California’s Prop 19: A Word-for-Word Analysis

I’ve spent the weekend reading various blogs that have sprouted up in opposition to Proposition 19, California’s effort to legalize marijuana this November.  These “Stoners Against Legalization” blogs confound me; they remind me of Sam Kinison’s line comparing “Rock Against Drugs” to “Christians Against Christ”.

Some of these blogs are based on the notion that legalization would be worse than “what we have now”.  The assumption there is that if you smoke marijuana in California, you must already have your Prop 215 recommendation from a doctor, and you’d be losing your rights under Prop 19.

Most marijuana smokers, believe it or not, are healthy and aren’t comfortable spending money for a doctor to give them permission to use cannabis.  Currently we face a ticket, fine, and misdemeanor drug conviction record for possession an ounce or less of cannabis.  That record prevents us from getting student aid and can cost us our jobs, child custody, and housing, or if we’re on probation, our freedom.  (Even if California succeeds at downgrading possession to an infraction from a misdemeanor, a $100 ticket is a lot of money to some people!)  We face a felony charge if we grow even one plant at home.  For us, Prop 19 is much better than “what we have now”.

Another thing that appears in some of these blogs is outright misinformation, such as talk of a $50/ounce state tax (it’s not in the initiative; that was Ammiano’s bill) or that it would supersede Prop 215 (it wouldn’t, and Prop 19 even references Prop 215 in its language, so it couldn’t).  Others play up the “millionaires”, “big corporations”, and “monopolies” that would be created and the earnest Emerald Triangle family growers who’d be put out of business (which amuses me: Prop 19 allows localities to regulate sales, so why wouldn’t Humboldt, Trinity, and Mendocino county residents whose economy depends on pot sales lobby really hard to get legalized pot sales OK’d in those counties and cities within, and regulated in a way that protects the small grower?)

Two notable sticking points have to do with minors below 21:  Prop 19 creates a new crime in being an adult over 21 who gives marijuana to adults aged 18-20 and Prop 19 forbids adults over 21 from smoking where minors are present.  Prop 19’s penalties in the first situation mirror the penalties for giving alcohol to 18-20-year-olds; but, yes, it is disturbing to create a new statute that calls for jail time over marijuana.  It’s also questionable whether an adult should be punished for smoking pot if their child can see them – we don’t even require that of alcohol and tobacco.

But are these reason enough to continue ruining the lives of people 21 and older?  Besides, if you’re over 21 smoking with some 18-year-olds or in front of some minors, and you’re doing it inside your home, who is to know?  And if you’re 18-20, wouldn’t you love being legal in 1 to 3 years?

Because the biggest thing Prop 19 does, the forest that these blogs are missing for the trees, is LEGALIZE ADULT MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND POSSESSION.

Even under Prop 215, the adult cannabis consumer is guilty of being a criminal unless proven innocent as a patient.  When Prop 19 passes, the adult cannabis consumer is considered innocent until proven guilty.  It is a complete game changer for law enforcement, because:

  • the smell of marijuana on your person is no longer probable cause to search you;
  • that joint in your pocket means nothing;
  • the seizure of stems, leaves, and seeds from your trash is irrelevant;
  • a couple of baggies with weed residue in them are just garbage;
  • the sight of that bong on your table visible through the kitchen window isn’t a “welcome” mat for a police search;
  • your utility bills raising a bit for water and lights don’t matter;
  • your neighbors smelling skunky plants is just a nuisance, not the source for an “anonymous tip”;
  • receipts for lights, soil, fertilizer, ballasts, trimmers, and stuff are meaningless;
  • infrared signatures of your home aren’t evidence of anything;
  • marijuana sniffing K-9 units are out of a job; and
  • pre-employment drug testing programs become harder for businesses to maintain for cannabis.

Basically, one of the simplest tools law enforcement has for harassing cannabis consumers – the sight and smell of cannabis and paraphernalia – is no longer in the tool belt.  As long as you’re an adult, keep your grow in a 5’x5′ area, don’t smoke in front of kids, and don’t leave the house with over an ounce, you are free from police harassment.

And even if you don’t follow the law perfectly, who’s to know?  If you’re pulled over and there’s an ounce and a half in your backpack, how does that cop know?  Does it “smell heavy” in your car?  So long as you refuse a search, how will he know?  The smell of pot isn’t cause for a search; you’re allowed to have an ounce of it.

