Prop 19 rundown

bullet image Why Parents Should Support Legalizing Pot

My son just started kindergarten. So naturally, I have been thinking a lot about the type of world and community in which I want him and our seven-year-old daughter to live. I am involved in a project to improve school lunches in our district to reinforce the nutrition lessons we teach in our home. I am a founding board member of a community group trying to improve our city’s parks. And I am working to help pass Proposition 19, the initiative to control and tax marijuana in California. It is important to me as a mother that my children grow up in a state—hopefully a country soon—that rejects the ineffective and damaging policy of marijuana prohibition. It may be counterintuitive, but legalizing marijuana will be better and safer for our children.

bullet image Prop 19 Opponents Terrified by Centuries-Old Tradition of Local Ordinances

I’ve noticed a consistent but baseless distortion being spread by opponents of California’s Proposition 19, which would legalize, regulate and tax cannabis. They complain that Prop 19 is poorly crafted and/or would produce an unenforceable “patchwork” of regulation. The reality is that, compared with most propositions in California’s history, Prop 19 is very sensibly written, with the express purpose of giving state and local governments maximum flexibility to make legal marijuana workable. The fictitious, nightmarish “patchwork” of regulations caused by allowing local governments to craft local ordinances is no different than how local governments handle almost everything in our economy, including alcohol, parking, pizza ovens, farmers markets and building codes.

bullet image Chaos Erupts Over Prop 19 at California Cannabis Expo

Apparently quite a ruckus. I still have nothing but contempt by those who are so shortsighted and selfish that they’re willing to throw away a chance at legalization, and starting a national movement because it’s not exactly what they wanted.

bullet image What the pot legalization campaign really threatens by David Sirota

We are asked to believe that people drinking a daily six-pack for a quarter-century is not a lamentable sign of a health crisis, but instead a “lifestyle” triumph worthy of flag-colored celebration — and we are expected to think that legalizing a safer alternative to this “lifestyle” is dangerous. Likewise, as laws obstruct veterans from obtaining doctor-prescribed marijuana for post-traumatic stress disorder, we are asked to believe that shotgunning cans of lager is the real way to “support our troops.”

bullet image We’re just over a month away. Why not give $25?

Open Thread.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Prop 19 rundown

  1. john says:

    In the “Chaos Erupts Over Prop 19 at California Cannabis Expo” article…does anyone happen to know who the commentator from Florida is?

    I’m from Florida and was just curious to see if it was one of our SSDP members or if anyone knew.



  2. Cannabis says:

    Here’s a pretty unbiased view of Prop. 19 written by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office.
    Proposition 19: Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute.

  3. darkcycle says:

    It troubles me to see the “I got mine, so screw you” attitude coming from much of the established Med. Pot community. I guess, once you’ve carved out your little kingdom from among the ruins, you’ll do anything to protect it. And the focus on patient’s rights! To the exclusion of everybody else’s!
    I think we should distribute free mirrors to members of the Med Pot community who oppose 19. With instructions to look in them and ask the person they see there why they would obstruct legalization.

  4. Duncan20903 says:

    I find the ‘cost to society’ of tobacco to be beyond the pale. The major component of these ‘costs’ are ‘loss of productivity’ because smokers get sick more often. Then when they die they cheat their families out of their income. [game show buzzer] Wrong, it isn’t a cost to society because no one has any legitimate claim to the productivity of another person.

    Then they include all the health care costs of tobacco regardless of who paid for the health care and without regard to the medical costs would be had he been a non-smoker. My mom ran up a half million in medical costs over the last several months of her life. She never smoked, hadn’t enjoyed drinking for almost 3 decades, ate a balanced diet that she got from a professional nutritionist, and regularly went to the doctor to figure out more healthy stuff add to her way of life. My dad was well over a million but that was over 7 years as he had Alzheimer’s and required nursing home supervision until he passed away. If heroin was the object of this propaganda style, all of Jerry Garcia’s medical costs would have been included as a ‘cost’ to society. Never mind that he would have cost something had he never gotten high. Then to add insult to injury they would note he died at 53 and therefore cheated his family out of the money he would have earned had he lived to the expected age. Never mind that the man left an estate worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

    BTW I do know Mr. Garcia was not under the influence of any drugs that weren’t prescribed to him at the time of his death. His heart gave out and he passed away in his sleep while in drug rehab trying to quit the heroin. I think it reasonable to conclude that his lifetime use of cocaine and heroin contributed to his heart failure even if not the primary cause.

    From the New England Journal of Medicine:
    Health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for nonsmokers, but in a population in which no one smoked the costs would be 7 percent higher among men and 4 percent higher among women than the costs in the current mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers. If all smokers quit, health care costs would be lower at first, but after 15 years they would become higher than at present. In the long term, complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care costs, but it could still be seen as economically favorable under reasonable assumptions of discount rate and evaluation period.
    If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.

