Will Cali actually legalize pot???

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

Definitely not a conservative vs liberal issue. The issue is freeing up law enforcement and court resources (money) for more important criminal endeavors. Nobody would be laid off and it will be handled in the same way as alcohol related crimes.

[Paul Moscow]

Not too surprising but Prop 19 is going down in California.

Billions of dollars will continue going to foreign cartels that could have otherwise gone to city/state coffers. 

Found this surprising. voters with a high school degree or less were most strongly opposed, turning 61% to 39% against it.

[asava]

Not too surprising but Prop 19 is going down in California.

Billions of dollars will continue going to foreign cartels that could have otherwise gone to city/state coffers. 

Found this surprising. voters with a high school degree or less were most strongly opposed, turning 61% to 39% against it.

where did you hear this?

[Paul Moscow]

Not too surprising but Prop 19 is going down in California.

Billions of dollars will continue going to foreign cartels that could have otherwise gone to city/state coffers. 

Found this surprising. voters with a high school degree or less were most strongly opposed, turning 61% to 39% against it.

where did you hear this?

LA Times. Last line.

Prop. 19, the measure to legalize marijuana in California, drew its strongest support from voters under 25 years old, Democrats and big-city-dwellers.

But the California exit poll also found that opposition to the initiative was widespread. The Bay Area was the only region that tilted toward the measure -- and just barely, at 51% to 49%. It lost 54% to 46% in Los Angeles County, and 59% to 41% in the rest of Southern California.

Men and women opposed it. Voters of every race and ethnicity opposed it. Asian American voters were most strongly against it, 62% to 38%, according to the poll conducted by Edison Research for the National Voter Pool, a consortium of the major television news networks and the Associated Press.

Voters 65 and older opposed it by more than 2 to 1. Support was strongest among voters between 18 and 24, who went for it 64% to 36%. Voters between 25 and 29 narrowly backed it, 52% to 48%. But voters under 30 made up just 13% of the electorate, about the same as is typical in a midterm election. In presidential election years, these voters are at least 20% of the turnout.

The poll found that the initiative did not win over the state’s middle-of-the-road voters, who make up the decisive swing vote. Although voters who think of themselves as Democrats went for it, 55% to 45%, nonpartisan and third-party voters went against it, 54% to 46%. Republicans rejected it 70% to 30%. Liberals supported the measure, but both moderates and conservatives sided against it.

Neither income nor education seemed to make a big difference, although voters with a high school degree or less were most strongly opposed, turning 61% to 39% against it.

[asava]

i guess i mean just in general that it was going to lose. just checked the la times and its at 56 to 44 with 18 in.  

[Paul Moscow]

i guess i mean just in general that it was going to lose. just checked the la times and its at 56 to 44 with 18 in.  

Right. In the desperate race to be first, many outlets are reporting that it's been killed in spite of having less that 1/4 of the vote in. Politico for one.

It will be back in 2012 and will benefit from a higher youth turnout along with the now-better-established legalization front. 

[asava]

i guess i mean just in general that it was going to lose. just checked the la times and its at 56 to 44 with 18 in.  

Right. In the desperate race to be first, many outlets are reporting that it's been killed in spite of having less that 1/4 of the vote in. Politico for one.

It will be back in 2012 and will benefit from a higher youth turnout along with the now-better-established legalization front. 

It lost 47% to 53%. over 3million voters on both sides. I don't know if you are correct in thinking the 2012 election will get it done. If the economy improves by then there may not be such a big push by fiscally concerned constituents. This may have been the best chance it will ever have. That's just a guess though. What do you think?

[Sugar Dick]

i guess i mean just in general that it was going to lose. just checked the la times and its at 56 to 44 with 18 in.  

Right. In the desperate race to be first, many outlets are reporting that it's been killed in spite of having less that 1/4 of the vote in. Politico for one.

It will be back in 2012 and will benefit from a higher youth turnout along with the now-better-established legalization front. 

It lost 47% to 53%. over 3million voters on both sides. I don't know if you are correct in thinking the 2012 election will get it done. If the economy improves by then there may not be such a big push by fiscally concerned constituents. This may have been the best chance it will ever have. That's just a guess though. What do you think?

It was never about fiscal responsibility, that was something made up (like it was with healthcare) to try and capture some people angry about irresponsibility.  It did not work and regardless is a complete mirage/outright lie.

They'd be better off selling it as some libertarian ideal, imo.  But then they'd lose all the statists who want government to care for people cradle to grave.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

As of a couple of months ago, possession of less than an ounce in Cali is now an infraction with a $100 fine, not even a misdemeanor. This is why it failed.   

[asava]

i guess i mean just in general that it was going to lose. just checked the la times and its at 56 to 44 with 18 in.  

Right. In the desperate race to be first, many outlets are reporting that it's been killed in spite of having less that 1/4 of the vote in. Politico for one.