If you have a 10’x10′ garden, who’s to know?  Is the electric bill that much higher?  Does the garden smell more (probably not at all if you build a good grow room)?  Plus don’t forget that you’re allowed to have more than one ounce, namely, any amount that you grow within your 5’x5′ garden, at the location of the garden.  I think by the time law enforcement came back with a warrant to investigate how big my garden is, three-fourths of it would be cut down and I would suddenly have my 5’x5′ garden and my hanging plants from the last 5’x5′ area I harvested.

Suppose there is four pounds of marijuana at my house.  Why, officer, that’s the results from my last legal 5’x5′ personal garden harvest.  What, you don’t see any 5’x5′ growing space?  Well, I used to grow, but I took down my garden and sold my equipment after my last harvest.  Why, yes, they were some pretty big plants.  No, I didn’t take any pictures, because what I was doing was perfectly legal.  (Prop 19 also has a nice affirmative defense to claim the marijuana in your home was for your personal use.  These blogs never seem to notice that.)

So on The NORML Stash Blog I’ve decided to write a word-for-word analysis of Prop 19, mainly because it seems like many of the people against it have never read it.  Standard disclaimer: I am no lawyer… hell, I’m not even a college graduate.  Click here to read my Word-for-Word Analysis of Prop 19.

113 thoughts

  1. lately the dea has been in a jack-boots frenzy.

    these rogues are not acting within the guidelines set by the prez and justice dept.

    these gestapo are justifiably very nervous in the service. many are criminals of the worst kind.

    unless this is stopped (somehow), they will continue to abusively escalate the war with many many more decent people getting mauled.

    the VILE swat team stuff is totally unacceptable.

    magical pushback time.

    zummmmmmmmm …..

  2. From Russ:
    “[…we are at a crossroads. In one direction lies legalization of personal use, in another direction, further restrictions on medical marijuana in the states that have it and the few others that will approve it. If California votes “no”, it is ammo to every anti-legalization demagogue to say “See, even California doesn’t support legalizing pot!”]”

    Do you really see it as crucial as that, Russ?
    The crossroads analogy is interesting and I suppose the country is waiting and watching, but I’m not too sure that there is much ammo in a failure, when it is a failure of such a revolutionary law. Especially in light of the fact that the leaders there will continue to lead and immediately work on a new bill to address the voters misgivings. “Yeah, but they’re working on another law already, and it’s supposed to be better..”

    I’d like to think that even if it proves to be too early, it is still just a matter of time.

    [Russ responds: Somebody needs to be the devil’s advocate, I suppose. Maybe it is just because I make too many graphs of legalization’s support over the past forty years. I see that great rise from 12% in 1971 to 30% by the end of the Seventies. I talk with Keith Stroup and others from the era about how inevitable they all thought it was that pot would be legal any year now.

    But after the Reagan downturn, as polls went back down to 16%, from 1989 on it has been nothing but a rise, a steady 1% per year. Not the same steep increase as the Seventies. More people have tried it, more people have legal access to it, more people know the truth about it. Maybe it is inevitable.

    Two more years is twenty-four more months of pharmaceutical research and development on standardized cannabinoid drugs with all the medical benefits and none of the high. Two more years of states that have dispensaries restricting them further and the fewer dispensaries holding more money and power to maintain the status quo. Two more years of arrests and tickets and lives affected by prohibition. Two years (particularly if regressive elements succeed in the midterm elections) of politicians beating us all over the head with “tut tut silly potheads; even California won’t legalize!”

    And in 2012, it will be the mother of all obnoxious spectacle elections, with Citizens United v. FEC allowing corporations unfettered access to the airwaves and a whole bunch of upset voters on both sides of the aisle. Maybe we get Gary Johnson winning the GOP nom and his stance on ending prohibition surviving the primary process and maybe legalization becomes a huge swing issue…

    …but when it comes to marijuana policy, I rarely lose money betting pessimistically.]

  3. Civil Disobedience.

    What if 20,000 people showed up on the courthouse steps of some tough on weed state and said here I am arrest me on possession charges? What if that moved another 20,000 people to act? What if that moved another 20,000 people to act?

    If 52% of the population in Cali votes to keep marijuana illegal would they be willing to arrest 48% of the population. If they vote to legalize we would not force them to try it. They can walk right be it like they do to cigarettes, vodka, rum, whiskey,wine, champagne, and gin.

