Californians Reject Legalization of Marijuana: CNN

[Hissyspit]

Source: CNN

LOS ANGELES | Wed Nov 3, 2010 1:09am EDT

(Reuters) - A California ballot measure to legalize marijuana possession in the state was headed for defeat on Tuesday, CNN reported.

Proposition 19 would have made California the first U.S. state to legalize the possession of marijuana.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A21H920101103

[Devil_Fish]

1. CNN can suck a fart out of my @$$ #*!&

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. Would you have preferred that they reported that the amendment passed even though it didn't?

[Devil_Fish]

37. How about actual results rather then projections... NT

[peoli]

2. soon, humans. soon you will see the light.

[GaltFreeDiet]

3. The blood is on their hands

That goes for ALL supporters of prohibition.
A single finger salute goes out to the assholes.

[Xithras]

4. Damn. I'm depressed. I'm gonna go spark one up to feel better.

At least we can be happy that the punishments were recently reduced. Getting caught with pot is now a non-criminal infraction with a $75 maximum fine.

[Don Draper]

5. What is wrong with people

This should have passed overwhelmingly. It's like we take 2 steps forward and 4 steps back.

This has been one grueling night. Time for a drink....

[pezDispenser]

6. It's not the people

Its the pot smokers lack of organization. You can gamble in every state in the US. Every state allows people to buy alcohol. Every state allows pornography. You know why? The people who organized these movements. NORML has been around since before I was born. What's their great accomplishment?

[merwin]

9. Um... not really.

Blame the conservatives, the dems who think pot is a gateway drug, and the grow-ops in humboldt county who would lose their income if it passed. I am damn sure the majority of the potheads got out the vote on this one.

[pezDispenser]

12. I respectively disagree

I'm sure in prohibition days, there were powerful interests who wanted to keep alcohol illegal. They were overcome.

It's not the potheads that the movement needs to convince to GOTV, though they do need to vote. The movement needs to convince the conservatives that this is an infringement on personal liberty (or whatever appeals - just throwing shit out here). It's the people who are on the fence that the movement needs to sway. Its close - another 6% swing in CA and it would be legal now (at least until the feds interfered).

[Zoeisright]

17. I'm sorry, but that's funny.

I mean, isn't that the hallmark of the pot smoker? Disorganization, plus the munchies?

[Le Taz Hot]

41. No.

And thanks for helping spread the myth. People like you, without facts, were the problem.

[Romulox]

21. Think this through a bit more carefully--the "other side" had the combined power of the Federal govt

and the State government, every local, state, and Federal police organization, etc. etc.

"Organization" in the face of threats from AG Holder? Give me a break. :hi:

[GaltFreeDiet]

8. I ask that same question quite frequently

and the answer is:Fear

[defendandprotect]

11. I agree... and the more I hear that question, the more I question the results .....

Shall we all conclude that Americans are just stupid jerks and

walk away in frustration?

[krabigirl]

13. So many pro-pot people voted No on this. Add those to the hordes of uniformed fascists..

and there's no way that would pass.

[meowomon]

7. NNNNNOOOOOOO!!!!!

[defendandprotect]

10. Would like to understand the "why" of this .....

Dispatches from the California Marijuana Front
November 2, 2010

California voters reject Proposition 19 marijuana initiative

California, which 14 years ago became the first state to legalize marijuana for medical use, has decided it isn't going to sanction pot use for recreation.

By a wide margin, voters defeated Proposition 19. With one-fifth of the vote counted, it is losing by 57 to 43 percent.

A few minutes ago, Proposition 19 proponent Richard Lee, an Oakland marijuana entrepreneur who spent $1.5 million to back the measure, conceded defeat. But he said he will push for another marijuana vote in 2012.

"The fact that millions of Californians voted to legalize marijuana is a tremendous victory," Lee said. "...Prop. 19 has changed the terms of the debate. And that was a major strategic goal...Because of this campaign, millions now understand it's time to develop an exit strategy for the failed war on marijuana."


http://blogs.sacbee.com/weed-wars/2010/11/voters-rejecting-california-marijuana-initiative-in-early-returns.html



--------------------------

Was it Schwartenegger's move to limit penalties -- ?

Was it Holder's threats to enforce Fed law on marijuana -- ?

Was it more right wing fear mongering -- ?

Was it right wing money -- ?

Was it something else -- ?