It will be back in 2012 and will benefit from a higher youth turnout along with the now-better-established legalization front. 

It lost 47% to 53%. over 3million voters on both sides. I don't know if you are correct in thinking the 2012 election will get it done. If the economy improves by then there may not be such a big push by fiscally concerned constituents. This may have been the best chance it will ever have. That's just a guess though. What do you think?

It was never about fiscal responsibility, that was something made up (like it was with healthcare) to try and capture some people angry about irresponsibility.  It did not work and regardless is a complete mirage/outright lie.

They'd be better off selling it as some libertarian ideal, imo.  But then they'd lose all the statists who want government to care for people cradle to grave.

you're right it was never about making any money at all for the state of california. i am completely persuaded by your unfounded statements supported by absolutely no evidence.

[Sugar Dick]

i guess i mean just in general that it was going to lose. just checked the la times and its at 56 to 44 with 18 in.  

Right. In the desperate race to be first, many outlets are reporting that it's been killed in spite of having less that 1/4 of the vote in. Politico for one.

It will be back in 2012 and will benefit from a higher youth turnout along with the now-better-established legalization front. 

It lost 47% to 53%. over 3million voters on both sides. I don't know if you are correct in thinking the 2012 election will get it done. If the economy improves by then there may not be such a big push by fiscally concerned constituents. This may have been the best chance it will ever have. That's just a guess though. What do you think?

It was never about fiscal responsibility, that was something made up (like it was with healthcare) to try and capture some people angry about irresponsibility.  It did not work and regardless is a complete mirage/outright lie.

They'd be better off selling it as some libertarian ideal, imo.  But then they'd lose all the statists who want government to care for people cradle to grave.

you're right it was never about making any money at all for the state of california. i am completely persuaded by your unfounded statements supported by absolutely no evidence.

pffft

[Paul Moscow]

i guess i mean just in general that it was going to lose. just checked the la times and its at 56 to 44 with 18 in.  

Right. In the desperate race to be first, many outlets are reporting that it's been killed in spite of having less that 1/4 of the vote in. Politico for one.

It will be back in 2012 and will benefit from a higher youth turnout along with the now-better-established legalization front. 

It lost 47% to 53%. over 3million voters on both sides. I don't know if you are correct in thinking the 2012 election will get it done. If the economy improves by then there may not be such a big push by fiscally concerned constituents. This may have been the best chance it will ever have. That's just a guess though. What do you think?

Drug reformers long ago, in an effort to have the perception of the movement migrate from stoned-out hippies vs. cops realized that the better argument for the 'legalization' of marijuana was to affix it a "tax and regulate" title. In fact, the last ditch campaign commercial by Prop 19 proponents said that Prop 19 would 'tax and control marijuana like alcohol, generate billions for local communities, allow police to focus on violent crime and put drug cartels out of business." Had this been even 10 years ago the commercial might have featured Cypress Hill in a smoked-out cadillac rolling down the window telling you to vote "Si" on 19. I think the movement has come a very long way in a short amount of time. IMO, more progress in 5 years than in the 20 before them. 

I think they missed the proverbial boat though. Instead of emphasizing the amount of money potentially made by taxing and regulating (remember taxing being one of those buzzwords) I believe that the effort should have been made towards the amount of money currently spent i.e. being added to the deficit for drug enforcement. Deficit hawks were populated in the moderate camp - the ones needed to pass this.

2012 was the year the movement was hoping for anyways, with the belief that older more conservative voters come out for mid-term elections obviously not the constituent that will vote for you.

Assuming that the movement stays unified and that 2012 won't be much better economically I think tax and regulate has a better chance than it did yesterday. 

[asava]

i agree with the point about missing the boat. however i think it is all one in the same. but yeah, we will see i suppose.

[Sugar Dick]

i guess i mean just in general that it was going to lose. just checked the la times and its at 56 to 44 with 18 in.  

Right. In the desperate race to be first, many outlets are reporting that it's been killed in spite of having less that 1/4 of the vote in. Politico for one.

It will be back in 2012 and will benefit from a higher youth turnout along with the now-better-established legalization front. 

It lost 47% to 53%. over 3million voters on both sides. I don't know if you are correct in thinking the 2012 election will get it done. If the economy improves by then there may not be such a big push by fiscally concerned constituents. This may have been the best chance it will ever have. That's just a guess though. What do you think?

Drug reformers long ago, in an effort to have the perception of the movement migrate from stoned-out hippies vs. cops realized that the better argument for the 'legalization' of marijuana was to affix it a "tax and regulate" title. In fact, the last ditch campaign commercial by Prop 19 proponents said that Prop 19 would 'tax and control marijuana like alcohol, generate billions for local communities, allow police to focus on violent crime and put drug cartels out of business." Had this been even 10 years ago the commercial might have featured Cypress Hill in a smoked-out cadillac rolling down the window telling you to vote "Si" on 19. I think the movement has come a very long way in a short amount of time. IMO, more progress in 5 years than in the 20 before them. 

