Proposition 19: Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

31-07-2010 11:00PM #1

California will vote on this ballot proposition during the 2 November 2010 mid-term elections.

"Official summary: Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired."

Where do Independents, Democrats, or Republicans (or Tea Party Movement) stand on this issue, which may spread to other states if it passes in California? Why?

If you were a registered California voter in November, would you vote for, against, or abstain? Why?

What will happen if California passes a law that is opposed to the current Federal law that prohibits the recreational use of Cannabis (i.e., Marijuana)? Will the Obama administration challenge the state's rights to self-govern in this issue, just like they challenged Arizona over their recent anti-illegal immigration law?

Sources:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/west/view/20100729if_california_legalizes_marijuana_not_clear_what_obama_administration_would_do/srvc=home&position=recent
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/25/california-pot-legalizati_n_512788.html#
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_19,_the_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative_%282010%29

Overheal · 01-08-2010 12:17AM

I'm in support of the issue. It's long overdue that we tax what should be a perfectly legitimate substance, as much as alcohol is. Numerous benefits to this, like reducing the prison population (bearing in mind this will not likely act retroactively) and regulating the quality and hence the safety of it.

If the Federal Government was going to challenge the issue they wouldve done so when medical cannabis was introduced.

kev9100 · 01-08-2010 02:00AM

As long as its well regulated, I'm fine with it. At the end of the day, people will always want to smoke it and the government may as well draw some revenue from it.

zenno · 01-08-2010 02:22AM

cannabis is a naturally grown herb, it's part of nature and is not tampered with by man as it grows out of the earth in it's natural form and should not be called a drug under any circumstance. it's like making onions illegal. governments do not like anything that makes a persons awareness enlightened they are afraid you might actually use your mind.

jank · 01-08-2010 02:52AM

What is the likely hood that this will pass?

zenno · 01-08-2010 03:05AM

jank wrote: »

What is the likely hood that this will pass?

QUOTE: California will vote on this ballot proposition during the 2 November 2010 mid-term elections.

the likelyhood that this will pass is, imo a guarantee i'm very sure of that. it will definately pass.

amacachi · 01-08-2010 03:08AM

Independent, liberal/libertarian type, it's about bloody time somewhere legalised it.

charlemont · 01-08-2010 04:04AM

will be great if they do it.. other nations will follow suit and relax their laws on it, (but not ireland..of course)
images cowen.jpg

ynotdu · 01-08-2010 04:32AM

It is legal in Holland and is widely smoked in Ireland.
The Medic's say in its smoken form it is even more dangerous than a plain cigarette because people take a deeper inhale to get the full effect.

I know people who drank and were great company without being stupid,when they switched to weed they are funny only to themselves.
agree it makes more sense to legalise and tax it than deny what is a naturally occuring substance[but then Opium +derivatives fall into same category]

Weird thing is there never has been any Tribe discovered anywhere that did not have some substance that relaxed or bent the mind.
It's tempting to think it is Natures way.

Mjollnir · 01-08-2010 03:31PM

ynotdu wrote: »

It is legal in Holland and is widely smoked in Ireland.
The Medic's say in its smoken form it is even more dangerous than a plain cigarette because people take a deeper inhale to get the full effect.

If there's a medic who says that, that medic is a moron, given that water pipes are available, and one smokes far less of a joint per person than a cigarette, in any case.

Overheal · 01-08-2010 03:36PM

Mjollnir wrote: »

If there's a medic who says that, that medic is a moron, given that water pipes are available, and one smokes far less of a joint per person than a cigarette, in any case.

Arguing that you can smoke marijuana differently to a cigarette is a moot point. When smoked in the same manner as a regular cigarette, it is in fact more harmful to your health per joint than per cigarette.

Mjollnir · 01-08-2010 04:00PM

Overheal wrote: »

Arguing that you can smoke marijuana differently to a cigarette is a moot point. When smoked in the same manner as a regular cigarette, it is in fact more harmful to your health per joint than per cigarette.

Go ahead and cite the data that supports that.

zenno · 01-08-2010 05:01PM

Overheal wrote: »

Arguing that you can smoke marijuana differently to a cigarette is a moot point. When smoked in the same manner as a regular cigarette, it is in fact more harmful to your health per joint than per cigarette.

