Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Ok, so I'm reading a bit on Prop 19 as the day comes closer for the citizens of California to vote on it, and I'm wondering how legal this thing is? The last time I checked, federal law still superceded state law, so why is it worth having this thing on the ballot? Seems like a waste of time, effort, and money if marijuana is still going to be illegal regardless if Prop 19 passes.

∞∞∞ wrote:Ok, so I'm reading a bit on Prop 19 as the day comes closer for the citizens of California to vote on it, and I'm wondering how legal this thing is? The last time I checked, federal law still superceded state law, so why is it worth having this thing on the ballot? Seems like a waste of time, effort, and money if marijuana is still going to be illegal regardless if Prop 19 passes.

Great question, but to all the immature kids who support Prop 19 (twenty-somethings as well as fifty-somethings) it's still a lot better if the local cops are going to ignore casual and even small-time-commercial pot use. There aren't enough feds to go around.

Even in the rare nationalized election such as this year's, there are still plenty of local politics to be considered.

native wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:Ok, so I'm reading a bit on Prop 19 as the day comes closer for the citizens of California to vote on it, and I'm wondering how legal this thing is? The last time I checked, federal law still superceded state law, so why is it worth having this thing on the ballot? Seems like a waste of time, effort, and money if marijuana is still going to be illegal regardless if Prop 19 passes.

Great question, but to all the immature kids who support Prop 19 (twenty-somethings as well as fifty-somethings) it's still a lot better if the local cops are going to ignore casual and even small-time-commercial pot use. There aren't enough feds to go around.

Even in the rare nationalized election such as this year's, there are still plenty of local politics to be considered.

So it's immature to desire that smalltime casual users of pot not worry about a criminal record while also freeing up resources on local level to allocate to more pressing needs (like property crimes & gangs)? Thought you were a conservative, Native? Guess you are really a Conservative (Social Christian Conservative)

∞∞∞ wrote:Ok, so I'm reading a bit on Prop 19 as the day comes closer for the citizens of California to vote on it, and I'm wondering how legal this thing is? The last time I checked, federal law still superceded state law, so why is it worth having this thing on the ballot? Seems like a waste of time, effort, and money if marijuana is still going to be illegal regardless if Prop 19 passes.

See Idaho Wolves thread......the burden to enforce the law falls on the feds if local jurisdiction legalizes...let's just hope that if they choose to enforce federal law with regard to Prop 19, then they'll also allocate the same resources to enforce the federal protection on wolves....what's good for the goose........

Appaholic wrote: ...So it's immature to desire that smalltime casual users of pot not worry about a criminal record ...

Not all all, Appy, not at all!!!

The immaturity is in the self absorbed obsession with their personal access to pot demonstrated by the majority of these voters, and their failure to think through and plan for the consequences of legalization/decriminalization.

Appaholic wrote: ... while also freeing up resources on local level to allocate to more pressing needs (like property crimes & gangs)? ...

I actually agree strongly with the points you make here. Al Capone could not have existed without Prohibition. I favor de-criminalization of marijuana and the attendant resource re-allocation such a step would allow, but I also favor employment discrimination and government benefits discrimination based on drug screening,including marijuana.

Appaholic wrote: ... Thought you were a conservative, Native? Guess you are really a Conservative (Social Christian Conservative)

Politically I am libertarian at heart. The Constitution guarantees liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all, including damned fools. Citizens should be allowed to do whatever they please as long as they do not infringe the rights of others in the process. Unfortunately, the older I get, the more I recognize that every choice we make and don't make risks infringing upon the rights of others.

This does not mean that I am exclusively or hard-wired socially conservatve, my friend. It only means that, based on experience, my view of what is possible without infringing on the rights of others is probably more circumscribed than yours.

A couple of things that have been on the news recently re Prop 19:

1. The feds have said that they would enforce federal law. Some local law enforcement agencies in CA said they would support the feds.

2. Some medical pot dispensaries are against Prop 19. The measure would adversely affect them.

3. Gov. Schwartzenegger just signed a measure reducing low-volume pot possession to the value of a speeding ticket.

The wind is out of Prop 19's sails. The proponents just won't admit it. Prop 19 is going down.

I think California should not only legalize all pot, they should give it out free out of the back of ice cream trucks to kids.

native wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:Ok, so I'm reading a bit on Prop 19 as the day comes closer for the citizens of California to vote on it, and I'm wondering how legal this thing is? The last time I checked, federal law still superceded state law, so why is it worth having this thing on the ballot? Seems like a waste of time, effort, and money if marijuana is still going to be illegal regardless if Prop 19 passes.