    This law goes back at least till 1970 if you smoked weed or your kid smoked weed you are willing to vote on someones kid or someone you know going to jail for something you did. If that many people can vote on sending someone to jail for something they did I think this country is in trouble.

    Weed has been around a long time this law has not. If people used this weed for medicinal purposes even 1000 years ago who is this country founded in 1776 to say we are all created equal. I should be able to say what you can enjoy in the privacy of your home.

  4. All this sounds great but in OKLAHOMA we will never see this day, not in our lifetime anyhow. Not even Medical Marijuana in this state. Oklahoma is 60 yrs behind all other states. Know anyone with a job opening in Cali? Will move in the morning.

  5. ooo and I’m law abiding taxpayer with a perfect driving record with ZERO felony’s. But I’m a criminal because i have smoked marijuana before, so i guess i’m really not law abiding as I thought. I’m not going to burn in Hell am I? lol

  6. Gosh if I woke up one morning and found myself in bed with Calvina Fay I’d have to wonder how the fuck that happened. But that’s the position of the people who oppose Prop 19 and Calvina and her friends spend the rest of the day laughing about making you their bitch.

  7. Thanks for the response Russ, Re: section 11304 (c). That does encourage me, although I would not want to take the chance and be the first to challenge the existing workplace drug testing. BUT, if it does help to change methodology to determine actual intoxication while at work I’d be overjoyed. On that subject, I posted a link below as an example of how South Australia handles roadside sobriety testing for THC and other drugs via a saliva test that effectively determines actual THC content determining use in the previous few hours instead of the last two or three weeks as it is now.
    http://www.dtei.sa.gov.au/roadsafety/Safer_behaviours/Drug_driving/drug_driving_faqs

  8. I am all for the personal use of cannibus. i support the legalazation and say that people should be allowed to have the freedom to do something if they wish, so long as it is within some reason, however it greatly bothers me that this was said:

    [If you have a 10?x10? garden, who’s to know? Is the electric bill that much higher? Does the garden smell more (probably not at all if you build a good grow room)? Plus don’t forget that you’re allowed to have more than one ounce, namely, any amount that you grow within your 5?x5? garden, at the location of the garden. I think by the time law enforcement came back with a warrant to investigate how big my garden is, three-fourths of it would be cut down and I would suddenly have my 5?x5? garden and my hanging plants from the last 5?x5? area I harvested.

    Suppose there is four pounds of marijuana at my house. Why, officer, that’s the results from my last legal 5?x5? personal garden harvest. What, you don’t see any 5?x5? growing space? Well, I used to grow, but I took down my garden and sold my equipment after my last harvest. Why, yes, they were some pretty big plants. No, I didn’t take any pictures, because what I was doing was perfectly legal. (Prop 19 also has a nice affirmative defense to claim the marijuana in your home was for your personal use. These blogs never seem to notice that.)]

    This comment makes me feel as though you are saying that we should allow people to smoke cannibus with some limits, but they can just ‘bend the laws’ and do whatever they want.

    In my opinion we should legalize cannibus, then lay VERY low, and give it some time to allow people to see that if we get our way we can keep it safe and legal.

    I would hate for this to turn out like Gay marrige laws, where it was legal before being imediatly overturned, and now millions of innocent people are being denied their rights because some religious groups think that they have the right to decide what marrage is.

    All i’m saying is that we have a good thing going, and i would rather play it safe and be allowed to have my rights than get them and loose them imediatly. We should all play it safe.

    even if we loose the vote we still have our supporters and we really haven’t lost too much, and our supporters will only grow in numbers. all we need to do is teach people about cannibus, and edjucate them, because right now the argument against legalization is backed by ignorance. We just need to stay strong!

    -Peace! JD

  9. The True Enemy of Emerald Triangle family growers showed it’s face last summer when they drove down wholesale prices so much indoor growing became a non-profitable enterprise for the true “family” growers (sorry med users-the dispensaries didn’t pass on the savings to you). If pots not legalized The True Enemy will continue to drive down wholesale prices until NOBODY can make a living growing indoors or outdoors- not only NO profit but an actual LOSS. After a few years this patient True Enemy will have the entire market and be able to charge whatever he wants. The name of The True Enemy: The Mexican Cartel. If you don’t believe it, they have you exactly where they want you – Educate Yourself – Please! If we legalize bud we can work together on marketing the Triangle as the world’s destination for best there is. If we don’t -hope your ready for a role reversal-we’ll be the ones working the fields 12 hours a day for nothing.