"Overheal" what planet are you living on ?

quote: it is in fact more harmful to your health per joint than per cigarette. end quote/

I am sick of uneducated people making comments on a subject they know nothing about.

cannabis has never caused 1 death and cannabis has many healing properties. if you bothered to take the time to do some research on this herb you will finally understand that what you say is utter garbage.

this is from 2001 and is a bit old. http://cannabis.net/health/index.html

quote: from the observer...Cannabis is a 'wonder drug' capable of radically transforming the lives of very sick people, according to the results of the first clinical trials of the drug.

Tests sanctioned by the Government are proving far more successful than doctors, patients and cannabis campaigners ever dared hope. Some of the patients are simply calling it a 'miracle'

amacachi · 01-08-2010 08:39PM

Overheal wrote: »

Arguing that you can smoke marijuana differently to a cigarette is a moot point. When smoked in the same manner as a regular cigarette, it is in fact more harmful to your health per joint than per cigarette.

Really? I'm pretty sure tea has more caffeine than coffee but which is more useful due to preparation? The habits and methods of consumption is certainly not a moot point.

ynotdu · 02-08-2010 01:24AM

Mjollnir wrote: »

If there's a medic who says that, that medic is a moron, given that water pipes are available, and one smokes far less of a joint per person than a cigarette, in any case.

Hi Mjollner there is without doubt a hugh benifit to some people who use it for genuine medical purposes.You have to bear in mind that most people mix it with tobaccco from a broken up cigarette and then roll it in paper without even a proper filter,the Younger and poorer people are the more likely they are to use this method.

http://www.well.com/user/woa/fspot.htm

http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html

Those links are just two of many examples of the harmful effects of weed to lungs,heart and mental health [the second one might even be from a more respected source]

bottom line though if You are against drunk driving or want Your pilot to fly Your plane unstoned it is a law people would have to vote against based on the best available medical evidence.
It's half life in the body is far longer than Alcohol,it is at least as cancer causing and the Jury is out as to whether it cause's depression or is taken to sooth depression.

It seems to be a Myth that it is non addictive[i know from experiance of people i used to hang out with that it certainly is and has turned them into zombies]

Cavehill Red · 02-08-2010 01:33AM

I'm seeing plenty of the usual pro-prohibitionist gibberish on this thread.
Bottom line is: cannabis has been used for millennia by man, had never once caused a single death, can be used to treat a series of serious medical illnesses, and it's psychotropic properties are caused by it containing the same 'reward' chemicals used by the human brain.
Calif is just the start. This proposition will romp home, putting even greater pressure on the federal state to legalise and thus help bail its way out of its current shocking deficit.
Since our prohibition stems from theirs, I expect that Dermo Boot Boy Ahern's current stance against headshops will look ridiculous in a matter of years, when the tide of legalisation forces him or his successor to do exactly what Calif are seeking to do now.

ynotdu · 02-08-2010 01:45AM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I'm seeing plenty of the usual pro-prohibitionist gibberish on this thread.
Bottom line is: cannabis has been used for millennia by man, had never once caused a single death, can be used to treat a series of serious medical illnesses, and it's psychotropic properties are caused by it containing the same 'reward' chemicals used by the human brain.
Calif is just the start. This proposition will romp home, putting even greater pressure on the federal state to legalise and thus help bail its way out of its current shocking deficit.
Since our prohibition stems from theirs, I expect that Dermo Boot Boy Ahern's current stance against headshops will look ridiculous in a matter of years, when the tide of legalisation forces him or his successor to do exactly what Calif are seeking to do now.

Cavehill it is not a matter of being Pro-prohibitionist,but is not really something people can sit on the fence over either.
To follow it to its logical conclusion then drink driving laws should be abolished too and let it be fine that People drive after drinking 12 pints not to mention all the legal drugs that slow down peoples response times.

How on Eath can anybody say a joint has never killed anybody?.In the case of driving it was only alcohol that was ever tested for.

Cavehill Red · 02-08-2010 03:06AM

Tell you what, how about you find me a single instance in the entirety of human history where cannabis was demonstrated to have caused a single death.
My advice: don't bother looking. It never happened.
This is a plant which cures serious illness, which inspires an intoxication which rarely if ever leads to violence (unlike alcohol) and which is not physiologically addictive.
I personally don't smoke weed but I know plenty who do. They're lovely people and they don't cause any crap.
I don't see a downside to replicating what California is seeking to do, by legalising it, taxing it and using the resulting income to dig us out of the hole we're in.

