoVilla

I don't think it will matter if they legalize cannabis in California, federal drug laws will supersede state laws and people will still be arrested and charged by federal law enforcement. Either that or the federal government will realize how ridiculous and expensive prohibition is and just hold a national referendum to end prohibition. Here's an interesting page listing many cannabis prosecutions/convictions in California and other states. Some of the sentences are incredible, some over 20 years in prison.

http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html

TPD

PanchoVilla wrote: »

I don't think it will matter if they legalize cannabis in California, federal drug laws will supersede state laws and people will still be arrested and charged by federal law enforcement. Either that or the federal government will realize how ridiculous and expensive prohibition is and just hold a national referendum to end prohibition. Here's an interesting page listing many cannabis prosecutions/convictions in California and other states. Some of the sentences are incredible, some over 20 years in prison.

http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html

Surely that makes it hugely important?

PanchoVilla

TPD wrote: »

Surely that makes it hugely important?

The federal government are irrational when it comes to cannabis legislation. There are too many vested interests that would not like to see it legalized and it's those vested interests who have the most power in D.C. Lobby groups have a disproportionate amount of power and I don't see that changing much because one state decides to legalize cannabis. Those with the money hold the power in U.S. politics.

thebigbiffo

TPD wrote: »

Fingers crossed, but I'd imagine the drinks companies etc. have spent a lot of money campaigning for a 'no' vote.

they dont actually - the yes campaign was funded to the tune of about 3.5m, the no campaign a few hundred thousand...have a look here

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/marijuana/

TPD

PanchoVilla wrote: »

The federal government are irrational when it comes to cannabis legislation. There are too many vested interests that would not like to see it legalized and it's those vested interests who have the most power in D.C. Lobby groups have a disproportionate amount of power and I don't see that changing much because one state decides to legalize cannabis. Those with the money hold the power in U.S. politics.

Change has to start somewhere.

Manic Moran

thebigbiffo wrote: »

i feel more stressed about this vote than i did about the lisbon treaty - the potential is here from today for one of the most influential states in the world to show the rest of us how progressive societies deal with their problems (that'd be by logical thinking btw)...

fingers crossed...

what the opinion on whether it passes guys?

Low. Last poll showed it trailing by 7%. I'm inclined to agree, I've got more important things for my tax dollars to be spent on than a useless conflict between State and Federal law enforcement.

NTM