  10. Good reading, but confused by “pre-employment drug testing programs become harder for businesses to maintain for cannabis.” Why is it harder? Why should it be any different? I used to be a smoker, so the biggest improvement in my life now would be indirect by the probable cultivation of hemp for clothing and paper. Save the trees!

  11. Russ–not meaning to “nit pick”, but RE: #50, BP (blood pressure) is measured in mmHG (millimeters of mercury).

  12. I’m just asking all of the Californians to please vote yes for prop-19. California is the future for the rest of us Americans who responsibly and safely use cannabis. Everyone here knows the ups and downs of cannabis so I don’t need to say anything else but vote yes.

  13. I wish the authors of prop 19 would have considered the ramifications of NOT making changes to what constitutes “driving under the influence.”

    Without changes to DMV policy, ANY level of cannabis in an individual’s body is enough to be considered driving under the influence. This seems like a very scary loophole that will attract the attention of rogue cops who still want to terrorize “dope” smokers.

    Cannabis use does not automatically equal impaired driving. If prop 19 doesn’t address this it needs to be fixed ASAP.

    [Paul Armentano responds: The detection of ‘any’ level of cannabis or metabolites is NOT considered per se DUI drugs in California. This is the case in some states, and at one point such a measure was proposed in California, but that bill was killed in committee. I actually testified against it.]

  14. who’s to say and gives them the right to tell me on how and what will help with my pain and health. frre your mind and let it be

  15. A person is consider an adult in the US at the age of 18 for about anything except alcohol so why not make the age limit 18 like smoking tobacco

  16. There are several parts of this proposed initiative I have problems with.

    I really don’t like that ” a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize” cannabis and have the right to “appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes” on sales and commercial cultivation.
    1. Local governments may set any fee for someone to cultivate commercial cannabis. Let’s say they set a fee of $1,000,000 a year for you to cultivate in their area. While a great source of income for that local government, mostly only large corporations could afford that fee and could easily make it impossible for small or even medium size companies to even start a business cultivating marijuana.
    2. A place that would be allowed to sell up to an ounce of marijuana to anyone over 21 would have to wait until their local government passed local laws that would allow any sales. Local governments are not required to permit any sales. A very large part of California does not now allow medical marijuana dispensaries. I just don’t see most of these “dry” medical marijuana areas allowing sales of cannabis for recreational use. I keep hearing these areas will allow recreational sales due to the fees/taxes it will generate. I see no proof that most conservative parts of California will pass these fees/taxes other than wishful thinking. Most conservatives are against both legalizing marijuana and taxes in general. Some say local governments now allow legalized gambling in their county so they would allow sales. Major difference is the gambling is in one complex while sales of cannabis would be take away and brought into their communities, maybe even next door. So buyers of an ounce of cannabis could end up traveling for hours for only one ounce at a time. What a waste of gas and someone’s time. I see brought up that people who live in more remote area of California have to now go to the bigger cities for more fine food or entertainment choices. Well at least they have a chance to get some food or entertainment in their rural areas. Not going to be any choice for many to legally buy up to an ounce of cannabis in their area. So what most likely will happen in these areas is that people will continue to buy and sell cannabis illegally. People will continued to be arrested and sent to jails/prisons for marijuana offences.

    I also have serious problems with the 25 sq ft cultivation area limit per household.
    Just way to small for many especially if more than one adult lives there and wants to grow or reap the benefits of that harvest. Your mothers and clones have to be in that same 25 sq ft area.
    Not to mention that 5,000,000 Californian households would have to first get permission from their landowner to cultivate 25 sq ft. And if they are not allowed to grow at their own home, they couldn’t even ask a friend to grow for them since most likely that person would already be maxed out in their 25 sq ft area.

    This initiative makes a new marijuana crime. If a 21 year old person passes a joint to a 20 year old, he or she could go to county jail for six months.

    This initiative would free no one previously convicted of marijuana offences that would no longer be illegal under this initiative nor will they receive a pardon.

