Prop 19 discussed on Bill Maher

Zorak said:
lol, when does the vote happen?

If it passes, what does that mean for California, can it overrule the federal law? This issue gets little to no exposure over here.
Click to expand...

Voting day is tomorrow, and it will not overrule federal law. This is how its worded in the booklet:

Legalizes marijuana under California but not federal law. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production, distribution, and sale of marijuana. Initiative statute. Allows people 21 years or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Fiscal impact: Depending on federal, state, and local government actions, potential increased tax and fee revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually and potential correctional savings of several tens of millions of dollars annually.
 
Wyndex said:
Voting day is tomorrow, and it will not overrule federal law. This is how its worded in the booklet:

Legalizes marijuana under California but not federal law. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production, distribution, and sale of marijuana. Initiative statute. Allows people 21 years or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Fiscal impact: Depending on federal, state, and local government actions, potential increased tax and fee revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually and potential correctional savings of several tens of millions of dollars annually.
Click to expand...

That's where I get fuzzy, how can local governments tax the commercial sale of marijuana, if the federal law prohibits sale?
 
Wyndex said:
The same way Nevada's casinos and escort services are. Gambling halls and prostitution are not legal everywhere in the US
Click to expand...
Under federal law gambling is legal... So that's not the same at all.

And I've just done some small research into prostitution, and as far as I could tell in a minutes search is that there is no federal law against prostitution either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wyndex said:
I have a feeling most people are not being honest with the polls because its not anonymous ya know. they dont want to announce they support such a taboo substance
Click to expand...

I really hope that you're right... and it's not really because I plan on going out and smoking pot all the time if it gets passed either. It just think that keeping it illegal is ridiculous with how many people smoke it, and that it's already completely decriminalized here now, you just have to pay a $100 fine if you're caught with 1oz or less on you. You have to do more than that for a freaking traffic violation. So legalize the stuff already and get it over with. Maybe we'll get some tax dollars out of it too.
 
There's a lot of confusion about this proposition, and they expect people to vote on it? I don't believe it will pass, because there's no guarantee that anything will change.
Personal use may be decriminilized, but if it's still illegal for commercial distrubition, how will people buy it?
The only way would be through the same illegal channels, hardly taking the funding away from criminal organisations. If anything it's providing further lining in their pockets.

I'm all for drug legalisation, but this isn't it. It's hard to say what this publicity fueled attempt at budget defecit control is.
 
Zorak said:
There's a lot of confusion about this proposition, and they expect people to vote on it? I don't believe it will pass, because there's no guarantee that anything will change.
Personal use may be decriminilized, but if it's still illegal for commercial distrubition, how will people buy it?
The only way would be through the same illegal channels, hardly taking the funding away from criminal organisations. If anything it's providing further lining in their pockets.

I'm all for drug legalisation, but this isn't it. It's hard to say what this publicity fueled attempt at budget defecit control is.
Click to expand...

That's actually an incorrect statement...

Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls

Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:

(a) cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized;

(b) retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale;

(c) appropriate controls on cultivation, transportation, sales, and consumption of cannabis to strictly prohibit access to cannabis by persons under the age of 21;

(d) age limits and controls to ensure that all persons present in, employed by, or in any way involved in the operation of, any such licensed premises are 21 or older;

(e) consumption of cannabis within licensed premises;

(f) safe and secure transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises for cultivation or processing, to a licensed premises for sale or on-premises consumption of cannabis;

(g) prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300;

(h) appropriate controls on licensed premises for sale, cultivation, processing, or sale and on-premises consumption, of cannabis, including limits on zoning and land use, locations, size, hours of operation, occupancy, protection of adjoining and nearby properties and persons from unwanted exposure, advertising, signs and displays, and other controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare;

(i) appropriate environmental and public health controls to ensure that any licensed premises minimizes any harm to the environment, adjoining and nearby landowners, and persons passing by;

(j) appropriate controls to restrict public displays, or public consumption of cannabis;

(k) appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to section 11302;

(l) such larger amounts as the local authority deems appropriate and proper under local circumstances, than those established under section 11300(a) for personal possession and cultivation, or under this section for commercial cultivation, processing, transportation and sale by persons authorized to do so under this section;

(m) any other appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare.
Click to expand...

Commercial distribution wouldn't be illegal, you would have to be licensed to grow and sell.

Not to mention the fact that it would be legal for individuals to grow for their own personal use as well.
 
You can't tax personal use, so it's inneffective as a form of tax revenue.

I have to be honest, if I was a californian, I'd vote yes - but simply because I believe it's the tiniest step in the right direction. IMO there's little substance to this proposition.
 
Zorak said:
You can't tax personal use, so it's inneffective as a form of tax revenue.

I have to be honest, if I was a californian, I'd vote yes - but simply because I believe it's the tiniest step in the right direction. IMO there's little substance to this proposition.
Click to expand...

You can't tax personal growing... but people are freaking lazy and wouldn't necessarily want to grow any for themselves anyway. It's the same with vegetables and such... sure, I can grow my own if I want to, but then there's all of the work and maintenance that goes into doing so. If I do, I don't have to buy produce at the grocery store, but I also have to take care of the plants.
 
retro said:
That's actually an incorrect statement...



Commercial distribution wouldn't be illegal, you would have to be licensed to grow and sell.

Not to mention the fact that it would be legal for individuals to grow for their own personal use as well.
Click to expand...

Ok, I wasn't aware of that. Can you give me the link to your source?

edit: thanks :)
 
Zorak said:
You can't tax personal use, so it's inneffective as a form of tax revenue.

I have to be honest, if I was a californian, I'd vote yes - but simply because I believe it's the tiniest step in the right direction. IMO there's little substance to this proposition.
Click to expand...

thats the idea with this prop.
but distribution is what is going to be taxed, seeing as it will be legal. the ads against it make it sound even more amazing:

look at this bullshit propaganda

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s87O7Jm8VH8&feature=fvw
 
Back
Top