Manic Moran · 02-08-2010 03:20AM

This is a plant which cures serious illness

Does it? I thought it really was more of an anaesthetic, to allow people with those serious illnesses to continue with their daily lives.

Either way, the current California law on the matter covers this, and quite liberally: Hemp-Con is on around the corner from me next week!

It is also interesting to note that the main MJ producing area of California, Humboldt County, is voting against the proposition: If weed were to become far more commonly grown, the amount of dollars going into the place are expected to drop radically. You also have the side-effect that that tax boon people are expecting won't nearly as significantly happen due to the plummet in prices which would follow.

So if you look at the arguments, the medical argument is irrelevant beacuse CA already allows it, the financial argument is limited because the experts expect a massive drop in price not countered by an increase in demand (Face it, most people who want to smoke weed already do illegally anyway), employers aren't going to drop their prohibitions and drug tests, the only rationale left for legalising it for social use is, well, social: Because some people want it.

Then us voters have to wade our way through the morass of exaggerated or unsupported yet diametrically opposing claims from both sides. It will probably end up coming down to polling dynamics: Though the majority in CA supports legalisation, the main demographic in support is of the younger voters, who tend to be less likely than the older ones to come out and vote in mid-terms. This will probably be countered by the amount of people who want it to be legalised as opposed to the amount of people who, frankly, couldn't be arsed to look up the specs. Were I to guess, I'd say the prop will pass, but by a fairly low quorum of voters. Still, a pass is a pass.

NTM

Cavehill Red · 02-08-2010 03:26AM

Yes, it cures illness.
It also resolves nausea during cancer treatment and reduces the symptoms of multiple sclerosis.
It's a pretty useful plant, all in all, and it's staggering that it's illegal. One can only assume that the tobacco lobby are behind it.
I concur with your assessment of the voting. I suspect however that younger voters will come out strongly in support. It's a bit like X Factor. They'll vote for things they find relevant quicker than they'll vote for parliament.

ynotdu · 02-08-2010 03:28AM

Tell You what cavhill.
Try debating an issue seeing there is usually two sides to almost everything.
Fine Your experiance of People on weed is good,mine is not.
Fine hypocrysy is everywere as is people trying to push their version of morality down other peoples throats.
You find some links showing weed has done no harm if You wish to.
That is Your right.
G.nite

Manic Moran · 02-08-2010 03:31AM

For the record...

Tell you what, how about you find me a single instance in the entirety of human history where cannabis was demonstrated to have caused a single death.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/20/1074360762037.html

A man aged 36 is believed to have become the first person in Britain to die directly from cannabis poisoning.

Lee Maisey smoked six cannabis cigarettes a day for 11 years, an inquest heard. His death, registered as having been caused by cannabis toxicity, led to new warnings about the drug, which is due to be reclassified this month as less dangerous.

"This type of death is extremely rare," Professor John Henry, a toxicologist at Imperial College, London, said after the inquest at Haverfordwest, west Wales. "I have not seen anything like this before. It corrects the argument that cannabis cannot kill anybody."

Or

http://www.itsallaboutcoventry.co.uk/newsstory_stevedullaghan.shtml

EIGHTIES indie rocker Steve Dullaghan was killed by a rare cannabis overdose, an inquest has ruled.

<snip>

A toxicology report revealed he had high levels of cannabis in his blood but no other drug or alcohol.

Pathologist Dr Steve Ferryman, based at University Hospital, Coventry, said in a report: "He possibly experienced one or more of the toxic effects of cannabis at the time of death, a fast heart rate and hyperventilating, and this can lead to heart failure."

Dr Ferryman said this resulted in severe pulmonary oedema – an abnormal build up of fluid in the lungs.

Now, I won't go using that as an argument against cannabis per se: After all, people die of alcohol poisoning and I'm not going to argue that drink should be banned because of it.

But I do point it out as an example of the 'exaggerated or unsupported' arguments that us voters are being subjected to. It only took thirty seconds on Google to find the original claim false.

