Vote YES or NO on Prop 19

[dagnabit]

i call bullshit. every poll has been in our favor. they must stood outside san diego republican headquarters to conduct this poll

babara boxer's office?

drop the anti conservative speel already bht the libturds are not your friends in this..
they ALL want us under their thumbs.
the right left paradigm is an illusion created to pit us against one another and you seem to have swallowed it.

 

[Ben Tokin]

the msm has been running many scare articles about cannabis. msm is funded with advert revenue from pharm, alcohol, tobacco, energy and other special interests that are threatened by repeal of prohibition. simple greed and lack of concern for the lives and welfare of citizens. you cannot trust the words and images produced by news organizations. they have created an industry of their own, dedicated to mass indoctrination and manipulation. it takes years to know what is real and what is controlled indoctrination.

 

[vta]

CA Pot Legalization Wouldn't Trump Federal Law


cannabis CA -- Even if Californians vote next month to legalize marijuana, possession of the drug will still be a criminal offense under federal law, which trumps state law almost every time under the U.S. Constitution.

But crackdowns on users and small-scale growers could decrease if Californians pass Proposition 19, the ballot measure proposing to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes.

In a statement, a Justice Department spokesman said it was "premature to speculate on what steps we would take" in the event California passes the measure, but that it will continue "to focus its enforcement resources on significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, in all states."

Legal experts say that while large-scale sellers might be of interest to federal authorities, others are unlikely to be a priority.

"Is the government going to put hundreds more DEA agents in northern California to go after cannabis growers?" asked Mark Kleiman, a professor of public policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. "It might, but if there's no state-level enforcement, California would still be the safest place to grow pot."

The federal government could try to use federal tax law to crack down on sale and distribution of marijuana. It might choose that avenue if it decides the California ballot measure runs afoul of international treaties signed by the U.S. that attempt to control the drug trade. That isn't clear.

Another potential problem for federal officials: Legalization in California might make marijuana more available throughout the country, potentially undermining state laws elsewhere. That would put federal authorities "in an incredibly tough spot," said Gerald Uelmen, a professor of criminal law at Santa Clara University.

Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Author: Ashby Jones

 

[vta]

Pot Legalization Measure Fails To Draw Big Money


cannabis San Francisco, CA -- In a state where contentious ballot measures can spawn multi-million-dollar throwdowns, no one for or against California's high-profile marijuana legalization initiative has raised much cash.

Most notably absent are big donations from the thriving medical marijuana industry, a seemingly natural base of support for a measure being sold as a way to raise tax revenue for the cash-strapped state. At the same time, the Yes on 19 campaign has still outraised the No campaign by about 10 to 1.

Supporters of the measure to legalize possession and cultivation of limited amounts of pot for adults had raised $2.1 million as of Tuesday, the latest deadline for campaigns to report their contributions. Nearly three-quarters of the money has come from the businesses of the measure's main backer, Richard Lee, a one-time rock concert lighting technician turned medical marijuana entrepreneur.

About $1.3 million of the Yes campaign's money went toward the signature drive to qualify the measure for the ballot.

Opponents had raised just more than $210,000, much of it from law enforcement sources.

Both sides had about the same amount of cash on hand as of Tuesday: about $54,000 for the No campaign and $67,000 for the Yes campaign.

Ballot measure watchers said initiatives that deal with social issues typically attract less funding than measures that involve major industries such as oil, energy and insurance.

"There's just no economic interest there," said John Matsusaka, president of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California.

The one glaring exception is Proposition 8, the 2008 measure that banned same-sex marriage in the state. Groups for and against the measure spent more than $83 million, a national record for a ballot measure on a social issue.

In the pot debate, both sides have relied on media attention rather than brimming campaign chests to get their messages out. The approach seems to be working.

In a recent Field Poll, 84 percent of respondents said they had heard of Proposition 19, compared to under 40 percent for other major measures on the ballot Nov. 2.

Missing are the big advertising campaigns and media events that generated heat around past ballot measures.

"People have strong feelings about this. They're not easily swayed. TV adverstising doesn't have as big an effect, pro or con," Lee said.

Recent polling does suggest that many likely voters have made up their minds: Fewer than 10 percent of likely voters said they were undecided on Proposition 19, according to the most recent Field and Public Policy Institute of California polls. The measure was ahead in both polls.

Still, supporters are faced with the irony of having little funding for a measure billed as a money-maker for California.

Absent have been contributions from the deep-pocketed donors who underwrote the successful 1996 campaign to pass Proposition 215, which legalized medical marijuana in California.

"The large donors who funded Prop. 215 and traditionally fund the large cannabis reform organizations are all suffering from donor fatigue," opined Steve D'Angelo, founder of Oakland's Harborside Health Center dispensary. "Due to the fluctuations in the overall buisness world, they are watching their money more carefully than they were when Prop. 215 passed."

The single largest donations to the "yes" campaign outside of Lee have come from Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, who has given $70,000. Moskovitz is no longer with the company.

Men's Wearhouse chief executive George Zimmer, a San Francisco Bay area resident who donated heavily to the medical marijuana measure and gives frequently to drug legalization causes, donated $20,000 during the signature drive for Proposition 19. He has given only $500 since.

The measure has also sharply divided the multi-billion-dollar marijuana industry itself.

Medical marijuana dispensaries could lose out if cities allow other retailers to sell the drug. Users would no longer need recommendations from doctors who specialize in medical marijuana to obtain the drug. And illicit growers could see legalized marijuana drive prices into a tailspin.

Lanette Davies, who runs the CannaCare medical marijuana dispensary in Sacramento, said she believes that the ballot measure's provision allowing local governments to regulate the sale of marijuana will lead cities and counties to curb access to marijuana for both recreational and medical use.

In recent years, conflicts have raged between dispensary owners and cities trying to shut down medical marijuana shops. And Davies believes Proposition 19 will give local governments an excuse to ignore the state's medical marijuana law, which she said provides stronger protections for patients.

"It just undermines what we've done so far," she said.

The drafters of Proposition 19 say the measure would have no impact on the rights of medical users under the earlier law.

Opponents of the measure are being heavily outfunded, as they were on some past pro-drug measures.

Nearly half the funding has come from groups that represent law enforcement officers. Other major donors include the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Hospital Association, a Southern California Indian tribe and a state lobbying group for beer distributors.

Campaign spokesman Roger Salazar blames the tepid fundraising in part on higher profile contests such as the race for governor drawing attention and money. He also said some voters inclined to oppose the measure might not give money because they have a hard time imagining the status quo could change.

"People tend to look at it and say, 'Of course it's going to lose, who's going to vote for that?'" Salazar said.

The No campaign has successfully sought out endorsements from newspaper editorial boards statewide, including the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times.

History could also work in the No campaign's favor.

Ballot measure backers must typically spend a lot to convince voters to support change, while opponents can sometimes succeed simply by sowing reasonable doubt, Matsusaka said. "You can vastly outspend your opponent on the pro side and still lose," he said.

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Lisa Leff, The Associated Press

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Lanette Davies, who runs the CannaCare medical marijuana dispensary in Sacramento, said she believes that the ballot measure's provision allowing local governments to regulate the sale of marijuana will lead cities and counties to curb access to marijuana for both recreational and medical use.

So I'm not alone.

That makes me feel a little better.

If I voice concerns, I'm a fear monger.

If I give my opinion, I'm a prohibitionist.

If I were to speak about voting yes, I'd be a patriot.

 

[BigBudBill]

So I'm not alone.

That makes me feel a little better.

If I voice concerns, I'm a fear monger.

If I give my opinion, I'm a prohibitionist.

If I were to speak about voting yes, I'd be a patriot.

No you are not alone...people have concerns.But what about this from the same article:
The drafters of Proposition 19 say the measure would have no impact on the rights of medical users under the earlier law.

Just have to draw the line between healthy concerns and unhealthy spreading of misinformation.

There have been many people debunk mmj access fear. I noticed not a single no made any comment when the Russ from NORML debunked(copied and pasted a day or so ago) this. Many people have debunked it by showing the writing in black and white. But the no-propagandists keep bringing it up like its a valid concern.

I notice that not one "no" will take on either Russ B or Paul Armantano. Not one single point of theirs has been refuted in public(TV) or on this forum.

Any concerns about that? Any concerns that the no side cant handle a public debate in a neutral forum(please dont even much try to insinuate ICMAG fits the bill)? I would be if I were THAT concerned about the vote. It's kind of like a football team not fielding a defense at all. Just something that makes me think a bit. How about you?

 

[Bacchus]

Lanette Davies, who runs the CannaCare medical marijuana dispensary in Sacramento, said she believes that the ballot measure's provision allowing local governments to regulate the sale of marijuana will lead cities and counties to curb access to marijuana for both recreational and medical use.

How can it be anymore restrictive than the current prohabition in place???

 

[Hydrosun]

CA Pot Legalization Wouldn't Trump Federal Law

The federal government could try to use federal tax law to crack down on sale and distribution of marijuana. It might choose that avenue if it decides the California ballot measure runs afoul of international treaties signed by the U.S. that attempt to control the drug trade. That isn't clear.

Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Author: Ashby Jones

The fact that Prop 19 may violate international treaties hasn't been mentioned on ICmag yet as far as I can tell.

This could be a very easy way for the Feds to get prop 19 nullified. No matter what happens Californians should be able to choose for themselves, but it looks like a Federal shit storm is a coming.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

No you are not alone...people have concerns.But what about this from the same article:
The drafters of Proposition 19 say the measure would have no impact on the rights of medical users under the earlier law.

Just have to draw the line between healthy concerns and unhealthy spreading of misinformation.

There have been many people debunk mmj access fear. I noticed not a single no made any comment when the Russ from NORML debunked(copied and pasted a day or so ago) this. Many people have debunked it by showing the writing in black and white. But the no-propagandists keep bringing it up like its a valid concern.

I notice that not one "no" will take on either Russ B or Paul Armantano. Not one single point of theirs has been refuted in public(TV) or on this forum.

Any concerns about that? Any concerns that the no side cant handle a public debate in a neutral forum(please dont even much try to insinuate ICMAG fits the bill)? I would be if I were THAT concerned about the vote. It's kind of like a football team not fielding a defense at all. Just something that makes me think a bit. How about you?

If people are concerned about losing medical rights due to this bill, they might be ignorant of what the drafters have said OR they might not believe them... it is written in a foreign language to some.

This forum is most definitely not neutral.

I do think it's down to the "bulletproof" nature of having to pass this bill that I feel may be indicating some fouler play hiding in the legalese... not unlike a baby on the steps of a convent with a hand grenade in the bassinet.

I am not a lawyer, so I wouldn't feel best for the job of debating someone who is actually prepared.

I'm not doing anything more than warning people to dig deeper and research more.

I'd like nothing more to know this bill is completely innocuous.

I'm surely concerned.

I'm also unconvinced.

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

babara boxer's office?

drop the anti conservative speel already bht the libturds are not your friends in this..
they ALL want us under their thumbs.
the right left paradigm is an illusion created to pit us against one another and you seem to have swallowed it.

don't get me fucking started .... iv been the one calling for an end to the 2 party system since I've been eligible to vote .... but it's more than obvious demys are far more in support than repys. not talking about representives,,,, but voters in general. are there conservatives voting pro19? yes...,but there a far more voting against it. BELIEVE THAT

 

[mean mr.mustard]

It is pretty standard to see the GOP voters to show up to the polls just to vote no on everything.

 

[Hydrosun]

are there conservatives voting pro19? yes...,but there a far more voting against it. BELIEVE THAT

As a rule conservatives HATE taxes and regulation so you can understand why not all are sold just because of the small amount of freedom found in prop 19.

You'll probably win the vote in 27 days and we'll see what happens.

 

[kmk420kali]

don't get me fucking started .... iv been the one calling for an end to the 2 party system since I've been eligible to vote .... but it's more than obvious demys are far more in support than repys. not talking about representives,,,, but voters in general. are there conservatives voting pro19? yes...,but there a far more voting against it. BELIEVE THAT

I was thinking about this the other day-- I wonder how many of the GOP voters are like me...registered Republican, because I had to, to vote for Ron Paul in the Primaries...then never changed it--

 

[johnnyla]

the msm has been running many scare articles about cannabis. msm is funded with advert revenue from pharm, alcohol, tobacco, energy and other special interests that are threatened by repeal of prohibition. simple greed and lack of concern for the lives and welfare of citizens. you cannot trust the words and images produced by news organizations. they have created an industry of their own, dedicated to mass indoctrination and manipulation. it takes years to know what is real and what is controlled indoctrination.

they deleted my comments in the comment thread when i pointed out their facts were exaggerated.

 

[johnnyla]

CA Pot Legalization Wouldn't Trump Federal Law


cannabis CA -- Even if Californians vote next month to legalize marijuana, possession of the drug will still be a criminal offense under federal law, which trumps state law almost every time under the U.S. Constitution.

But crackdowns on users and small-scale growers could decrease if Californians pass Proposition 19, the ballot measure proposing to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes.

In a statement, a Justice Department spokesman said it was "premature to speculate on what steps we would take" in the event California passes the measure, but that it will continue "to focus its enforcement resources on significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, in all states."

Legal experts say that while large-scale sellers might be of interest to federal authorities, others are unlikely to be a priority.

"Is the government going to put hundreds more DEA agents in northern California to go after cannabis growers?" asked Mark Kleiman, a professor of public policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. "It might, but if there's no state-level enforcement, California would still be the safest place to grow pot."

The federal government could try to use federal tax law to crack down on sale and distribution of marijuana. It might choose that avenue if it decides the California ballot measure runs afoul of international treaties signed by the U.S. that attempt to control the drug trade. That isn't clear.

Another potential problem for federal officials: Legalization in California might make marijuana more available throughout the country, potentially undermining state laws elsewhere. That would put federal authorities "in an incredibly tough spot," said Gerald Uelmen, a professor of criminal law at Santa Clara University.

Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Author: Ashby Jones

boo hoo. of course it won't be legal overnight even if prop 19 passes. alcohol was legalized state by state to the dismay of the feds. there was a war then like there is now.

also, i disagree. once prop 19 passes, the feds would have to use the commerce clause to gain jurisdiction over marijuana matters that take place intrastate (within the state). FEDS only have jurisdicktion in interstate matters (when commerce crosses a boarder into another state).

YES on 19!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[johnnyla]

If people are concerned about losing medical rights due to this bill, they might be ignorant of what the drafters have said OR they might not believe them... it is written in a foreign language to some.

This forum is most definitely not neutral.

I do think it's down to the "bulletproof" nature of having to pass this bill that I feel may be indicating some fouler play hiding in the legalese... not unlike a baby on the steps of a convent with a hand grenade in the bassinet.

I am not a lawyer, so I wouldn't feel best for the job of debating someone who is actually prepared.

I'm not doing anything more than warning people to dig deeper and research more.

I'd like nothing more to know this bill is completely innocuous.

I'm surely concerned.

I'm also unconvinced.

hey Mustard, are you going to get a real job if prop 19 passes, or are you going to dial your garden in so you don't go out of business from the competition?

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

As a rule conservatives HATE taxes and regulation so you can understand why not all are sold just because of the small amount of freedom found in prop 19.

You'll probably win the vote in 27 days and we'll see what happens.

i really doubt its got shit to do with taxes as it does with keeping that damn devil weed off our streets....

PS::: i got no love for republicans. they are nothing but a mere sham of the word. no "republican" today is a real republican. what ever happend to small government? what ever happend to states rights? shit is so corrupt....its all special interest and big money back door deals. its a fucking shame we cant march on washington with guns like our fore fathers did without looking like terrorists....

 

[Lazyman]

Reuters latest poll shows Prop 19 losing 53-43%, apparently the Republicans are WAY more against it than all the Democrats are FOR it.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CBwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reuters.com%2Farticle%2FidUSTRE6945VJ20101005&rct=j&q=reuters%20prop%2019&ei=tLmsTM3zAZOgsQPBo9inAw&usg=AFQjCNF4U2fyALYjDJ00GVB1kXfz28ZvPA&sig2=4_013yPaU5L-3q6hkHvxvw&cad=rja

 

[delerious]

The fact that Prop 19 may violate international treaties hasn't been mentioned on ICmag yet as far as I can tell.

This could be a very easy way for the Feds to get prop 19 nullified. No matter what happens Californians should be able to choose for themselves, but it looks like a Federal shit storm is a coming.

Wouldn't 215 also violate those international treaties and provide a very easy way for the feds to nullify 215? Last I looked 215 was still a federal violation.

Some other questions - if 19 passes, it looks like local/state law enforcement can't help the feds legally. Would the same restrictions apply to those doing business in the state - for example, the electric company giving your consumption info to the feds?

Without seeing these treaties, it's hard for me to figure out why 19 would run afoul while 215 wouldn't - if there's an exception for 'medical' use, then why would they be going after 215 users now? If 19 can be nullified because of international treaties, do you think a bill that had no restrictions at all would have a chance in hell?

As for me, yes on 19 AND yes on any better bill that may come along later. The opposition will try to get any bill , whether it's 19 or something better, overturned in court. It's a fight now and it'll continue to be a fight each time you try to get better laws. The opposition would probably like it if people decided to give up and accept what they have instead of asking for more and once they get complacent, the opposition will start trying to pick apart what you do have (not all at once, but in bits and pieces).

 

[Throwgar]

It wouldn't surprise me if the 19/215 debackle originated from the 'NO' side. Spread fear and misinformation, same old same old.