    The legal age is 21 to be covered by this initiative. Why are adults age 18-20 not included?
    The age to legally buy alcohol is now 21 due to drunk drivers and if any US state did not raise their legal drinking age to 21, it would be subjected to a ten percent decrease in it’s annual federal highway apportionment. I know of no studies that show people 18-20 who consume marijuana are more dangerous drivers than those 18-20 who do not consume marijuana.

    This initiative would allow the growing and processing of Hemp. But for some unknown reason, Hemp would only be allowed to be grown and processed if the local government allows and with any regulations and fees they write. Is there any logical reason to leave Hemp growing to local authorities?

    This initiative states: “Regulate cannabis like we do alcohol”. Then the initiative says “Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis.” Seems to me to be a contradiction.
    There are no laws that restrict the amount of alcohol that you are allow to possess.
    There is no age limit for handling alcohol in retail stores as long as a manager who is 21 or older is supervising. You only have to be 18 to serve alcohol in a restaurant. But this initiative states “all persons present in, employed by, or in any way involved in the operation of any such licensed premise are 21 or older.”

    This initiative would not allow marijuana smoking in any “space” where minors are present. What is the California legal definition of a “space” ?
    There are no similar restrictions that ban parents from smoking tobacco in the presence of their own children. This could mean that parents could be legally unable to smoke marijuana since this initiative also bans marijuana smoking in public or in a car.

    [Editor’s note: You sure put a lot of time and effort into coming up with not-very-convincing rationalizations in opposing the most important cannabis legalization effort in your lifetime.

    Basically your understanding of the existing laws, proposed law changes and politics are way off.

    1.) Your concerned with local govts setting regulatory and licensing fees? Really?!? So you’re also opposed to restaurant, bar, auto dealer, gun retailers, fish processing plants, dairy producers, gas stations, nuclear power plants, etc….as they all currently pay fees and license costs, some of them more than what cannabis outlets will pay.

    Worrying about the size of the fees and licensing cost as an excuse to oppose ending cannabis prohibition in most of CA is allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good, or worse.

    2.) So what if some counties in CA don’t initially or ever accept cannabis sales? There are hundreds of so-called ‘dry counties’ all over the US, including CA. When it comes to retail sales of problematic adult commerce, local mores and values dictate what commerce happens and what doesn’t. If one does not like the situation they’re free to move elsewhere that is more cannabis-friendly (aka…sane) or help to change the local politics by electing pro-cannabis law reform office holders.

    3.) 25 X 25 is too small for personal cultivation?! Not unless you’re selling cannabis or having to supply Cypress Hill and Willie Nelson. The proposed cultivation space is more than enough for a consumer who may consume numerous pounds of cannabis annually…more than the average consumer and then some.

    4.) Prop 19 does not create a new crime for a 21-year-old handing a 20-year-old a joint…that already is a crime and has been for over 40 years in CA.

    5.) Proposed cannabis law legislation and initiatives that have historically included prisoner amnesty measures have failed spectacularly and are truly poison pills politically to passing successful cannabis law reforms.

    It makes no sense to claim to care about the current prisoners in jail for cannabis while at the same time opposing a law reform that will stop populating the prisons with cannabis offenders.

    Perfect is the enemy of the good….remember?

    6.) Opposing ending cannabis prohibition for adults over 21 in the name of teens accessing legal cannabis is politically foolish and a non-starter for the public, politicians and NORML. Cannabis use by state and federal laws whom are deemed ‘minors’ for the purposes of consuming recreational drugs (like alcohol, cannabis, etc…) are sensible.

    Supporting the arrest, prosecution, incarceration of over 50,000 cannabis offenders in CA annually by not working for Prop 19 because 18-20 year olds will not be able to buy cannabis–just like they can’t with alcohol–makes you sound silly and not to be taken seriously.

    7.) For hemp to be grown legally under Prop 19 and for it to cross state lines in commerce, it will need to be approved by a state regulatory agency, otherwise it will likely run afoul of federal anti-cannabis laws.

    8.) Let’s keep wasting tax dollars in CA, and around the country, because you’re concerned that under the proposed laws you believe it inconsistent that the proposed law allows adults to possess and use cannabis, but 18-20 year olds can’t be legally employed to sell it?

    What are you, a 17-year-old?

    C’mon, your excuses to keep supporting cannabis prohibition laws in CA absent pro kids-n-buds provisions are laughable here.