Great question, but to all the immature kids who support Prop 19 (twenty-somethings as well as fifty-somethings) it's still a lot better if the local cops are going to ignore casual and even small-time-commercial pot use. There aren't enough feds to go around.

Even in the rare nationalized election such as this year's, there are still plenty of local politics to be considered.

And the asshole gets on me about name calling.

89Hen wrote:I think California should not only legalize all pot, they should give it out free out of the back of ice cream trucks to kids.

Fvck yeah, even if it's legal for just a few glorious hours, I'm makin' a run to T's place and stocking up!

I personally think it should be up to the states whether or not marijuana is legal and if the good people of Cali want it legalized, so be it.

Just my

ATrain wrote:I personally think it should be up to the states whether or not marijuana is legal and if the good people of Cali want it legalized, so be it.

Just my

No shit. For all the whining the Conks do about state's rights, they sure hide behind the Feds a lot when it serves them.

ATrain wrote:I personally think it should be up to the states whether or not marijuana is legal and if the good people of Cali want it legalized, so be it.

Just my

You don't see inherent problems with that?

89Hen wrote:

ATrain wrote:I personally think it should be up to the states whether or not marijuana is legal and if the good people of Cali want it legalized, so be it.

Just my

You don't see inherent problems with that?

Hey, Hen, you smoke pot like a brain dead Rastafarian. We all know it, so knock off the holier-than-thou crap about it.

native wrote:

Appaholic wrote: ...So it's immature to desire that smalltime casual users of pot not worry about a criminal record ...

Not all all, Appy, not at all!!!

The immaturity is in the self absorbed obsession with their personal access to pot demonstrated by the majority of these voters, and their failure to think through and plan for the consequences of legalization/decriminalization.

Appaholic wrote: ... while also freeing up resources on local level to allocate to more pressing needs (like property crimes & gangs)? ...

I actually agree strongly with the points you make here. Al Capone could not have existed without Prohibition. I favor de-criminalization of marijuana and the attendant resource re-allocation such a step would allow, but I also favor employment discrimination and government benefits discrimination based on drug screening,including marijuana.

Appaholic wrote: ... Thought you were a conservative, Native? Guess you are really a Conservative (Social Christian Conservative)

Politically I am libertarian at heart. The Constitution guarantees liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all, including damned fools. Citizens should be allowed to do whatever they please as long as they do not infringe the rights of others in the process. Unfortunately, the older I get, the more I recognize that every choice we make and don't make risks infringing upon the rights of others.

This does not mean that I am exclusively or hard-wired socially conservatve, my friend. It only means that, based on experience, my view of what is possible without infringing on the rights of others is probably more circumscribed than yours.

Once again, I agree with the main gist of your response (getting scary). Sure there are consequences to legalization just as there are (obvious) unintended consequences off continuing to outlaw (like enriching drug cartels while adversely affecting a person's life for what amounts to a personal habit only affecting one's self). I too favor employment & social service discrimination based upon drug screens. While I advocate the decriminalization of marijuana, I advocate responsible use by responsible adults who can afford the habit (same as drinking, smoking). However, once you become a ward of the state, you have to make a choice. And if you decide to choose certain professions, you have to make a choice. But at least you have the choice without one of them resulting in a criminal record. With regard to you last statement, as you say all of our choices potentially impact the rights of others. But impacts have to be categorized & separated as actual infringements upon one's rights or perceived infringements upon one's rights. Perceived infringements are just that & to legislate based upon that criteria would paralyze society as we know it.....

Cap'n Cat wrote:

89Hen wrote: You don't see inherent problems with that?

Hey, Hen, you smoke pot like a brain dead Rastafarian. We all know it, so knock off the holier-than-thou crap about it.

Yeah but I can quit any time I want.

Appaholic wrote:

native wrote:
Not all all, Appy, not at all!!!

The immaturity is in the self absorbed obsession with their personal access to pot demonstrated by the majority of these voters, and their failure to think through and plan for the consequences of legalization/decriminalization.

I actually agree strongly with the points you make here. Al Capone could not have existed without Prohibition. I favor de-criminalization of marijuana and the attendant resource re-allocation such a step would allow, but I also favor employment discrimination and government benefits discrimination based on drug screening,including marijuana.

