California’s Prop 19 Ballot Statements Officially Signed and Delivered

The ballot statements from California’s Tax and Regulate Cannabis voter initiative have been signed by their official “sponsors”, or public supporters, offering conflicting arguments for both sides of the issue. The pro-legalization side is signed by a couple of well-respected but retired law-enforcement officers and the famous anti-prohibitionist, Judge James P. Gray. It is not surprising to learn that these gentlemen are a part of LEAP, and it is also not surprising to see the anti-legalization side signed by the useless and incompetent California senator Dianne Feinstein and Laura Dean-Mooney, National President of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The Drug War Rant has published the full ballot statements.

As expected, the anti-legalization folks have employed the same scare-mongering-tactics that have kept pot illegal for decades, though these arguments are not based on science or fact. As a result, it’s comforting to see the opposing side running out of ammunition, and it’s even more comforting to see policemen’s names signed on the pro-legalization statement to persuade those Americans that consider – for some nonsensical reason – law enforcement’s opinion on the issue to be more important/credible than the scientific/medical community’s opinion.

Perhaps the most annoying aspect of the anti-legalization argument is that the science behind cannabis and its effects on the human body is almost entirely ignored – especially the stuff about driving under the influence of marijuana. The reality is that only a few drugs actually impair motor function, and alcohol is one of those drugs. Just like with caffeine, ADD medication, light pain killers, nicotine, acetaminophen, speed, Xanax, and several other drugs, marijuana usually does not impair one’s driving ability. Yes, I said it. It is possible to be under the influence of drugs while maintaining one’s ability to function perfectly. The concept of “drugged-driving” is as illogical as the concept of a “war on drugs”, and – though this should be obvious to anybody with even a minute amount of common sense – every drug should be studied, discussed, and treated independently of all other drugs. The practice of equating the effects of alcohol to the effects of other drugs on the human body is like equating the effects of radiation to the effects of water on the human body. They are two entirely different things!

Nonetheless, under Prop 19, it is technically illegal to drive under the influence of marijuana, though it will be impossible for cops to enforce this aspect of the law considering the fact that marijuana users (without any other substances in their system) won’t – and currently don’t – swerve on the road. And isn’t that exactly the kind of behavior cops need to see on the streets in order to pull somebody over for driving under the influence?

One more thing: If you live in California, you need to vote Dianne Feinstein out of office the next time she’s up for re-election for opposing legalization and for assisting in the decimation of California’s economy. Fuck that bitch!

Advertisements
Comments
20 Responses to “California’s Prop 19 Ballot Statements Officially Signed and Delivered”
  1. Danielle says:

    “If you live in California, please vote Dianne Feinstein out of office this November for opposing legalization and for assisting in the decimation of California’s economy. Fuck that bitch!”

    Wow.

    She isn’t even up for reelection, Senator Boxer is.

    I may not agree with her position on this, but for me as a citizen, she has been far from useless and incompetent. Instead of getting mad at her, people should be getting mad at all the pot smokers who say they won’t be voting for this measure. It’s a lot more harmful that potential voters are whining about this prop than what her position on it is.

    • Danny Mendez says:

      OK, maybe I was a bit strong. And I assumed she was running for re-election like she usually does… guess I shouldn’t have assumed.

      • Danielle says:

        Nah, she’s in 2012. Some of Congress this year, some 2012, etc. Weird but that’s how they roll

  2. Jennifer Soares says:

    Senator Feinstein’s comments were made almost as if she has not read the initiative or done any research. Pointing out the flaws of Prop 19 is one thing. Using scare tactics that are meritless is quite another. I will be the first to admit that I am against Prop 19. But I have done my research and can point to specific and honest reasons why I have chosen that route. And I fully respect the oppositions reasons for voting the way they will. They have their reasons as well. But Feinstein is making statements that are blatantly false and clearly meant to scare voters into voting no. Her actions are reminiscent of the reefer madness days when propaganda warned people that smoking reefer would make “white women slept with black men.” *gasp* Ballot statements are meant to weigh each side of the Proposition and speak to its pros and cons. Its saddens me that an otherwise competent and intelligent Senator has cheapened the ballot statements with such blatant propaganda.