    Well I guess I have to bookmark that link.

  5. Duncan20903 says:

    I must confess that after listening to the cannabis consumers who are against Prop 19 I’m having to rethink the idea that cannabis doesn’t make people stupid, or cause some kind of brain damage or defect. There are people more worried about Richard Lee’s pocketbook than getting the end of the war on (some) drug underway. The ironic thing is that one thing is certain. Mr. Lee will wake up the day after the polling a very wealthy man regardless of the Prop 19 vote. Well providing he doesn’t get busted before the polling occurs. I am almost expecting him to get busted, I think the odds are better than 70/30 that it happens. The CA Bureau of Narcotics busted Dennis Peron just before the Prop 215 vote in 1996. That’s forced the potheads to play their trump card which changed the entire complexion of the vote. It was really sad to watch all the know nothing prohibitionists getting humiliated by Zonker Harris.

    …but his modest campaign was overwhelmed by news stories focused on Peron after an Aug. 4 raid by 100 black-clad state Bureau of Narcotics agents closed the SFCBC. When Dennis challenged the legality of the closure order, Zimmerman convinced the northern California ACLU chapter not to file an amicus brief on his behalf.

    The raid on Dennis’s club came to the attention of Garry Trudeau (thanks to John Entwistle) and soon there appeared a Doonesbury strip in which Zonker’s friend Cornell says, “I can’t get hold of any pot for our AIDS patients. Our regular sources have been spooked ever since the Cannabis Buyers’ Club in San Francisco got raided … ” Lungren urged California publishers to spike Doonesbury and held a press conference to reveal the evidence his investigators had assembled against Peron and the SFCBC. He lost his cool during the question-and-answer session. “Skin flushed and voice raised, Attorney General Dan Lungren went head-to-head with a comic strip Tuesday…” is how Robert Salladay began his Oakland Tribune story.

  6. darkcycle says:

    Duncan: “…no one has a legitimate claim to another person’s productivity.”
    I agree, but try telling that to the IRS.

  7. LTR says:

    With respect to donating towards prop 19, why do donors have to put their employer information in? You talk about a deterrent. I wonder how many people have not donated because of that requirement, which is apparently a California requirement.

    Also, apparently they make public the names of those that donate over $100, or is it everyone that donates including people that donate $25? How many people don’t donate to the campaign because they do not know if their privacy will be respected and what donations are public information and what are not? It’s a sad thought.

  8. Duncan20903 says:

    I put down ‘self’ as employer, and ‘layabout’ as my occupation. C’mon, live a little, fib a little.

    darkcycle I may well be the only person in the world that doesn’t mind paying my business partner their cut every year. I realize how valuable to my business it is to have an effective government that protects property rights and keeps us living in relative peace. I’ve often pondered what it would be like to live in a country with the opposites. Many places in Africa do not enforce property rights and as a result if you create something of value you can almost expect to have it taken away. Wow, what do you think of the idea of opening a business in Iraq or Afghanistan? I guess vehicle explosives installation, booby traps, and property security could be pretty lucrative but I can’t think of any others off the cuff. I doubt being a doctor or opening a hospital would be lucrative because these people are mostly indigent. Even after considering all that’s fucked up about the US the government does return significant value for the money I send the Treasury every year on October 15th. The people arguing that they have a reasonable right to the productivity of others return bupkus. Unfortunately the best government is one that’s invisible except when they ask for their cut.

  9. PabloKoh says:

    Prop 19 analysis by Dennis Peron’s own lawyer:
    “Prop 19 is the best thing to happen to medical marijuana patients since Prop 215”

  10. darkcycle says:

    Duncan….I’m a liberal, believe our tax rates should be on par with European countries, or, at the very least restored to a reasonable level to help pay for a functioning society. I were just having some fun.

  11. darkcycle says:

    BTW, I think you’re right that it’s likely Lee or other Prop 19 adocates/sponsors will be busted. Let’s hope they remember that A. it didn’t work, and B. it backfired making the DEA look stupid(er) and (more)vindictive. They may have the ability to recall the backlash, but the ability to control their tempers?….

  12. claygooding says:

    Violence,over legalizing marijuana and not by prohibitionists but by alleged users. Jack Herer is spinning in his grave.

    Greed is one of the strongest desires we have and is at the bottom of most of mans problems.

    The article points out that the opposed were the ones that caused the debate to be disrupted and the opposition is made up of mostly illegal growers,dealers and dispensary owners wanting to protect their profits.

    They proclaim that they are against PROP 19 because of various reasons but when you corner one up and show him where in the prop that his claims of harm to medical marijuana do not exist,they just go to another
    you point out the lack of evidence in the prop to support that projected problem and they just slide into the next “possible” problem and on and on.

    We will find out as time progresses that they will be against any effort to change the law,no matter how it is written or who presents it.

    Vote Yes on Prop 19 to begin the end.

  13. claygooding says:

    PS: I am glad I was not there,somewhere between Viet Nam
    and riding Harleys for 36 years,I have lost the ability to turn the other cheek.

  14. Robert D. Reed Jr. says:

    I’m on record- including within the pages of this website- as being in opposition to the way Prop. 19 was drafted. I think that in the event that it wins, it’s almost certainly going to face a legal and legislative obstacle course- obstacles that a bill focusing on the right to personal cultivation and possession would have largely obviated.

    Am I going to vote for Prop. 19?


    The symbolic message of another ballot box victory for legalizing marijuana will be huge. It will be a direct assertion of majority popular will, in favor of increased personal liberty- and even given the (often well-founded) cynicism about the workings of American democracy these days, politicians mess with that at their peril. In the event of a Prop. 19 victory, they had best beware of attempting to insert punitive licensing or taxation provisions on nonprofit home cultivators or caregivers, which would twist the proposition into something other than the way it’s clearly intended to work.

  15. Maria says:

    The symbolic message of another ballot box victory for legalizing marijuana will be huge.

    Exactly. This has GOT to move beyond squabbling over sqaure footage. It really feels like a turning point and it would be a kick in the gut to have it tripped up by in fighting and factions.

    Of course Prop 19 is not perfect and of course there will be issues. The road will be bumpy but the ‘stoners against prop 19’ crowd are acting as if this is the worst thing ever to come down the pipeline. It’s beyond selfish, everything I’ve read about this (beyond the hysteria/delusions/hopes of both sides) it is evident that prop 19 doesn’t invalidate the previous. I have not had anyone point out in the bill itself where it harms medical marijuana users/producers. They say it does but can’t point it out. Please point it out to me!

    They are trying to convince, even by way of tantrums, that there is not a single scrap of redeeming value in the bill. Everyone in the nation is holding their breath and they are acting as if it’s a personal affront on their group. Whatever that ‘group’ is. Trying to state that it targets and inconveniences them.

    I’m really mind boggled by the vehemence coming out of that corner. All I can hope is that rationality will prevail. Please. This has to end. Not everything has to be fought against.

  16. kaptinemo says:

    How anyone who calls themselves ‘stoners’ can ally with lying arch-prohib “Reverend” Allen is beyond me. That ‘alliance’ stinks worse than rotting seafood.

    With regards to the ‘perfection’ of any legislation, I point out that the Founders in 1776 were in profound disagreement amongst themselves, personally and ideologically. The Northern ones wanted slavery abolished; the Southern ones furiously resisted.

    The less-than-savory compromise they made (in leaving slavery intact) eventually led to the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which eventually covered those it had so viciously and cruelly excluded…the freedoms we presently are having stripped from us little by little, and thanks largely to the DrugWar, of which cannabis prohibition is the cornerstone.

    Knock that cornerstone out, and the whole rotten edifice will fall. It. Will. FALL. It may take a few years, but like the Berlin Wall, down it will go. And those who make their money off of prohibition know this very well…and that includes those who enjoy huge profits gained from their dispensaries still charging prohibition-inflated prices. As the old saying goes, “With friends like that, who needs enemies?” We’re seeing who the real friends of freedom truly are.

    As someone who lost almost everything thanks to cannabis prohibition, as someone who’s endured terrible hardships, having to start all over again in middle-age (and I was ‘lucky’; not imprisoned or maimed or killed by people intent upon ‘saving’ me) I have nothing but p*ss-in-your-face contempt for those who would deny the rest of the country a shot at getting that damned hobnailed jackboot off our necks. That’s what 19 truly represents; a return to freedom.

    Yes, it’s imperfect…but ‘beggars can’t be choosers’, and I don’t know about you, dear readers, but I AM GODAMMED TIRED OF BEGGING for my right of personal sovereignty over my body. So what if Prop19 isn’t ‘perfect’? What in life is? And the ripples that will flow outwards from 19’s passage will eventually shatter the Berlin Wall of national cannabis prohibition.

    The time has come. No more waiting. No more hoping. No more dreaming. It’s time to do it. PASS 19!

  17. firestarter says:

    Obviously none of you were there. The uprising by the NO people was because Richard Lee would not debate Lanette Davies and Dennis Peron. Lee refused to step onto the stage until they left. Anyone who does that, thwarts the democratic discourse has something to hide. Beware of what you are voting for. It will hurt more people than help. It is not a “Perfect Law” as Lee would have you believe and yes cities right now are planning on instituting permitting processes that will make it impossible for you to grow in your backyard.