NTM

Cavehill Red · 02-08-2010 03:35AM

You're asking me to prove a negative. That's not how things work. If you believe a positive exists (in this case, that cannabis causes death) it's up to YOU to prove it.
You won't either, because it hasn't, not in the entirety of 5,000 years of recorded human history.
Of course there are caveats. No one wants stoned people to be driving cars or operating heavy machinery. That's a given. They're intoxicated.
Equally, I'd like an age qualifier, so that the issue of cannabis exacerbating the possibility of schizophrenia in teens was eradicated.
Those caveats granted however, I don't see a problem other than the inherited pro-prohibitionist stance of certain aspects of society.

Manic Moran · 02-08-2010 03:38AM

You're asking me to prove a negative. That's not how things work. If you believe a positive exists (in this case, that cannabis causes death) it's up to YOU to prove it.
You won't either, because it hasn't, not in the entirety of 5,000 years of recorded human history.

Post 25 should prove interesting, given post 22.

NTM

Cavehill Red · 02-08-2010 03:38AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

For the record...

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/20/1074360762037.html

Or

http://www.itsallaboutcoventry.co.uk/newsstory_stevedullaghan.shtml

Now, I won't go using that as an argument against cannabis per se: After all, people die of alcohol poisoning and I'm not going to argue that drink should be banned because of it.

But I do point it out as an example of the 'exaggerated or unsupported' arguments that us voters are being subjected to. It only took thirty seconds on Google to find the original claim false.

NTM

Lee Maisey's death was recorded as misadventure, NOT poisoning by cannabis.

Cavehill Red · 02-08-2010 03:39AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Post 25 should prove interesting, given post 22.

NTM

Go on. In what way do you find it interesting?

Manic Moran · 02-08-2010 03:46AM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Lee Maisey's death was recorded as misadventure, NOT poisoning by cannabis.

By law, taking part in an illegal activity and dying as a result of it is recorded as death by misadventure. The coroner's report, which went unquestioned, stated cannabis poisoning. Casually smoking weed is illegal, hence the misadventure recording.

Your response also fails to address Mr Dullaghan's death.

NTM

Cavehill Red · 02-08-2010 03:49AM

No, the coroner's report did not state he died via cannabis poisoning.
It's best if we all remain factual.
Lee Maisey died of a heart attack. Many people have died of a heart attack. He had been drinking two days earlier and may have had an underlying coronary problem.

Manic Moran · 02-08-2010 03:52AM

Cavehill Red wrote: »

No, the coroner's report did not state he died via cannabis poisoning.
It's best if we all remain factual.

http://cannabis.net/uk/mortality.html

Coroner Michael Howells said Mr Maisey was free from disease and had not drunk any alcohol for at least 48 hours before his death in August last year. Post-mortem tests revealed a high level of cannabinoids in Mr Maisey's blood. The cause of death was registered as cannabis toxicity.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article999100.ece

Michael Howells, the Pembrokeshire Coroner, recorded the cause of death as cannabis poisoning

Would you care to try for one out of four?

NTM

Cavehill Red · 02-08-2010 03:55AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Your response also fails to address Mr Dullaghan's death.
NTM

Death due to fluid build up on the lungs. Not a recognised symptom of cannabis use at all.
So, shall we play this game all night, or should I at this juncture introduce the concept of 5.4 million people killed by tobacco each year or 50,000 people killed in the UK alone by alcohol each year?

Cavehill Red · 02-08-2010 04:01AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

http://cannabis.net/uk/mortality.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article999100.ece

Would you care to try for one out of four?

NTM

I'm batting four for four. None of the deaths you cite, despite the tabloid headlines, are attributable to cannabis. They're attributable to heart complaints.
It's nice and easy for a coroner (who may not be a medic, incidentally) to find cannabis in the tox report and close the file, but that doesn't at all mean that cannabis is responsible.
But like I said, we can debate your few outlier examples where cannabis was cited in relation to death cause, even as literally millions die from alcohol or tobacco.
If you wish to believe that one or two deaths were caused by cannabis (EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT RECORDED AS CAUSE OF DEATH ONCE) that's up to you.
Tell me how, even in those circumstances, you can justify the ongoing banning of a substance that by YOUR criteria caused a handful of deaths (and by mine none) while substances that cause MILLIONS of deaths annually are legal.

Proposition 19: Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

Comments