    • Danielle says:

      So is it worth it to vote against this and let the (very racial) arrests continue? To not even try to get a foundation laid for future improvements?

      To me, it doesn’t seem to matter why you or the Senator oppose it. It will still result in the continuation of complete nonsense.

      • Danny Mendez says:

        I agree. We have a chance to save people’s lives this november, to make sure people go to college, to make sure dads stay out of jail and at home with their kids, to make sure the black-market of drugs collapses so that ghetto kids don’t look up to drug dealers as the ticket out of the ghetto, to prevent the needless searching of people’s homes and putting their dogs in the scope of SWAT teams. We can stop this, but if you vote against Prop 19, you will support everything that I just listed that we could stop.

  3. Jennifer Soares says:

    Prop 19 is not laying a foundation for future improvement. This is a common misconception among Prop 19 proponents. On one hand, proponents say “Vote for Prop 19 because it is the first ballot measure that has made it onto the ballot and we may not get this chance again.” They are saying that because they know how hard it is to get a measure on the ballot and how much it costs. Yet when people come out and refuse to vote for it because it is so poorly written, they say “we can always improve on it in the future.” Those comments contradict each other. It will be as hard to change Prop 19 as it was to get Prop 19 on the ballot, if not harder. Do you have $1.3 million to change it in the future? I don’t. This industry did not come together to put Prop 19 on the ballot. Richard Lee put up the money. And I highly doubt he will put another $1.3 million up to change something that is going to make him a very very rich man.
    Perhaps nonsense will continue if Prop 19 passes. But more nonsense will begin if Prop 19 does pass. Those of us against Prop 19 that are in the industry are (to what I have seen) for recreational legalization. We are also not holding out for a perfectly written law – that is unrealistic. But Prop 19 is so poorly written, it just doesn’t pass muster for many of us. 1 step forward and 10 steps back is still 9 steps backwards. That is not something I am willing to vote for.
    Not to mention, I think it is nonsense that this proposition is going to add new (and unnecessary) crimes. So, perhaps marijuana possession tickets will go down, but there are now new crimes that will get people arrested.

    • Danielle says:

      New crimes? Not ones that don’t already result in arrests. How nice of you and your fellow people in the industry, really. You can keep on doing what you’re doing, but the casual and recreational smokers will be the ones continuing to be arrested, jailed, fined, and fucked.

      Yes, it is laying a foundation. If you can get voters to pass this, they’ll see it’s not the end of the world, and be more open to improvements. And you’re the one contradicting yourself-no, I don’t have 1 million for future propositions-that’s the damn point.

      This is one chance we’re going to have in a looong, loooong time. Is it worth it to let more people’s lives be ruined? Is it? It legalizes private usage for adults. That’s as basic as you’re going to get for maybe another 15 years.

      How sad. You’re basically saying “fuck you” to all the people who have been arrested, are sitting in jail right now, the ones who may never find good work again. Funny how people worry about corporations taking over, when it’s those in the industry right now screwing people over.

      • Jennifer Soares says:

        Changing this proposition in the future WOULD REQUIRE ANOTHER BALLOT MEASURE! That is why I say that it will not be as easy as you think to change Prop 19 in the future. Whether or not people are “open” to changes because they no longer think it is a “big deal” it will still not happen, since we will not have the money to put up another measure.
        As for the people in jail, there is nothing in the measure that will get them out. So the measure is itself thumbing its nose at those people. The arrest rates are not going to go down at all, since the only thing this proposition changes is an offense that is NOT an arrestable offense currently (possession). So all those people in jail, would still be in jail. The only people that will avoid jail for actual arrestable offenses are those that manage to get a cultivation license or a distribution license. And considering those are going to cost around $275,000 (if everywhere else follows Oakland), I doubt a lot of the people currently in jail would have been able to get their hands on one of those. This proposition will not change as much as you seem to think it will. And it will screw more people than you think it will.
        Also, you are sadly mistaken if you think that there are not any new crimes in the law. As of now, there is no crime for smoking in front of a minor. There is also an increase in punishment for passing a joint to someone if they are under 21 and even worse if they are under 18. There is also a DRASTIC increase in the punishment for selling a joint to someone under 21. There is also a NEW punishment for employing someone who is under 21 or under 18 in a recreational cannabis facility.