[Xithras]

27. There were two "why's" that did it for most people.

1. A lot of people were turned off by the jobs limitation. Go to work after taking a few shots of vodka, smelling of booze, and your boss can send you home. Go to work after smoking a fattie, smelling of weed, and your boss isn't allowed to send you home unless he can PROVE that your inebriation is directly impacting your job performance. Bosses would have been legally forced to perform sobriety tests on employees before they could send them home. Lots of people didn't like that. Even liberals don't want to deal with stoned co-workers in the office.

2. The last minute budgetary scare tactics worked. The anti-19 crowd pointed out that California stood to lose something like a billion dollars in federal funding for roads and education. Certain federal funding is tied to drug and alcohol law enforcement, and the state wouldn't have qualified for the funds if 19 had passed.

Of course, those same voters also shot down 21 and 24, and supported 22 and 26, which will cumulatively strip about $4 billion from next years state budget anyway, so I'm not sure how much #2 really matters, in the grand scheme.

[defendandprotect]

29. Thanks for all the info ...

#1 sounds like a fake out to me...

If someone can send someone home because they seem impaired by booze -- and without

a drug test -- then why not when you can smell weed? Seems somewhat contrived.

But, obviously, it sends a FEAR-based message.

#2 doesn't make much sense when so much can be gained othewise financially by the state.

One is an authoritiarian support by government -- the other freeing yourselves from

authoritarianism and the hazards of the Drug War. Reminds me also of the horror we have

going on with FBI seeking to label anti-war activists as "terrorists" because it would

then enable them to tap into Homeland Security money! Dangerous thinking, IMO.


Understand they also defeated the environmental/oil industry proposition?


Well, maybe next time!! :)



Just a PS on this ... In rereading it, I began to think that other than freeing yourself

from authoritiarian Fed government, you would most likely also be creating an enemy there

with some power to do the state and governor harm -- so at this point I'll just be very

happy that Jerry Brown won!! :)

[Xithras]

30. Nope.

#1 actually wasn't contrived at all. The text of the law was written pretty clearly:

No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301. Provided, however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.

As an employer, I can send you home for coming to work smelling of booze. If you come in smelling of weed, it's illegal for me to send you home unless I can legally prove that your consumption "actually impairs job performance by an employee". In other words, your employer would have to perform a field sobriety test on you. And even if they did, would the punishment actually survive a lawsuit? Bosses aren't law enforcement, and don't have the training to adequately assess someones sobriety. It would have become very difficult to release an employee for using marijuana before (or during) work.

The anti-19 campaigners quickly identified this as the bills Achilles Heel, and pounded away at it. They correctly pointed out that the wording would quickly lead to lawsuits and become a headache for both employers and employees.

That one line probably cost Prop 19 its victory.

[defendandprotect]

32. Also, how much do you spend on prison system supporting this Drug War?

#1 actually wasn't contrived at all. The text of the law was written pretty clearly:

No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301. Provided, however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.

THAT seems to be the opposite of what you are stating below ...

Where does it say it's "illegal" to send home an employee with actual impaired job performance?

I don't find this believable -- if you don't have to TEST for alcohol, then why would you have

to test for weed? Criteria is "impaired job performance."


Again -- simply looks like more right wing "fear based" campaigning --


Maybe next time!!

[Xithras]

36. You don't have to test for alcohol.

Most employers have zero tolerance policies towards employees drinking on the job, or just before it. If you come in reeking of alcohol, you're going home whether you're drunk or not. It's unprofessional and it's a liability to the company.

The text of 19 would have prevented employers from imposing the same restrictions on marijuana users. Employers would ONLY be permitted to send employees home if they were actually impaired. If they were buzzed, but still able to do their job, the employer would be prohibited from intervening. This is a MUCH higher bar than exists for ANY other substance. If a bus driver gets injured and is on painkillers, that driver can be banned from driving simply because the potential for impaired performance exists. If that same driver came to work after smoking herb, the driver couldn't be banned from driving unless the employer first determined that they were too wasted to safely drive.

Prop 19 simply overreached. There was no reason for them to address employment AT ALL, and yet the proposition still touched on several subjects that had nothing to do with pot possession. It defined an odd taxing scheme, devolved regulation to the county level, set up a licensing scheme that most counties weren't interested in, prevented licensing schemes that they were interested in, and got into legal penalties for illegal distribution that didn't need to be there. The proposition addressed tangents that would have been better left alone, to be addressed in other legislation.

The proposition simply needed to read: "The possession and sale of up to one ounce of Marijuana, or the cultivation of xx square feet of Marijuana for personal use, shall not be a crime under California State law."

Instead, we got a 3 page long collection of legal mumbo jumbo, exceptions, limitations, and rules. They overcomplicated it and gave the anti-19 campaigners plenty of openings to attack it.

