This is where 2nd amendment remedies come into play. Governments that think they can crush the will of the people eventually find that they are not the government
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Vote YES or NO on Prop 19
- Thread starter Feb2006er
- Start date
- Status
This is where 2nd amendment remedies come into play. Governments that think they can crush the will of the people eventually find that they are not the government
I hope it is a vin diagram of the advantages and dis advantages of legalization and then another one of with a comparison of alcohol, and tobacco deaths vs. pot deaths. then a list of successful business people that smoke weed. then a list of propaganda made up by the government that has been disproved.
reversing the demonetization of pot is key. also just as important is disproving the whole gateway drug bs.
reversing the demonetization of pot is key. also just as important is disproving the whole gateway drug bs.
BigBudBill
Active member
Every time.This is where 2nd amendment remedies come into play. Governments that think they can crush the will of the people eventually find that they are not the government
Does Obama Support Legal Pot or Not?
cannabis California -- The Obama administration publicly opposes Proposition 19, the California ballot measure that would legalize pot. But the White House, perhaps fearful of angering the already frustrated Democratic base, is being conspicuously careful not to draw too much attention to its own stance on the issue.
Attorney General Eric Holder went on the record earlier this month in a letter to former chiefs of the Drug Enforcement Administation saying that the Department of Justice "strongly opposes" Proposition 19. And drug czar Gil Kerlikowske was in the state last week criticizing the measure. But as far as the administration's active opposition to the measure goes, that's about it.
"It seems like they feel compelled to shake their finger at California. [But] they haven't been super forceful," Tom Angell, spokesman for the group "Yes on 19," tells Salon.
There has been speculation that Proposition 19's presence on the ballot will promote turnout among progressive voters, helping California Democrats -- even though statewide candidates Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown, like the Obama administration, oppose Proposition 19. That theory could explain why the White House is not eager to talk about its stance on the issue.
When Salon contacted the White House, a spokesman repeatedly declined to criticize the initiative, instead referring all inquiries to the Justice Department. A DOJ spokeswoman referred us to Holder's letter on the issue. And when we called the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (led by the drug czar, Kerlikowske), a spokesman was careful to point out that Kerlikowske went to California last week only after he was invited there by a local group. That's a distinction without a difference, but it's another sign that the administration is not eager to broadcast its opposition to the measure.
Angell, the Yes on 19 official, characterizes the administration's opposition as lukewarm. He points to a plea from a group of former DEA administrators, who, in the event Proposition 19 passes, want the federal government to sue California, asserting the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. (This is what the administation did in the case of Arizona's immigration law.) In his response letter, Holder pledged that federal drug law would be "vigorously enforced" and that the DOJ was mulling its legal options in case the initiative passes. But, Angell notes, Holder fell short of promising to sue California over the measure.
As for the president himself, he has not commented publicly. When asked about the measure at an MTV youth forum earlier this month, he seemed to play down the idea of prosecuting people for possession of small quantities of drugs:
QUESTIONER: So my question for you is this: When Arizona passed a law, the Justice Department said it infringed upon their jurisdiction and struck it down. However, when California passed the legalization of marijuana, an issue with drugs -- which also ties into federal policy -- the federal government said that they would stay out of the way. How do you reconcile those two things, particularly how they relate to the border and the security of our country?
OBAMA: Well, let me first of all be clear. When it comes to our approach to federal drug enforcement, we take federal drug enforcement extraordinarily seriously, spend a lot of money on it. But obviously we have to figure out who is it that we're going after, because we've got limited resources. And so decisions that are made by the Justice Department or the FBI about prosecuting drug kingpins versus somebody with some small amount in terms of possession, those decisions are made based on how can we best enforce the laws that are on the books.
Support for Proposition 19, meanwhile, has in recent weeks been rapidly losing support in the polls after months of maintaining a small lead. It would be supremely ironic -- and would suit the Obama administration just fine -- if supporters help propel anti-Proposition 19 Democrats to victory in California, even as the measure itself falls.
Justin Elliott is a Salon reporter.
Source: Salon (US Web)
Author: Justin Elliott
cannabis California -- The Obama administration publicly opposes Proposition 19, the California ballot measure that would legalize pot. But the White House, perhaps fearful of angering the already frustrated Democratic base, is being conspicuously careful not to draw too much attention to its own stance on the issue.
Attorney General Eric Holder went on the record earlier this month in a letter to former chiefs of the Drug Enforcement Administation saying that the Department of Justice "strongly opposes" Proposition 19. And drug czar Gil Kerlikowske was in the state last week criticizing the measure. But as far as the administration's active opposition to the measure goes, that's about it.
"It seems like they feel compelled to shake their finger at California. [But] they haven't been super forceful," Tom Angell, spokesman for the group "Yes on 19," tells Salon.
There has been speculation that Proposition 19's presence on the ballot will promote turnout among progressive voters, helping California Democrats -- even though statewide candidates Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown, like the Obama administration, oppose Proposition 19. That theory could explain why the White House is not eager to talk about its stance on the issue.
When Salon contacted the White House, a spokesman repeatedly declined to criticize the initiative, instead referring all inquiries to the Justice Department. A DOJ spokeswoman referred us to Holder's letter on the issue. And when we called the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (led by the drug czar, Kerlikowske), a spokesman was careful to point out that Kerlikowske went to California last week only after he was invited there by a local group. That's a distinction without a difference, but it's another sign that the administration is not eager to broadcast its opposition to the measure.
Angell, the Yes on 19 official, characterizes the administration's opposition as lukewarm. He points to a plea from a group of former DEA administrators, who, in the event Proposition 19 passes, want the federal government to sue California, asserting the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. (This is what the administation did in the case of Arizona's immigration law.) In his response letter, Holder pledged that federal drug law would be "vigorously enforced" and that the DOJ was mulling its legal options in case the initiative passes. But, Angell notes, Holder fell short of promising to sue California over the measure.
As for the president himself, he has not commented publicly. When asked about the measure at an MTV youth forum earlier this month, he seemed to play down the idea of prosecuting people for possession of small quantities of drugs:
QUESTIONER: So my question for you is this: When Arizona passed a law, the Justice Department said it infringed upon their jurisdiction and struck it down. However, when California passed the legalization of marijuana, an issue with drugs -- which also ties into federal policy -- the federal government said that they would stay out of the way. How do you reconcile those two things, particularly how they relate to the border and the security of our country?
OBAMA: Well, let me first of all be clear. When it comes to our approach to federal drug enforcement, we take federal drug enforcement extraordinarily seriously, spend a lot of money on it. But obviously we have to figure out who is it that we're going after, because we've got limited resources. And so decisions that are made by the Justice Department or the FBI about prosecuting drug kingpins versus somebody with some small amount in terms of possession, those decisions are made based on how can we best enforce the laws that are on the books.
Support for Proposition 19, meanwhile, has in recent weeks been rapidly losing support in the polls after months of maintaining a small lead. It would be supremely ironic -- and would suit the Obama administration just fine -- if supporters help propel anti-Proposition 19 Democrats to victory in California, even as the measure itself falls.
Justin Elliott is a Salon reporter.
Source: Salon (US Web)
Author: Justin Elliott
The Prop 19 Paper Chase
cannabis California -- The supporters of Prop 19 tout the measure as a saving grace for California and a civilized gesture of republican responsibility that will draw marijuana out of the shadows and into the state-controlled light of day. Legalizing the cultivation, sale and limited possession of marijuana would, they argue, lessen the financial burden on the state's judicial and penal systems and raise sorely needed funds through taxation (not to mention that it would weaken the ill-conceived "war on drugs," which devastates lives with lopsided force along lines of class and race). There's just one little catch: even if Prop 19 passes, marijuana cultivation, possession and sale will still be illegal according to the federal Controlled Substances Act.
In 2009 the Justice Department signaled that it would turn a blind eye to state-compliant medicinal marijuana operations, but Attorney General Eric Holder recently made it clear that activities related to recreational marijuana will continue to be prosecuted. As Holder put it in an October 13 letter to a group of former heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration, who requested that the federal government take legal action to void Prop 19, "We will vigorously enforce the [Controlled Substances Act] against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law."
Could the Justice Department nullify all the potential boons of Prop 19? No, says Stephen Gutwillig, California director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "The reality is that the federal government has neither the resources nor the political will to undertake sole—or even primary—enforcement responsibility for low-level marijuana offenses in California," he wrote recently. In other words, without assistance from state and local law enforcement, the Justice Department doesn't have the means to follow through on Holder's pledge. That might be why Los Angeles County sheriff Lee Baca recently promised to help the feds by continuing to enforce prohibition laws even if Prop 19 passes. Baca's October 15 announcement may also have been motivated in part by politics, and it seems to have had an effect. Poll numbers on Prop 19, which had been showing support consistently ahead of opposition in recent months, suddenly began shifting in the negative direction.
In a conversation with The Nation, Hanna Dershowitz, attorney for the University of Southern California's Institute for Creative Technologies and a Prop 19 advocate, called Baca's statement "alarming and disturbing," and argued that a California court would not accept a charge from his department unless it violated state or local law. "That an officer of the law would state affirmatively that he's going to choose which laws he wants to enforce... that's not his job, and that's not his right," Dershowitz said.
San Francisco-based defense attorney Zenia Gilg made a similar argument, citing People v. Tilehkooh, a California Court of Appeals case in which the court ruled that a probationer who faced a violation-of-probation charge for possessing state-sanctioned medicinal marijuana could not be convicted "because a state judge is not responsible for enforcing federal law," Gilg told The Nation.
Baca, of course, doesn't think he would have a tough time prosecuting Prop 19 cases. He believes the federal government will file a successful civil suit arguing that Prop 19 comes into a "positive conflict" with federal law, which means that the state law and the federal law cannot coexist without contradicting one another. (According to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, when these conflicts crop up, the federal law cannot be limited.)
Gutwillig, Dershowitz and Gilg all told me that they don't think state legalization of personal consumption would conflict with federal law, since the feds could still attempt to police consumption on their own. Prop 19 might run into trouble, however, when counties attempt to regulate and tax the pot economy. County bureaucrats who try to issue cultivation and distribution licenses, and city councils that try to tax marijuana sales, could arguably be creating a "positive conflict" between local and federal law. The day after Prop 19 passes, Gilg explains, Holder could stroll into a California court, file a suit against the state and ask the court to "enjoin" the enactment, which would suspend the measure's provisions until the conflict is resolved.
In his letter to former DEA officials, Holder made no explicit mention of Justice Department plans to pursue such litigation. But even if he did file suit, the court would suspend Prop 19 immediately only if it thought that Holder had a good chance of winning. Otherwise, California could reap the benefits of a legalized pot economy during the protracted legal battle.
Dershowitz believes the court would not suspend the proposition because, she argues, the political will is just not there. But Gilg speculates that the prospect of a recreational-use economy might be enough to spur the federal government to action. She also points out that she "still sees the feds prosecuting medical marijuana cases."
Ever since California became the first state to legalize medical marijuana use in 1996, facilities and patients who comply with state law nonetheless have run into trouble with the federal government. (Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have since legalized medical marijuana, and three more are considering the issue this fall.) The closest the Supreme Court ever came to a resolution regarding federal power on this issue came in 2005, when the Rehnquist court decided the case of two patients: Diane Monson, whose home was raided by federal drug enforcement agents, and Angel Raich. Even though no money ever changed hands—Monson grew her own plants, and Raich got her pot gratis from two caregivers—the Court decided that the federal government could still deem the state-sanctioned use of medical marijuana illegal according to its own laws. It did not, however, determine whether the Controlled Substances Act would nullify state provisions for the medical marijuana industry. In other words, the Court told California that it could not keep federal agents from enforcing federal law, but it quietly passed over the issue of whether federal law would quash the state-sanctioned system for regulating medical marijuana. There's no way to know how the Roberts Court would rule if Holder files a case against Prop 19, or whether the justices would even want to hear the case.
Meanwhile, a number of California cities—including Stockton, Berkeley, Sacramento, San Jose, Long Beach and Oakland—have already put measures on the ballot to set taxes for marijuana sales should Prop 19 pass. In a very Madisonian tone, Lori Ann Farrell, director of finance for the City of Long Beach, explains her support for a measure that will put a 15 percent tax on local businesses that sell recreational marijuana and a $25 per square foot tax on cultivation sites: "We can't control statewide what the result will be, but we can control how we handle that result." Ignacio De La Fuente, president of the Oakland City Council, put a measure on the ballot that would raise the tax on medicinal marijuana and create a tax for recreational marijuana. "I have to deal with the local issues and let the federal government do whatever they're going to do," he told The Nation.
Dershowitz is confident that other counties will quickly follow suit. Even if they do not, Gilg points out, Prop 19 would protect shipments between counties where the pot economy is legal. Likewise, Gutwillig does not foresee a chaotic road ahead. "There may be bad actors who jump into the gray zones during the transition," he conceded, "but the implementation itself is going to be quite deliberate."
States have long served as "laboratories of democracy," and this fall Californians have a historic opportunity to embark on an experiment that will ultimately benefit all Americans, pot smokers and abstainers alike. As Prop 19 supporters grapple with the prospect of legal challenges to the law, they should bear in mind that the specter of the Supremacy Clause is no reason to stay home on November 2. The proposal to legalize marijuana in California may be drawing out the tension between our federal and state governments, but this is a tension our noble republic was designed to sustain.
Source: Nation, The (US)
Author: Neima Jahromi
cannabis California -- The supporters of Prop 19 tout the measure as a saving grace for California and a civilized gesture of republican responsibility that will draw marijuana out of the shadows and into the state-controlled light of day. Legalizing the cultivation, sale and limited possession of marijuana would, they argue, lessen the financial burden on the state's judicial and penal systems and raise sorely needed funds through taxation (not to mention that it would weaken the ill-conceived "war on drugs," which devastates lives with lopsided force along lines of class and race). There's just one little catch: even if Prop 19 passes, marijuana cultivation, possession and sale will still be illegal according to the federal Controlled Substances Act.
In 2009 the Justice Department signaled that it would turn a blind eye to state-compliant medicinal marijuana operations, but Attorney General Eric Holder recently made it clear that activities related to recreational marijuana will continue to be prosecuted. As Holder put it in an October 13 letter to a group of former heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration, who requested that the federal government take legal action to void Prop 19, "We will vigorously enforce the [Controlled Substances Act] against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law."
Could the Justice Department nullify all the potential boons of Prop 19? No, says Stephen Gutwillig, California director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "The reality is that the federal government has neither the resources nor the political will to undertake sole—or even primary—enforcement responsibility for low-level marijuana offenses in California," he wrote recently. In other words, without assistance from state and local law enforcement, the Justice Department doesn't have the means to follow through on Holder's pledge. That might be why Los Angeles County sheriff Lee Baca recently promised to help the feds by continuing to enforce prohibition laws even if Prop 19 passes. Baca's October 15 announcement may also have been motivated in part by politics, and it seems to have had an effect. Poll numbers on Prop 19, which had been showing support consistently ahead of opposition in recent months, suddenly began shifting in the negative direction.
In a conversation with The Nation, Hanna Dershowitz, attorney for the University of Southern California's Institute for Creative Technologies and a Prop 19 advocate, called Baca's statement "alarming and disturbing," and argued that a California court would not accept a charge from his department unless it violated state or local law. "That an officer of the law would state affirmatively that he's going to choose which laws he wants to enforce... that's not his job, and that's not his right," Dershowitz said.
San Francisco-based defense attorney Zenia Gilg made a similar argument, citing People v. Tilehkooh, a California Court of Appeals case in which the court ruled that a probationer who faced a violation-of-probation charge for possessing state-sanctioned medicinal marijuana could not be convicted "because a state judge is not responsible for enforcing federal law," Gilg told The Nation.
Baca, of course, doesn't think he would have a tough time prosecuting Prop 19 cases. He believes the federal government will file a successful civil suit arguing that Prop 19 comes into a "positive conflict" with federal law, which means that the state law and the federal law cannot coexist without contradicting one another. (According to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, when these conflicts crop up, the federal law cannot be limited.)
Gutwillig, Dershowitz and Gilg all told me that they don't think state legalization of personal consumption would conflict with federal law, since the feds could still attempt to police consumption on their own. Prop 19 might run into trouble, however, when counties attempt to regulate and tax the pot economy. County bureaucrats who try to issue cultivation and distribution licenses, and city councils that try to tax marijuana sales, could arguably be creating a "positive conflict" between local and federal law. The day after Prop 19 passes, Gilg explains, Holder could stroll into a California court, file a suit against the state and ask the court to "enjoin" the enactment, which would suspend the measure's provisions until the conflict is resolved.
In his letter to former DEA officials, Holder made no explicit mention of Justice Department plans to pursue such litigation. But even if he did file suit, the court would suspend Prop 19 immediately only if it thought that Holder had a good chance of winning. Otherwise, California could reap the benefits of a legalized pot economy during the protracted legal battle.
Dershowitz believes the court would not suspend the proposition because, she argues, the political will is just not there. But Gilg speculates that the prospect of a recreational-use economy might be enough to spur the federal government to action. She also points out that she "still sees the feds prosecuting medical marijuana cases."
Ever since California became the first state to legalize medical marijuana use in 1996, facilities and patients who comply with state law nonetheless have run into trouble with the federal government. (Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have since legalized medical marijuana, and three more are considering the issue this fall.) The closest the Supreme Court ever came to a resolution regarding federal power on this issue came in 2005, when the Rehnquist court decided the case of two patients: Diane Monson, whose home was raided by federal drug enforcement agents, and Angel Raich. Even though no money ever changed hands—Monson grew her own plants, and Raich got her pot gratis from two caregivers—the Court decided that the federal government could still deem the state-sanctioned use of medical marijuana illegal according to its own laws. It did not, however, determine whether the Controlled Substances Act would nullify state provisions for the medical marijuana industry. In other words, the Court told California that it could not keep federal agents from enforcing federal law, but it quietly passed over the issue of whether federal law would quash the state-sanctioned system for regulating medical marijuana. There's no way to know how the Roberts Court would rule if Holder files a case against Prop 19, or whether the justices would even want to hear the case.
Meanwhile, a number of California cities—including Stockton, Berkeley, Sacramento, San Jose, Long Beach and Oakland—have already put measures on the ballot to set taxes for marijuana sales should Prop 19 pass. In a very Madisonian tone, Lori Ann Farrell, director of finance for the City of Long Beach, explains her support for a measure that will put a 15 percent tax on local businesses that sell recreational marijuana and a $25 per square foot tax on cultivation sites: "We can't control statewide what the result will be, but we can control how we handle that result." Ignacio De La Fuente, president of the Oakland City Council, put a measure on the ballot that would raise the tax on medicinal marijuana and create a tax for recreational marijuana. "I have to deal with the local issues and let the federal government do whatever they're going to do," he told The Nation.
Dershowitz is confident that other counties will quickly follow suit. Even if they do not, Gilg points out, Prop 19 would protect shipments between counties where the pot economy is legal. Likewise, Gutwillig does not foresee a chaotic road ahead. "There may be bad actors who jump into the gray zones during the transition," he conceded, "but the implementation itself is going to be quite deliberate."
States have long served as "laboratories of democracy," and this fall Californians have a historic opportunity to embark on an experiment that will ultimately benefit all Americans, pot smokers and abstainers alike. As Prop 19 supporters grapple with the prospect of legal challenges to the law, they should bear in mind that the specter of the Supremacy Clause is no reason to stay home on November 2. The proposal to legalize marijuana in California may be drawing out the tension between our federal and state governments, but this is a tension our noble republic was designed to sustain.
Source: Nation, The (US)
Author: Neima Jahromi
G
Ganja D
Judgment day cometh soon.
Gallup: National MJ Support New High
Gallup: National MJ Support New High
Gallup registers highest ever support for marijuana legalization nationwide
By "Radical" Russ Belville
46% support legalization, 50% oppose, 4% undecided
I’m more excited about the 50% oppose number than the 46% support number. We’ve reached a point where only half of Americans nationwide believe pot smokers are criminals.
And that tells me that the time of medical marijuana as the marijuana reform issue has reached its zenith. The people who always supported medical marijuana are still there, but the fence-sitters we convinced with compassion are feeling bamboozled when they see opposition’s videos of Venice Beach pot docs.
In 2005, support for marijuana legalization was 36% and the support for medical marijuana was 78%. I think it is safe to assume everybody who supports legalization supports medical. That gives us 42% of medical supporters who support pot for sick people, but not healthy people. Now the numbers are 46% and 70%, respectively, giving us 24% who only support medical, which means medical-only support has dropped 18 percentage points!
I think some people are tired of having their leg peed on...
Gallup: National MJ Support New High
Gallup registers highest ever support for marijuana legalization nationwide
By "Radical" Russ Belville
46% support legalization, 50% oppose, 4% undecided
I’m more excited about the 50% oppose number than the 46% support number. We’ve reached a point where only half of Americans nationwide believe pot smokers are criminals.
And that tells me that the time of medical marijuana as the marijuana reform issue has reached its zenith. The people who always supported medical marijuana are still there, but the fence-sitters we convinced with compassion are feeling bamboozled when they see opposition’s videos of Venice Beach pot docs.
In 2005, support for marijuana legalization was 36% and the support for medical marijuana was 78%. I think it is safe to assume everybody who supports legalization supports medical. That gives us 42% of medical supporters who support pot for sick people, but not healthy people. Now the numbers are 46% and 70%, respectively, giving us 24% who only support medical, which means medical-only support has dropped 18 percentage points!
I think some people are tired of having their leg peed on...
Political Leanings, Age Divide Americans’ Support for Legalizing Marijuana
Across numerous subgroups, liberals’ support, at 72%, is by far the highest. There is widespread support for legalization among 18- to 29-year-olds (61%) as well.
Majority support is also found among Democrats, independents, men, and political moderates.
A large majority of those living in the West, which encompasses California, are in favor of making the drug legal. Support is significantly lower in the South and Midwest.
Political conservatives and Republicans are the least supportive of legalizing marijuana. Seniors express a similarly low level of support.
Women are 10 percentage points less likely than men to favor legalizing the drug.
Not just liberal Democrats support legalization; we've now convinced the moderate Independents.
.
I agree with you but you have to admit we have come a long way...no denying that. 10 years ago 75% were against and now its 50%...were winning...slowly but surely.
Not sure what your saying here.
LA Sheriff’s desperate attempt to scare Prop 19 voters
By "Radical" Russ Belville
Because when an adult buys marijuana that costs $300 ounce, he wants to waste it by putting it in Halloween candies for kids.
Wouldn’t that be marijuana dispensaries where children are not allowed?
That’s certainly a wise idea, but how do you know the treats have cannabis in them without trying them?
By "Radical" Russ Belville
Because when an adult buys marijuana that costs $300 ounce, he wants to waste it by putting it in Halloween candies for kids.
Wouldn’t that be marijuana dispensaries where children are not allowed?
I’m sure the timing is purely coincidental.
That’s certainly a wise idea, but how do you know the treats have cannabis in them without trying them?
Just because it has never happened in the past in Los Angeles or anywhere else in the nation doesn’t mean that Sheriff Baca can’t pretend that it might happen in an effort to scare you.
B
Ben Tokin
If prop 19 passes, when would it actually take effect? I haven't seen that explained.
Should it pass, it will benefit minorities to a greater extent than others. I think that's important and it would have a positive effect on the relationship between us and leo. The decrease in perceived crime and actual crime would benefit all. A lot of crimes, including many non-drug related crimes, are directly related to prohibition. The prohibition effects of alcohol and cannabis are strikingly similar, yet these fools we continue to elect refuse to address it.
Should prop 19 fail, the exercise of prohibition education associated with it will echo louder and louder as we continue to watch the failure of prohibition unfold. More drug related crimes, more murders, more police brutality, more lives destroyed and more criminals getting wealthier and paying off politicians. It will only get uglier for government and leo. It will only draw more attention from voters.
Should it pass, it will benefit minorities to a greater extent than others. I think that's important and it would have a positive effect on the relationship between us and leo. The decrease in perceived crime and actual crime would benefit all. A lot of crimes, including many non-drug related crimes, are directly related to prohibition. The prohibition effects of alcohol and cannabis are strikingly similar, yet these fools we continue to elect refuse to address it.
Should prop 19 fail, the exercise of prohibition education associated with it will echo louder and louder as we continue to watch the failure of prohibition unfold. More drug related crimes, more murders, more police brutality, more lives destroyed and more criminals getting wealthier and paying off politicians. It will only get uglier for government and leo. It will only draw more attention from voters.
B
Ben Tokin
Has anyone noticed that the word "prohibition" associated with cannabis has only recently taken off with the advent of prop 19?
no...been saying that word for years
one day hopefully it will only be in past tense.
Chronic Future
Member
Immeditely
agreed. why the fuck does anybody think they have the right to tell me what to do with my own body in the usa? it is because they are conrtol freak assholes is why.
Can the federal courts overturn it? if so, how long would it take? And if that happens does it then go to the supreme court or ...?
- Status