  4. writerpro25 says:

    Even though I am completely for legalization and myself enjoy driving high immensely, I do think it should be illegal because I know I don’t pay as good attention when I’m high. http://stonerdiary.wordpress.com

  5. Danielle says:

    @Jennifer.

    And I still think this is better than what’s going on right now. Never said people will get out of jail…they’ll have to go through another legal process for that part if it passes. But yes, I do think this will prevent arrests. Since most of em are for possession anyway.

    It ain’t gonna screw any more people that are already being screwed. It’s not just smokers being screwed right now. It’s victims of other common crimes that don’t get the resources because cops are busy with pot. I’ve seen that in action, and it’s disgusting.

    Uh, smoking is a crime in front of a minor right now, considering smoking is illegal in the first place. Parents are already being hauled off for growing as it is. And it’s not that hard to not employ someone under 21. Boohoo. And what’s gonna happen? People will be sitting in their house, pass a joint to a 19 year old, and get busted? …like they would now? I would think most people can do that privately, and won’t face any issues. And don’t sell to those under 21. Like with alcohol. People will still get it, of course, but there’s no problem with that being a punishable offense.

    • Danny Mendez says:

      amen.

    • Jennifer Soares says:

      There are NO arrests for possession in California. It is not an offense for which you can be arrested.

      And there is no crime for smoking it. There is a crime for possession only. Therefore if you are legally in possession (ie: a patient) you are allowed to smoke it, even in front of a minor. Prop 19 is adding a crime for this. I am simply pointing out the new crime.

      I was simply pointing out the new crimes that Prop 19 adds to the books. Whether you think they are a big deal or people just won’t get caught is up to you. Personally, I disagree with many of them. But that is my opinion. Yours is yours.

      Also…the difference between selling to a minor for alcohol and pot is huge – a misdemeanor versus up to 7 years. So its not really comparable to the punishment for alcohol.

      • Danielle says:

        …yes, it is. If you’re lucky, possession of less than ounce will result in a fine, end of story. Although a fine isn’t as easy to deal with for some people as it is for others.

        How are you not in possession if you’re sitting there smoking it? If a cop sees someone smoking, they’re not going to think “oh, I’m sure they don’t have more with them.” This law will not be affecting mmj patients.

        These “new crimes” are not any worse than what’s happening every day, right now. And like I said, pot smokers are NOT the only ones negatively affected by the current state of the law, but I guess that’s not important enough. And all this crying about new crimes is just a mask. It really, really is. Sitting around smoking a joint isn’t going to be any more risky than it is right now, especially for certain groups of people. For those who almost lose financial aid and an education for having weed right now, talk of these new crimes is going to be laughable. They’re already living out what’s criminal right now.

        Then don’t sell to a minor. That’s not difficult. Unless you’re planning to live off selling, in which case your right to sell doesn’t trump a person’s right to smoke/grow without fear of being a criminal. Not to mention the many ways that one could easily get around that. Selling pot to a minor right now is a felony.

  6. Danielle says:

    @Jennifer

    I once saw someone say that some of the indicators were people driving 5-7 miles below the speed limit and sticking very close to the right side of the road. Idk if that’s true or not though.

  7. Danielle says:

    “Danny Mendez says:
    July 19, 2010 at 5:16 pm

    I agree. We have a chance to save people’s lives this november.”

    ^^^^^^^^yes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • All material copyright of The Cannabis Post 2010 unless otherwise stated

    Editor: Joseph Klare (The Pothead Pundit)
  • Pass to your Friends

    Share/Bookmark
  • Blog Stats

    • 81,466 Puffs
%d bloggers like this: