California to vote on full legalization of marijuana

[Balta1701]

Unless someone forged one Hell of a lot of signatures (getting it on the ballot requires 483,000 and they submitted 750,000), a marijuana legalization initiative is going to be on California's election ballot this November.

If approved by voters, the measure would legalize personal possession of up to an ounce of cannabis, and would permit up to 25 square feet of cultivation per home. It also would let local governments choose whether to allow commercial cultivation and retail sales of up to an ounce at a time, likely creating a patchwork of "wet" and "dry" cities and counties.

[Jenksismyhero]

about time. tax the piss out of this and BOOM, budget problem solved.

[lostfan]

about time. tax the piss out of this and BOOM, budget problem solved.

I don't know about solved, but as a practical matter it's a huge waste of money and just makes no logical sense to keep illegal.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Won't federal drugs laws still be an issue for Californians?

[lostfan]

Won't federal drugs laws still be an issue for Californians?

This administration's DOJ won't make it an issue but a future administration (i.e. a Republican one who doesn't believe in legalization) might.

[Chisoxfn]

Seriously, this is what people waste their time on.

[farmteam]

I don't know if I'd call it wasting, when it could be a huge money maker, and is absolutely ridiculous that it's illegal.

[Chisoxfn]

I don't know if I'd call it wasting, when it could be a huge money maker, and is absolutely ridiculous that it's illegal.

I can see it raising money, but I also see all kinds of lawsuits going on within the courts if it did go through.

 

I understand legalizing it means you generate taxes on it, but at the same time, I'm not a proponent of turning the US into Amsterdam.

 

Also, once it is legal, prices will come crashing down, so how much are you really going to be saving in taxes? People will be able to grow the s*** themselves for pete sakes, they'll buy the seeds for dirt cheap and get taxed on that.

[Nyx81]

Make it so growers would have to buy a permit to grow. The permit could cost X amount of dollars. Annual renewal fee? People would pay...

[NorthSideSox72]

Won't federal drugs laws still be an issue for Californians?

The federal stamp tax still exists, as do federal laws that make certain drug activity federal offenses.

 

[StrangeSox]

Seriously, this is what people waste their time on.

 

Why do we, as a country, waste our time outlawing a plant?

[kapkomet]

Why do we, as a country, waste our time outlawing a plant?

 

 

Because it promotes liberalism thinking?

 

I kid, I kid.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I can see it raising money, but I also see all kinds of lawsuits going on within the courts if it did go through.

 

I understand legalizing it means you generate taxes on it, but at the same time, I'm not a proponent of turning the US into Amsterdam.

 

Also, once it is legal, prices will come crashing down, so how much are you really going to be saving in taxes? People will be able to grow the s*** themselves for pete sakes, they'll buy the seeds for dirt cheap and get taxed on that.

 

That's why we're just looking to turn your state into Amsterdam.

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

about time. tax the piss out of this and BOOM, budget problem solved.

 

That is one impressive tax if you can generate a trillion and a half dollars out of three hundred million people.

[FlaSoxxJim]

That is one impressive tax if you can generate a trillion and a half dollars out of three hundred million people.

 

I'm assuming he was focused more on California's state budget. issues. This could certainly aid matters there.

[GoodAsGould]

It does make a lot of sense to legalize, would save money from not having to make arrests over it etc. and could tax it like cigarettes/alcohol. Still be in debt but definitely a step in the right direction in getting out of it. Also, legalizing a drug that everyone has done is a far step from becoming Amsterdam.

[clyons]

Won't federal drugs laws still be an issue for Californians?

 

Just a guess, but maybe the federal laws wouldn't apply unless the stuff moved across state lines? After all, it took a constitutional amendment for the prohibition of alcohol to apply to the nation as a matter of federal law.

[iamshack]

They key that allows them to get by the federal aspect is to "decriminalize," not "legalize." Marijuana is not "legal" in Amsterdam. It is "decriminalized."

 

This is how you can get away with all sorts of things that are technically in violation of the law, but the penalty is not enforced.

 

They can choose to decriminalize the sale, production and consumption of marijuana in California without really messing with the federal issue whatsoever.

[iWiN4PreP]

I dont think I've met a person away from marijuana (meaning not the sellers) that doesn't mind it being legalized or decriminalized.

[Balta1701]

Just a guess, but maybe the federal laws wouldn't apply unless the stuff moved across state lines? After all, it took a constitutional amendment for the prohibition of alcohol to apply to the nation as a matter of federal law.

Federal laws would absolutely apply. It's all a question of how intensely they're enforced. Every so often the Feds under Bush would arrest a few 70 year old medical marijuana users in every state where that was legal just to make a point.

[iamshack]

Federal laws would absolutely apply. It's all a question of how intensely they're enforced. Every so often the Feds under Bush would arrest a few 70 year old medical marijuana users in every state where that was legal just to make a point.

Federal laws supercede State laws, and even when the two don't directly contradict one another, in areas where the laws occupy the same "field," I believe the Federal law always applies.

 

That being said, the State of California could simply choose not to enforce state legislation regarding marijuana and force the Federal agencies such as the DEA to police the issue. My guess is the DEA would throw a fit at first and make some arrests, but then eventually cool off and realize the resources are simply no longer available to fully enforce the federal laws regarding marijuana in California.

[SoxFan562004]

I think the minimum the government owes us at this point is new hearings on legalizing marijuana. Some of these laws have been around for so long that I think they need review. Let both sides state their cases, there's too much money being spent on enforcement and in the traffic of it without, as far as I can see, many positive results. I'm fully aware there are other illegal narcotics out there and I don't think perfect harmony would break out if weed was legalized, but I think it's at the point where the whole policy has to be reexamined and new laws have to be written.

[clyons]

Federal laws supercede State laws, and even when the two don't directly contradict one another, in areas where the laws occupy the same "field," I believe the Federal law always applies.

 

That being said, the State of California could simply choose not to enforce state legislation regarding marijuana and force the Federal agencies such as the DEA to police the issue. My guess is the DEA would throw a fit at first and make some arrests, but then eventually cool off and realize the resources are simply no longer available to fully enforce the federal laws regarding marijuana in California.

 

Federal laws do trump state laws, of course, but the federal govt. generally lacks authority under the Constitution to regulate a state's internal affairs, including but not limited to, its criminal code and matters of intrastate commerce. Its only where interstate commerce or some other federal interest is involved that the feds can intervene. That's the only reason Congress could prohibit discrimination at Southern lunch counters; i.e., by exercising (some said stretching) its powers under the "Commerce Clause." Again, I believe that's why a Constitutional amendment was necessarry for the prohibition of alcohol on a federal level, even if the sale and manufacture was confined within a state.

 

If California "legalized" marijuana, I don't believe the DEA would have any jurisdiction to make arrests for MJ that was grown and sold wholly within state borders, unless, again, the seeds or equipment used to grow it moved across the state lines in interstate commerce.

 

Its like kidnapping; the FBI only gets involved when an abducted person is moved across state lines. Otherwise, its just a state crime investigated by local police and tried in a state criminal court. Another example is murder; its only outlawed as a federal offense where the federal government has Constitutional authority to criminalize it; i.e., assasination of a president, in the context of a hijacking, on federal propery, etc. Without that connection, its solely a matter of local law and jursidiction.

[kapkomet]

Federal laws would absolutely apply. It's all a question of how intensely they're enforced. Every so often the Feds under Bush would arrest a few 70 year old medical marijuana users in every state where that was legal just to make a point.

 

 

It's crazy! Man, I sooo agree. Everything bad and wrong occured under BUSHIE. That asshole prick has wrecked everything for Obama. In 100 years, it'll still be that asshole George W. Bush. I can't believe how he destroyed the country so and made all the little people bow down to his wishes, just to make points just like the one above! Wow... I just can't believe it. What a dick he was.

 

[GoodAsGould]

It's crazy! Man, I sooo agree. Everything bad and wrong occured under BUSHIE. That asshole prick has wrecked everything for Obama. In 100 years, it'll still be that asshole George W. Bush. I can't believe how he destroyed the country so and made all the little people bow down to his wishes, just to make points just like the one above! Wow... I just can't believe it. What a dick he was.

 

 

He was a poor president, but that post was just stating a fact that he knew happened under the Bush administration. He never even said it was wrong......