For what it's worth, I did end up voting yes on 19, but few of my liberal friends did. We all agreed that it was poorly written, but were split on whether or not a bad law was better than the current law. If it had been written better, it would have passed easily.

[defendandprotect]

38. NO TEST for Alcohol ... then why for "weed" ... ????

There's evidently some essential point I'm not getting --

but thanks for all the info.

This all seems much ado over nothing --

and obviously the monied interests have a huge stake in keeping the

Drug War going --

Seems $$ had a big influence yesterday -- of course!

Also -- and probably you understand this -- CA was being asked to do something

that would have benefited the rest of the nation -- just as they did re

Medical Marijuana years ago. I'm sure there's a great deal of disappointment

outside of CA mainly for that reason. Many were optimistically looking to CA

to lead the way!! :)

[defendandprotect]

39. History Channel earlier "Marijuana: A Chronic History" 2010

Someone was just saying ...

"We arrest someone for marijuana possession EVERY 32 seconds" --

"US government spends over $100 billion to halt marijuana trafficking since Pres Nixon's charge

in 1970 -- fourteen's states have legalized the drug for medical purposes leading to the

possibility of its legalization in more states."


Lot of crappy fear-beased reason and propaganda in this, naturally ...

Just watching to see where it's going --

Oh, yeah -- marijuana "safety" -- pot contaminated with E-COLI -- !!!

As though eating lettuce in America couldn't put you at a risk of E-COLI -- !!! :eyes:


Otoh, interesting aspects of personal delivery of medical marijuana - one guy delivers to

350-400 patients/members.


870,000 a year cycling in and out of prison for marijuana!

Some serving lifetime sentences!

Federal laws are still trumping state laws .... of course!

Racism playing long role in imprisonment -- of course!

90% of prisoners from minorities!

Attorneys, courts, juries, imprisonment, parole -- we're all paying the bill/

laws so harsh that even medical patients are at risk!




I think this is a worthwhile program for anyone to watch -- didn't see all of it --

They did the required BS -- fear-mongering -- but makes no sense --

100 years of this BS government control of marijuana!!



And right now they're running a "Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How" --

Cocaine, The Third Scourge Shows

Begins with a lot of FEAR --

but coca leaf was a popular medical aid -- once in Coca Cola!

Therefore, PROHIBITION, also seems to lead to these drugs becoming lethal rather

than being preserved for their valid uses!!

PROHIBITION -- BAD!!

:)

[sofa king]

35. Because everyone who would vote for it got high instead?

Sorry. I can't resist the low-hanging fruit. And the endo.

[GaltFreeDiet]

14. 2012

[MH1]

15. Because so many people like to see their tax $$$ spent on locking up the harmless.

Oh wait, more like, so many PROFIT big $$$ by locking up the harmless, they could afford the marketing to dupe the voters.

[defendandprotect]

33. Quite insane, isn't it -- $$ wins again -- along with fear-based propaganda....

[madmax]

16. Pass that joint... nt

[Romulox]

19. Californians have proven themselves to be profoundly stupid people, yet again.

Governator, anyone? :hi:

[fascisthunter]

20. it will get passed eventually

[Uncle Joe]

22. I agree, people in general are afraid of dramatic change, but I believe this broke the inertia.

[fascisthunter]

23. Can you imagine this trying to be passed ten years ago???

I think this is encouraging, considering the propaganda out there trying to dissuade so many from accepting an herbal plant. We've had almost a century of this garbage about the dangers of a plant... and yet still.

[Uncle Joe]

25. It would have been far more difficult and it's light years from Reagan's days of

persecuting the weak while pretending to be tough on crime.

In this regard I believe the Internet has helped to break the logjam of one sided propaganda promoted by the corporate media.

[LawnLover]

24. I look at this as progress

The fact that it was on the ballot at all and got as many votes as it did, is a good sign.

Plus, you have to remember that Arnie did something RIGHT BEFORE the election: he signed a bill decriminalizing pot. You get a small fine for possession. That, along with medical pot, makes it "almost legal" and a lot of people are content with that.

[EFerrari]

34. And the Obama D0J gratuitously threatened to continue to enforce

federal law before the voting. That didn't help.

[warrior1]

26. I voted for it

but it really wasn't written very well. It scared a lot of people. Better law could be passed.

[OnlinePoker]

28. Does this mean Californians are disjointed? n/t

[Megahurtz]

31. Too many Goody Two Shoes types

Way too many Conservative Goody Two Shoes types here. It totally sucks.

[truthisfreedom]

40. The dealers must have all voted.

Explains everything. They don't want to see a pot tax.