'Tax Cannabis 2010' claims enough signatures to reach CA ballot in 2010

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Suburbs are epic fail. Live in an area that has serious crime so the cops have more important things to do than harass underage drinkers and potheads. Minneapolis doesn't really enforce either.

I've been in such an area, and the cops would much rather bust a house full of adults exercising their freedoms and get their picture in the paper than go deal with real crimes.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Well here more people get arrested for public urination each year than underage drinking and marijuana combined. Yes, I actually checked the records.

[© tweed]

Well here more people get arrested for public urination each year than underage drinking and marijuana combined. Yes, I actually checked the records.

many public urinators cannot identify themselves on demand.

[Free Palestine]

Although it's a little ed up for the government to regulate a plant, I must agree with Einzige that baby steps are required here.  Plus, it will be beneficial to the state, which as everyone knows has a tanking economy.

What's going to be interesting, is the relationship between California and the federal government if this initiative passes.  More than likely they'll do what they did with the drinking age - threaten to withhold funding unless the states obey.  Federal drug laws should be eliminated, giving that authority to the states.

[Sbane]

I have real concerns about what the federal government might do if California legalizes marijuana (and I do think there is a good chance but not by 61% as the OP dreams about). I think Obama could use us to have his "sistah souljah" moment. Bastard.

[Torie]

I have real concerns about what the federal government might do if California legalizes marijuana (and I do think there is a good chance but not by 61% as the OP dreams about). I think Obama could use us to have his "sistah souljah" moment. Bastard.

I thought about the same issue of what the feds would do if California formally as opposed to de facto legalized pot, as is the case now. My surmise is that if state legal authorities don't enforce federal law regarding pot in California, I don't think it is practicable for federal authorities to do it on their own, which leaves cutting off federal funds to California to bring it into line, and I just don't see that happening. So as a practical matter it appears to me that California would hold the trump cards under this scenario.

[Lunar]

I know someone who is involved in this campaign.  We have to wait and see who's going to line up against the proposition.  Obviously arch conservatives will (like they did Prop 420 for medical marijuana), but will Big Pharm and the Energy Industry?

[Lunar]

I have real concerns about what the federal government might do if California legalizes marijuana (and I do think there is a good chance but not by 61% as the OP dreams about). I think Obama could use us to have his "sistah souljah" moment. Bastard.

I thought about the same issue of what the feds would do if California formally as opposed to de facto legalized pot, as is the case now. My surmise is that if state legal authorities don't enforce federal law regarding pot in California, I don't think it is practicable for federal authorities to do it on their own, which leaves cutting off federal funds to California to bring it into line, and I just don't see that happening. So as a practical matter it appears to me that California would hold the trump cards under this scenario.

Also the feds threatening to cut CA off from federal funding won't matter if the proposition passes.

[CultureKing]

I have real concerns about what the federal government might do if California legalizes marijuana (and I do think there is a good chance but not by 61% as the OP dreams about). I think Obama could use us to have his "sistah souljah" moment. Bastard.

I thought about the same issue of what the feds would do if California formally as opposed to de facto legalized pot, as is the case now. My surmise is that if state legal authorities don't enforce federal law regarding pot in California, I don't think it is practicable for federal authorities to do it on their own, which leaves cutting off federal funds to California to bring it into line, and I just don't see that happening. So as a practical matter it appears to me that California would hold the trump cards under this scenario.

Also the feds threatening to cut CA off from federal funding won't matter if the proposition passes.

Do you really think that the money that would come from taxing pot would off set the loss of federal funds?

[Lunar]

Um, if the feds announce tomorrow that they'll cut of CA's funding unless we legalize gay marriage it wouldn't matter either.  Propositions become law.  The feds could try and threaten the voters before the election but that's about it.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Full legalization for everyone would be preferable, but honestly this would be an important step forward for drug legalization nevertheless.

[Lunar]

    Full legalization for everyone would be preferable, but honestly this would be an important step forward for drug legalization nevertheless.

If the prop passed it'd be one of the most epic watersheds of social policy change in the last three decades.

I'd like a double scoop ice cream cone too but I'll take the watershed.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nonsense. It would have nothing to do with Social Policy.

[Torie]

Um, if the feds announce tomorrow that they'll cut of CA's funding unless we legalize gay marriage it wouldn't matter either.  Propositions become law.  The feds could try and threaten the voters before the election but that's about it.

The Feds could threaten to cut off federal funding, if state authorities refuse to help in enforcing federal law. Congress could pass a measure along those lines.

[Sbane]

Um, if the feds announce tomorrow that they'll cut of CA's funding unless we legalize gay marriage it wouldn't matter either.  Propositions become law.  The feds could try and threaten the voters before the election but that's about it.

The Feds could threaten to cut off federal funding, if state authorities refuse to help in enforcing federal law. Congress could pass a measure along those lines.

And what chance is there of the California government enforcing federal laws even if this measure passes? Especially if someone like a Meg Whitman or even Poizner become governor.

[Torie]

Um, if the feds announce tomorrow that they'll cut of CA's funding unless we legalize gay marriage it wouldn't matter either.  Propositions become law.  The feds could try and threaten the voters before the election but that's about it.

The Feds could threaten to cut off federal funding, if state authorities refuse to help in enforcing federal law. Congress could pass a measure along those lines.

And what chance is there of the California government enforcing federal laws even if this measure passes? Especially if someone like a Meg Whitman or even Poizner become governor.

Probably high if the penalty is the loss of billions of federal dollars. It is not a fanciful scenario, because if California legalizes pot, it will go national effectively in a hurry, unless state legal enforcement personnel start enforcing federal law.

[Lunar]

It would still be epic, even if the feds managed to find a hybrid compromise.  Remember it's Holder in the White House, not Ashcroft, and the White House MAY have something else on its plate than fighting the losing end of a Nixonite culture war to force California further into debt.

Propositions become law.  If the DEA flipped a nutcracker, they could run ads against the proposition and threaten all kinds of funding cuts should the proposition pass, but after is passes there is only a limited number of options for the feds.  To me, and I'm the opposite of a lawyer mind you, it seems the feds would be best off with their threats before the vote, and if they were serious, they could probably bluster and scare most of the suburban moderates to their way of thinking.  I'm not sure if the legalization&tax folks would have a chance if the full arm of the federal government struck down in the election, because I think a large part of their current campaign depends on not having a unified opposition.

[CultureKing]

By the way while I may not be the most passionate person in this debate I am wondering why so many posters want pot to be legalized for all ages. Personally even though I am 20 and still cant drink I don't feel like I am being slighted in too large of a way, and I feel like pot should definitely have an age restriction, people need a chance to mature to the point where they understand the decisions they are making.

[tik 🪀✨]

I'm all for complete drug legalisation, but I wouldn't be opposed to an age restriction either. Marijuana does have negative effects on adolescent minds.. although I'm still torn on the issue. If they aren't legally adults, should it be left to their parents? Should the freedom of being able to do whatever you want with your body override the benefits of letting adolescent minds develop normally? Don't know.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

I'm all for complete drug legalisation, but I wouldn't be opposed to an age restriction either. Marijuana does have negative effects on adolescent minds.. although I'm still torn on the issue. If they aren't legally adults, should it be left to their parents? Should the freedom of being able to do whatever you want with your body override the benefits of letting adolescent minds develop normally? Don't know.

While I oppose any and all age restrictions, people aged 18-20 are legally adults. They are just considered second-class citizens whose rights may be trampled upon by the law in the U.S.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Also abuse of any substance will have undesirable effects on the mind of someone of any age.

[tik 🪀✨]

Also abuse of any substance will have undesirable effects on the mind of someone of any age.

Yes, of course. But for marijuana specifically, it can alter the brain's mechanics for the rest a person's life. Not saying that that should mean minors shouldn't be able to use it, but it wouldn't be, you know, unreasonable.

[© tweed]

I'm all for complete drug legalisation, but I wouldn't be opposed to an age restriction either. Marijuana does have negative effects on adolescent minds.. although I'm still torn on the issue. If they aren't legally adults, should it be left to their parents? Should the freedom of being able to do whatever you want with your body override the benefits of letting adolescent minds develop normally? Don't know.

six joints a day is a LOT dude

[tik 🪀✨]

I'm all for complete drug legalisation, but I wouldn't be opposed to an age restriction either. Marijuana does have negative effects on adolescent minds.. although I'm still torn on the issue. If they aren't legally adults, should it be left to their parents? Should the freedom of being able to do whatever you want with your body override the benefits of letting adolescent minds develop normally? Don't know.

six joints a day is a LOT dude

You're certainly correct. Is that supposed to mean anything besides that those whose brains displayed abnormalities in this particular study were extreme cases? That's a valid point but it doesn't exactly alter the conclusions of the study. And it does nothing to address the other two articles.

[Scam of God]

I'm all for complete drug legalisation, but I wouldn't be opposed to an age restriction either. Marijuana does have negative effects on adolescent minds.. although I'm still torn on the issue. If they aren't legally adults, should it be left to their parents? Should the freedom of being able to do whatever you want with your body override the benefits of letting adolescent minds develop normally? Don't know.

six joints a day is a LOT dude

You're certainly correct. Is that supposed to mean anything besides that those whose brains displayed abnormalities in this particular study were extreme cases? That's a valid point but it doesn't exactly alter the conclusions of the study. And it does nothing to address the other two articles.

It means that those who smoke an extreme amount of pot are likely to develop brain abnormalities - just as those who drink an extreme amount of liquor are likely to develop liver abnormalities and those who chew an extreme about of tobacco are likely to develop throat abnormalities.