  18. claygooding says:

    Apparently firestarter did not read post after post here that PROP 19 was not perfect and the personal issues between Peron and Lee was not reported in the article.
    The shouting and disrupting of the conference was wrong,regardless of the issues.
    And I have never heard anyone claim,Lee included,that the Prop is perfect.
    Please specify the harm and to whom it would occur,don;t come in here chunking spears and not expect return fire.
    The most hurt people by Prop 19 are the WoD spin-off industries and illegal growers and sellers of marijuana.
    And for some reason,I can’t accept that hurting their cash flow is more damaging than continuing to lock people up and ruining their lives one day longer than necessary.

    SEC. 5. Amendment.
    Pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 10 of Article II of the California Constitution, this act may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the people at a statewide election; or by statute validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to further the purposes of the act. Such permitted amendments include, but are not limited to:
    (a) Amendments to the limitations in Section 11300 of the Health and Safety Code, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.

    Only further the purpose of the act. Not restrict!

  19. Duncan20903 says:

    Well what do you know? The zero tolerance goofs let one get away.

    Boy, 3, who brought marijuana to school won’t be prosecuted

  20. Duncan20903 says:

    I’m really hopeful about Prop 19 passing. Today I’m hanging my hat on the undecideds in the polls. Evidently the professional pollsters think that it’s rather unusual to have such a large quantity of undecided this close to Election day. Cobbling that together with another report that found significantly higher support for Prop 19s passage when an automaton asked the questions than when a real person did. IIRC I believe the latter was posted by Pete and I read it here. So I’m speculating that a not insignificant percentage of the voters are in favor of Prop 19 passing but scared to get put on ‘the list.’ So they report undecided when answering the poll’s questions even though there is no doubt they will vote to approve. I admit, this is speculation based on the barest minimum of facts.

    My 33 years of observation of the players on the opposite side of the war on (some) drugs leads me to believe that reporting ‘undecided’ because of a fear of getting busted is very consistent with pothead behavior.

    darkcycle I had a epiphany in 2007 when the entire economy damn near collapsed. That black swan event made me realize that I had to quit being a Libertarian. The Libs would have let the country’s economy collapse if they were running the government. This coming Election day I will cease being the only citizen of the US to have voted a straight Libertarian ticket in every election in which I had the opportunity. If the Libs didn’t have a candidate I filled the write in space with ‘Libertarian.’ Also I was really annoyed by the thought that health care should be denied to anyone. My main worry about going to a single payer system is that it wouldn’t shock me to hear that urine testing is mandatory and those with unapproved metabolites in their pee-pee will be told ‘tough luck.’ Oh well, so I was conservative when I was young and that proves that I have no heart. Much later in life I’ve hopped over to being a liberal, which proves that I have no brain. Ah well, they don’t call me Wrong Way Wilson for nothing.

  21. Duncan20903 says:

    Marcus Breton weighs in with an op-ed filled with hysterical rhetoric:

    “Pot people are in denial about Prop 19”

    I do believe that’s the first time I’ve ever heard the phrase ‘pot people.’ Frankly, I think I kind of like it.

  22. claygooding says:

    Wrong Way was my cb handle when I was driving trucks otr
    for 40 years. (and yes,occasionally stoned,not ripped but

  23. Duncan20903 says:

    More madness from the propaganda machine.

    I can hardly wait until they link ax murders to cannabis use.

  24. Propaganda about marijuana?? You’ve got to be kidding. We’ve known that marijuana causes very severe psychological problems (“inanity”) since this fact was first established by Harry Anslinger in the 1930’s. Here’s all the proof of the brain damaging effects of marijuana that we should ever need:

  25. Propaganda about marijuana?? You’ve got to be kidding. We’ve known that marijuana causes very severe psychological problems (“inanity”) since this fact was first established by Harry Anslinger in the 1930’s.

  26. maaahdness says:

    Concerned, please tell me you’re a Poe. Because you cannot be fucking serious here. Harry Anslinger was a political opportunist who cooked up absolute lies about marijuana, attributing the actions of schizophrenics, who were ill probably before they even knew what weed was, to marijuana, and using the public’s racism to stoke fears of how it filled black men with the all-consuming desire to rape white women. Reefer Madness is not a documentary.

  27. firestarter says:

    claygooding. As I said, Obviously you weren’t there. Lee did say it was the “perfect law”. The legislature will not amend the law they way you hope they will. They never do. You are giving too much away to the local governments. I guess you’ll find out when 19 passes and the cities start to opt out, the people in jail aren’t let out and then even more people enter the system because 19 is abused by law enforcement and the cities.
    Obviously you don’t know how to interpret what you read either.

  28. firestarter says:

    This is the debate Richard Lee doesn’t want you to see. He refused to debate if Lanette Davies was on the panel. He had her kicked off at the International Hemp Expo Sept. 25, before he took the stage.

    When a man is afraid of democratic discourse there is something wrong. This is what the No people were ticked off about.

Comments are closed.