I think they missed the proverbial boat though. Instead of emphasizing the amount of money potentially made by taxing and regulating (remember taxing being one of those buzzwords) I believe that the effort should have been made towards the amount of money currently spent i.e. being added to the deficit for drug enforcement. Deficit hawks were populated in the moderate camp - the ones needed to pass this.

2012 was the year the movement was hoping for anyways, with the belief that older more conservative voters come out for mid-term elections obviously not the constituent that will vote for you.

Assuming that the movement stays unified and that 2012 won't be much better economically I think tax and regulate has a better chance than it did yesterday. 

This is a properly articulated version of what I was trying to say.  Casinos figured this out a while ago (re: tax revenue for schools), and now they are everywhere.

Naturally the people that really want pot legal ("drug reformers" and potheads not fiscal hawks), were a little slow to get the big picture.  Can't imagine why...

[asava]

then why the hell are you arguing? you seem to think that because tax generation is a vehicle for change that it doesn't actually generate revenue. i recognize that it is a vehicle. just like everything else.

[Sugar Dick]

then why the hell are you arguing? you seem to think that because tax generation is a vehicle for change that it doesn't actually generate revenue. i recognize that it is a vehicle. just like everything else.

My point was it's a farse (in your words a "vehicle").  You just preferred to hear it from Paul rather than SD.

[Rage Against the McKee]

then why the hell are you arguing? you seem to think that because tax generation is a vehicle for change that it doesn't actually generate revenue. i recognize that it is a vehicle. just like everything else.

My point was it's a farse (in your words a "vehicle").  You just preferred to hear it from Paul rather than SD.

It's not really a farse because passing the bill would have positively impacted the California budget. I'd say it was more of a win-win.

[asava]

then why the hell are you arguing? you seem to think that because tax generation is a vehicle for change that it doesn't actually generate revenue. i recognize that it is a vehicle. just like everything else.

My point was it's a farse (in your words a "vehicle").  You just preferred to hear it from Paul rather than SD.

wrong. its not like i didn't know that it painted a better picture than hippies getting mumped up and forgetting their little bros at school (sorry lil bro). that is a pretty obvious thing. you saying that its a farse means that it doesn't actually do what it says it would do. i don't disagree that it probably won't do all that is promised. but it would do better than what the status quo is doing now. do you think that its benefit is not as much as its cost. and if so what is that cost? i'm not saying its going to be the next jesus savior solution to all economies. i'm just saying that it will do more benefit than harm. which i think is rational. you, however, don't seem to think so. and your basis seems to be that because it will be benefitting someone else that it is a bad idea.

It's not really a farse because passing the bill would have positively impacted the California budget. I'd say it was more of a win-win.

this is essentially my point.

[Sugar Dick]

 

[CatsNShocks]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/03/miron.pot.vote/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

Prop 19 failed in part because many proponents emphasized the wrong arguments for legalization. Many advocates promised major benefits to California's budget because of reduced expenditure on marijuana prohibition and increased revenue from marijuana taxation. Other supporters claimed that Mexican drug violence would fall substantially.

Both claims were overblown. The budgetary benefits, while not insignificant, would have been small compared with California's fiscal mess. Mexican drug violence is mainly associated with the cocaine and methamphetamine trades, as well as from marijuana traffic to other states.

[Trogdor]

The movement has begun 

http://www.kake.com/news/offbeat/headlines/Elementary-school-teacher-allegedly-brought-pot-laced-dish-to-potluck-242059511.html

[ChiComCat]

I have a Canadian friend who was in Colorado recently and purchased some THC Swedish Fish the other day.  He also told me they have rock candy and peach rings too.

[EllRobersonisInnocent]

 

[asava]

I have a Canadian friend who was in Colorado recently and purchased some THC Swedish Fish the other day.  He also told me they have rock candy and peach rings too.

Went to a shop in Telluride a few weeks ago. It was a strange and surreal feeling. It got a even more surreal when I got pulled over on the drive back for expired tags. Had to open up the glove box (where all the purchased items were located) which instantly filled the cabin with intense mj smell. To seriously not care one bit about this or the fact that the officer saw what was in the glove compartment made me have some serious LOL's after he left. Heady times, indeed.

protip: the peach rings are awesome, so are the taffies. 

[star seed 7]

To seriously not care one bit about this or the fact that the officer saw what was in the glove compartment made me have some serious LOL's after he left. Heady times, indeed.

this is similar to what i enjoyed the most, the strange feeling of freedom when buying weed legally.  i got there just before close, so i didn't have time to browse like i wanted to, but after seeing marijuana in a legal setting, it makes non-legal status look even that much more ridiculous.