Social Question

lapilofu's avatar

How do you think CA Proposition 19 is going to go?

Asked by lapilofu (4325points) August 9th, 2010

I want to believe it’s going to pass, I really really want to believe that—but I just don’t. What do you think?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

23 Answers

ETpro's avatar

I’m no longer in California, so I don’t have a vote. If I could vote on it, I would vote Yes. Maybe with the hard economic times and the promise of major revenues from a new “sin tax” people do not have to pay unless they decide to toke up, it has a chance. I hope so, as it may push the nation to take a further look at the silliness of criminalizing weed.

shpadoinkle_sue's avatar

I’m not against it, I think it’s be good if it passed. Buyt, like you, I just don’t think it will. Think good thoughts!

Sarcasm's avatar

I’m voting for it. I’d love for it to pass. I’m not a smoker now and I don’t plan to be one. But I think it should still be legalized.

But I don’t think it’ll pass. I think that it will fail for the same reason Prop 8 succeeded. High budget liar advertising from out of state religious groups.

stranger_in_a_strange_land's avatar

I hope it passes. California tends to be the lead state in such things. Get rid of this expensive “war” and start collecting some tax revenue. This has to get past the scare propaganda of well-financed special interest groups.

filmfann's avatar

Prop 19, which would legalize and tax Marijuana, is not just a sin tax.
I oppose it. Polls show the vote is close, but favors not passing.
My guess is those who want this will forget to vote.

tinyfaery's avatar

Probably not. Though, if young people actually voted I believe it could pass. I haven’t seen any agressive campaigning for the proposition either way. Even if it did pass the legal fight is far from over.

ETpro's avatar

@tinyfaery Most of the polls actually show it passing, some by a substantial majority. Out of 5 recent polls, only one showed it failing.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

I don’t smoke personally, but I think this is a great idea and should have been done 40 years ago. I am all for end-user taxes as the people who indulge pay their own way, leaving those who don’t unaffected. I hope this helps California with their deficit. I’m just wondering what the Feds will have to say about it—like when Ashcroft went after Tommy Chong.

GoldieAV16's avatar

I don’t smoke, either, but I’m all for it. The Just Say Now campaign is ramping up efforts here in CA. They have some cool stickers available.

muppetish's avatar

I’m Californian and voting yes, but don’t expect it to pass. I haven’t seen much campaigning where I live… which is strange considering I’m part of the demographic you’d think they would target (read here: college student.) We’ll see in November, I s’pose.

wellinformed's avatar

This bill is an attempt at Phillip – Morris and major agribusiness( not to mention their Oaksterdam schills) to take over the grassroots marijuana economy that is booming from medical marijuana legalization. The way the law is written, it will be controlled like alcohol and tobacco. Both markets are dominated by corporate interests, after all you cannot grow and sell your own tabacco, you have to buy the from one of the 2 companies that control it. You can’t distill your own whiskey either. Say NO to this and write a new propostion to keep the numbers of plants down, quality of product high and availability limited so it does not become too much of a social problem and supports REAL PEOPLE ( small farmers – instead of huge agribusiness).
It is a terrible law and Oaksterdam University Should be ashamed of penning it. SAY NO to Prop 19 and corporate pot. Why settle for this travasty, rewrite and keep the corporations out, support community.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

@wellinformed Yeah, right. Who’s the shill? SPAM

ETpro's avatar

@wellinformed The bill doesn’t prohibit individuals from growing, does it. What’s wrong with letting business supply those who don’t want to do it themselves. I don’t think ti was corporate shills who repealed prohibition. You can still brew or distil at home for your own use. You just can’t sell to others unless you comply with regulations to protect consumers and pay the taxes required. There is nothing wrong with that.

stranger_in_a_strange_land's avatar

@ETpro In the US, we can brew at home but distilling requires a license. They don’t make any attempt to stop anyone from distilling small quatinities for personal use though. I think the most important reform re: cannibis is getting rid of prohibition on homegrown and possession of non-commercial quantities. If they want to regulate and tax commercial sales, fine with me.