    9.) Space is defined as….space. Unfortunately, you don’t seem to be aware that in a number of states and cities in the US, notably in CA, it is already a crime to be in an enclosed space exposing a child to smoked tobacco products (ie, a car). Not surprisingly, and to be consistent, when cannabis is legal, parents who expose their children to cannabis smoke in a space where the police and prosecutors can make a case to a jury of ‘child endangerment’ may have occurred will be treated the same as tobacco consumers.

    However, unlike today where the cannabis consuming parent is busted for their cannabis use and the child taken away by Child Protection Services, the parent who exposes their child to tobacco is only fined. Why shouldn’t cannabis consuming parents be treated equally with tobacco consuming parents?

    If you consume cannabis, and you appreciate personal freedom and autonomy, you have to support Prop 19 passing in California this fall and not let the perfect be the enemy of the good!!

    Good is good. Perfect is inhuman, most especially in politics.]

  17. This cat is so out of the bag – it’s never going back in.

    Once it’s legal, anyone who wants to grow it will grow it. And cash strapped municipalities are not going to waste scarce resources hassling growers.

    Legalization will make it like growing grapes.

  18. Except that some people are good at growing things, others aren’t and many people don’t have garden space. Still confused here. Would it be legal to go commercial and grow acres and acres of the stuff? Or is that restricted to medical use only?

    [Paul Armentano responds: Prop. 19 does not alter the existing medical laws. Non-medical, personal cultivation is legal under Prop. 19, but limited to specific quantities. Commercial cultivation will be subject to licensing and local regulation. Personal possession or cultivation will not be subject to local regulation.]

  19. I totally agree. How do those who support some new bill that is working its way in the legislature assume that one will pass?

    Citizens who don’t smoke may go for this one and not for that one.

    Why wait 2 more years to find out, when we can lose our virginity now? aren’t we old enough?

  20. I am 61 years old. I have waited a long time for this. Let’s not quibble and drop the ball. It’s time to legalize now. Have also worked in the law for 35 years and this prop is a good deal from my perspective.

  21. The only way people who smoke could possibly be against legalization are people who deal. The only motivation they can possibly have against it would be they would have to find real jobs.

  22. Here is a letter printed today by me, in the media:
    http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/99918789_The_Record__Letters__Aug__4__2010.html

    Dolcevespa, Why Russ wants this passed so badly?
    Speaking for myself, I live even further away in NJ. But I see this legalization as a first step. I have made 14 trips to Amsterdam in the past 6 years. Not only to go there most of the time on the way to business or family events or visit. So I count the arrival and departures as separate trips, often a one day affair. But since first discovering their coffeeshops, I can’t stop going back.
    I get to feel like a normal person, not doing something ‘wrong’ and unlawful. I get to meet people who feel the same way or live there and enjoy these places regularly or I have met many Americans or others who have moved there, for the enjoyment that the legality brings to life there. (technically not legal but in reality what they do have is legal enough).
    THere is a special vibe in Amsterdam that is either because of the legality or is enhanced by it.
    I would like to see the rest of the world have this vibe. Most certainly the country and state where I live.
    I would like to visit California coffeeshops or whatever they will be called. Without breaking any laws.
    And I hope that, as the neighboring states will likely see economic hard as so many will drive by as they do in Belgium and Germany, other US states will take a different approach from these countries, which I think they will, as we are all Americans, whereas they are not All Euros, they are diff nationalities.
    So we have a very good chance of the legalization spreading. So I won’t have to make the trips to Amsterdam but my country benefits from my vacation spending, I don’t have to be up all night on a plane, and so forth.
    ANd hopefully a progressive state like Rhode Island appears as our white horse in the East, and so perhaps they can attain legality soon before I get too old, and I can drive there for many a nice weekend fun.

  23. Those who are in favour of this Prop 19 and/or are voting YES, perhaps it would be useful to pick one thing that you dislike about this. It may be important when you are debating someone, to not appear as naive and overzealous, which loses credibility. As there are many voters I would think who are still undecided.

    The main thing I don’t like is the potential for a local municipality in not allowing legal dispensaries for all.

    The potential price of one million for a license does not put me off that much.

    What did I think, it would not be a big business concept at all?

  24. PLEASE, PLEASE VOTE YES ON PROP 19! The “better bill” is no certainty, and anything is better than the oppressive system we have right now. The reasoning behind the social stigmatization of pot smokers is not grounded in the “dangers” of the drug; it is grounded in marijuana’s illegality. The reasoning of the general public is, “Well, weed is illegal! It must be bad!” Well, I for one am tired of this nonsense. LEGALIZE IT THIS TIME AROUND!

  25. um. we all know how strict the police are in enforcing and prosecuting anyone that gives alcohol to people 18-20. i am NOT voting for this. I want DECRIMINALIZATION but this is NOT THE RIGHT LAW.

    [Editor’s note: Ummmm…California already decriminalized cannabis possession in the 1970s…you’re not correctly understanding the language of Prop 19 that does not decriminalize, it actually legalizes cannabis.

    If you don’t support Prop 19, you’re effectively supporting 80,000 annual cannabis possession arrests in CA.

    You might want to re-read Prop 19!]

  26. Jami, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, Vote yes for this. It’s not a perfect law, but a good one.

    It won’t help me because of my job, and a positive test, I am pee tested now almost once a month, and will be still, even if Prop 19 is passed. For people like me it’s a step in the right direction, even if it takes years for a reasonable policy at the Federal level. Will you do nothing because it’s not perfect? Do you think the status quo is not worth changing?

    God! it really hurts me to think that we who have suffered under this oppression can’t get together enough to take this step to stop the insanity.

    Brother, we have to continue to stay together. Prop 215 was voted in 14 years ago, it was the first step to get us here, would you have voted against that too?

  27. As a cannabis rights activist, I’ve been having a very difficult time debating this proposition with others because despite all the analysis, I still find the verbiage ambiguous in places.

    I understand furnishing cannabis to those 18-20 years of age will be punishable by $1000 fine and 6 months incarceration, but can anyone tell me what happens to the possessors of an ounce or less of cannabis in that age group?

  28. I sure hope Prop 19 passes.
    Question,
    If it does pass is there a way I can get the local government in my town to allow co-op sales or a farmers market type event to help the little growers I know and also generate tax income for my town? Thanks and good luck.

  29. there is one major flaw to one of the primary arguments against legalization and that is that they say its a gate way drug which is technicly wrong. allow me to explain the average person who smokes recreationaly has to get it illegaly right well people who barter in illegal substances already are most likely going to dabble in other illegal drugs as well why not they already got a method to distribute illegaly and this increases there customer base as well as giving them higher profit margine with the more hard core drugs so let me aask you your getting a illegal substance already, your using illegaly, how long before you say why not it wouldent change your routine so ya ill try cocaine or exstasy or whatever. but here is where prop 19 comes in what if from the get go it was legal you no longer have to deal with the dealers your not in the enviroment to try other drugs and you dont have to hide like you would if you did illegal drugs so now you take out that whole factor crime drops probaly very significantly i mean imagine how big the whole illegal market is how many plants did they find just last year? also the law makers should be jumping for joy right now becouse if this passes kiss our debt goodby on one story i read it had the annual pot revnue at 14 billion thats probaly not even close to how much it will be once more of the illegal sellers get pushed out by legaliztion

  30. This proposition is crap. 1 good reason vs. 20 bad makes this a NO vote all the way. Everyone thinks it will be 1 big party, you’re wrong…First thing the city will do is “TAX” your grow space. Like what Rancho Cordova is trying to do. Yea, check it out. No Bullshit. $600.00 per square foot indoor, up to 25 square feet. $900.00 per square foot anything over that. If you think this won’t happen, you’re stupid. Then instead of growing your own, you’ll be buying some shitty, overpriced chemical weed from Richard Lee and Friends. At $400.00 per ounce. Oh, I’m full of shit ? His Partner said he can Mass Produce for $175.00 an ounce. Do you think you will get it at COST ? Uh, no. So, if you want to be a COMPLETE DUMBASS, Vote for this Flawed, Fucked Up Proposition. Do a little homework before you Vote…2012 is the year for Complete Legalization Without any Strings attached !!!!!!!

    [Editor’s note: It is regrettable that you so strongly favor cannabis consumers in California still being arrested en mass for cannabis ‘crimes’ and can be counted on the DEA/ONDCP/law enforcement community’s team of public opponents to the legalization initiative Prop 19. Very regrettable to an extreme!]

Leave a Reply