Politically I am libertarian at heart. The Constitution guarantees liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all, including damned fools. Citizens should be allowed to do whatever they please as long as they do not infringe the rights of others in the process. Unfortunately, the older I get, the more I recognize that every choice we make and don't make risks infringing upon the rights of others.

This does not mean that I am exclusively or hard-wired socially conservatve, my friend. It only means that, based on experience, my view of what is possible without infringing on the rights of others is probably more circumscribed than yours.

Once again, I agree with the main gist of your response (getting scary). Sure there are consequences to legalization just as there are (obvious) unintended consequences off continuing to outlaw (like enriching drug cartels while adversely affecting a person's life for what amounts to a personal habit only affecting one's self). I too favor employment & social service discrimination based upon drug screens. While I advocate the decriminalization of marijuana, I advocate responsible use by responsible adults who can afford the habit (same as drinking, smoking). However, once you become a ward of the state, you have to make a choice. And if you decide to choose certain professions, you have to make a choice. But at least you have the choice without one of them resulting in a criminal record. With regard to you last statement, as you say all of our choices potentially impact the rights of others. But impacts have to be categorized & separated as actual infringements upon one's rights or perceived infringements upon one's rights. Perceived infringements are just that & to legislate based upon that criteria would paralyze society as we know it.....

Well said, Appy! And I am not afraid at all to agree - or disagree - with you.

In this case, we are in violent agreement! Not a single misstep!

Very nice touch about categorizing and prioritizing risks.

Legalize it and tax it. End of discussion.

SDHornet wrote:Legalize it and tax it. End of discussion.

Wonder if Conks would bitch about "high" (get it?) taxes on weed? I guess so, if it somehow came down to stopping them from buying that other Ferrari for their daughter.

I honestly don’t care how high ( ) taxes are on non-essential items. So long as it isn’t something I need to live, I have no problem with taxing the hell out of it.

SDHornet wrote:I honestly don’t care how high ( ) taxes are on non-essential items. So long as it isn’t something I need to live, I have no problem with taxing the hell out of it.

Agreed. Cigarettes, alcohol, porn (well.....), etc.

Next thing to tax - fast food.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

SDHornet wrote:I honestly don’t care how high ( ) taxes are on non-essential items. So long as it isn’t something I need to live, I have no problem with taxing the hell out of it.

Agreed. Cigarettes, alcohol, porn (well.....), etc.

Next thing to tax - fast food.

This should have been done in the Obamacare package to cover all the new costs that boondoggle will have as well as to cover the health costs the fast food industry bestowed upon the masses with their unhealthy food.

SDHornet wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:
Agreed. Cigarettes, alcohol, porn (well.....), etc.

Next thing to tax - fast food.

This should have been done in the Obamacare package to cover all the new costs that boondoggle will have as well as to cover the health costs the fast food industry bestowed upon the masses with their unhealthy food.

It's not a boondoggle, Horny. Like it or not, it's, at the very least, an attempt to change the unsavory way things are done now. As I said, like it or not. Think of this - Conks have had as many decades to right the Health ship and they did nothing, now they're bitching just to bitch. What galls them the most is that a black guy led the effort.

If the State elminates it as a State violation it will be very difficult for the Federal government to effectively enforce the prohibition. It is also making a statement.

If momentum builds through States legalizing marijuana, the Federal government will eventually legalize marijuana. If they do it it'll be a significant event.

Me, I think it's just a matter of time. Maybe in not in my lifetime. But it will happen.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

SDHornet wrote: This should have been done in the Obamacare package to cover all the new costs that boondoggle will have as well as to cover the health costs the fast food industry bestowed upon the masses with their unhealthy food.

It's not a boondoggle, Horny. Like it or not, it's, at the very least, an attempt to change the unsavory way things are done now. As I said, like it or not. Think of this - Conks have had as many decades to right the Health ship and they did nothing, now they're bitching just to bitch. What galls them the most is that a black guy led the effort.

I agree something needed to be done, I just don’t agree with what the end result that will be passed on to us all.

SDHornet wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

It's not a boondoggle, Horny. Like it or not, it's, at the very least, an attempt to change the unsavory way things are done now. As I said, like it or not. Think of this - Conks have had as many decades to right the Health ship and they did nothing, now they're bitching just to bitch. What galls them the most is that a black guy led the effort.

I agree something needed to be done, I just don’t agree with what the end result that will be passed on to us all.

That and the fact that it's being jammed down our throats whether we want it or not. The arrogance of the national-level Democrats is appalling.