Dog's avatar

I second @ETpro regarding the post by @wellinformed which is inaccurate, misleading and just wrong. In my opinion we cannot afford to not legalize We cannot afford to continue to arrest casual users. As a state we are failing fast. We could really use any new tax revenue.

I want it to pass. It is archaic and costly to enforce the prohibition of pot. Our state has the golden opportunity to take a huge drain of resources and turn it into a cash cow while at the same time relieving some stress of the prison system and freeing police time.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

@ETpro @Dog Wellinformed is a political spam artist operating for one of the organizations producing anti-19 propaganda. Fluther and many other sites has lately been invaded by certain individuals, like Void this string with Kolinar and in this string and this who do nothing but argue far right political and fundimentalist Christian opinions using cyclicle arguments and misdirection, they ignore the opinion of other side, accuse the opponent of casting personal insults at the slightest criticism of their argument and use this to become, in turn, insulting and vitriolic. They depend on tediousness and the mere quantity of their posts to influence opinion or chase people with dissenting views out of the site by simply being tedious on every political question. In the case of Yahoo and AB, they becam profane for lack of effective moderation. For 2 years the front page articles showing up on were showing a far right bias through a voting system dominated by a large, organized group calling themselves Digg Patriots that organized on Yahoo. Their stated mission is to clear the internet social sites of bipartisan, moderate and liberal political opinion. Tlhey became moderators on both sites. Sound rediculous? They were very effective with taking over Yahoo, Digg, and caused a re-organization of AB’s format last December. Now, they are here. They are not interested in intelligent discourse. They are not interested in weighing opposing opinions. They are only interested in neutralizing views that deviate from their own. This activity will increasel as elections near.

ETpro's avatar

@Espiritus_Corvus Yes, I have been going round and round with Void on a thread where he is claiming Michelle Obaqma was disbarred for malfeasance. All the evidence I and others have been able find shows that is a bald faced lie, but he just keeps repeating the same circular logic as if each new statement of it makes it more accurate.

I am going to call the Illinois board that manages attorney registration tomorrow when they are back open and get the stone cold truth of the matter.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

Yeah, I saw that and I’m watching you with Plethora right now. He is exhibiting precisely the behavior that I described above. Identify and ignore, bro.

stranger_in_a_strange_land's avatar

He’s just poking sharp sticks through the cage bars, to get a reaction. I do the same thing on

ETpro's avatar

@stranger_in_a_strange_land You brave the gauntlet on too. I love the fisticuffs over there. :-)

stranger_in_a_strange_land's avatar

@ETpro I just follow the model of their poster boy William F. Buckley. They go running for their dictionaries to determine whether I’ve complimented or assaulted them. One thought be called pusillanimous was a compliment.

ETpro's avatar

@stranger_in_a_strange_land Isn’t pusillanimous a compliment? Gee, I thought it meant I was animous around pusills.

Paradox's avatar

I don’t live anywhere near California and I only know what little I do know about Proposition 19 through what I’ve read in a few news articles about it. From what little I am aware of it seems the majority of state/local level politicians including both the Republican and Democratic candidates for governor in that state are opposed to it. It seems the majority of voters themselves are supporting it however. I always though the government was supposed to be for the people, by the people.

On the federal level it appears nine former administrators of the Drug Enforcement Administration have issued a preemptive call to the White House: If Prop 19 passes, they say, President Obama should sue the state of California.

According to a letter sent to Attorney General Eric Holder, the former DEA officials wrote the potential legalization of marijuana would challenge federal authority and merit a lawsuit against the state – much like the one Obama has filed in protest of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, which the administration (DEA) says contradicts national policy.

Quote from the letter to Holder “We would expect the Department of Justice to act just as swiftly and for the same reason,” the DEA administrators said of the potential (likely in my opinion) passage of Proposition 19.

Will the federal government intervene here and try to overpower the state lawmakers and voters wishes and if so how far would the feds be willing to go with this type of enforcement which would be very costly to taxpayers since a sting on this level would require massive resources in my opinion. I guess we’ll wait and see.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther