Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by billypilgrim on Nov 2, 2010 9:48:52 GMT -5
Probably not. It was ahead in the polls and has been dropping and is now behind 42% to 49% (according to a Field Poll released a couple days ago). That's almost the reverse of what it was in September. None of the major democratic candidates have supported it. It doesn't seem to have any financial backing. Even the San Francisco Chronicle, one of the more left-leaning major city papers, opposes it. According to the Chronicle, legalization is a good idea, but this is a flawed piece of legislation.
We will see, for the most part though I think the Cali folks are happy to have it the way it is. You make more money selling on the black/gray market than you do in a legal competitive market. I bet Al Capone was against the repeal of prohibition. Also lets be fair it would be challenged in 10 minutes, and California would not spend any money to defend it in Federal court so it would not really matter much anyway.
I think it would be a tragedy not to pass. Not only for the people who recreationally use and the medical users.
I think it would be a huge leap for this country when we able are to utilize hemp in all facets of life. From building materials to possible fuel for green energy, hemp has been ignored for all this time and it's time to bring it back. We need new industries to create new jobs, seems like there is plenty of opportunity even without lighting the stuff up.
The only real problem I have with prop 19 in the idea of licensing public places for consumption.
While I am not, nor have I ever been a user of this particular substance, I don't believe you should go to jail for possession of a minor amount, and have not problem with people doing this in the privacy of their homes.
However, when you let people get high in a public place, you are asking for problems. The main problem I see is when they leave. If they are driving, and they are still under the influence of this particular substance, then they are putting others at risk. Its no different than drunk driving. Big question: Is there some kind of test that can be administered by a police officer that will determine whether or not someone is under the influence of this substance?
That said, i doubt it will pass, but I think the general idea is well on its way.
I also think DUI should carry FAR FAR greater consequences.
Offense 1, 1000 hours of community service + $25,000 fine Offense 2, You lose your license permanently, no longer eligilable for social security, Medicare, Medicaid, disability, etc + 5000 hours of community service + $150,000 fine + the vehicle you were driving at the time is confiscated.
If you are caught operating a motor vehicle after offense 2, you lose a foot, after that you lose a hand...
Probably not. It was ahead in the polls and has been dropping and is now behind 42% to 49% (according to a Field Poll released a couple days ago). That's almost the reverse of what it was in September. None of the major democratic candidates have supported it. It doesn't seem to have any financial backing. Even the San Francisco Chronicle, one of the more left-leaning major city papers, opposes it. According to the Chronicle, legalization is a good idea, but this is a flawed piece of legislation.
This is one of the major things I've heard about it.
California probably wouldn't have to fight it in the Supreme Court. It would have to be whoever would be busted by the federal police I believe. But the law would be struck down if challenged in the courts, so I don't really see why it matters.
The only real problem I have with prop 19 in the idea of licensing public places for consumption.
While I am not, nor have I ever been a user of this particular substance, I don't believe you should go to jail for possession of a minor amount, and have not problem with people doing this in the privacy of their homes.
However, when you let people get high in a public place, you are asking for problems. The main problem I see is when they leave. If they are driving, and they are still under the influence of this particular substance, then they are putting others at risk. Its no different than drunk driving. Big question: Is there some kind of test that can be administered by a police officer that will determine whether or not someone is under the influence of this substance?
That said, i doubt it will pass, but I think the general idea is well on its way.
People get DWI's all the time for prescription drugs or nyquil even. If you fail a field sobriety test it is the same punishment as a dui.
I am as graceful as an elephant, so the one time I got a field sobriety test, I was nearly screwed. I tried to explain to the cop that I cant stand on one foot for very long, etc, eventually he let me go, after I recited the military alphabet backwards (Zulu, Yankee, X Ray, Whiskey, etc), and did a algebra problem in my head,
point of the story: failing a field sobriety test does not mean you are driving under the influence of anything, and if afterwards, you happen to test positive for cannabis usage (which could be in the last 30 days), then your totally fucked, for presumably no reason. Until police are equipt with a quick and effective method of testing your blood for thc content, and can write a DUI with obvious knowledge of you being under the influence while driving, maybe we should hold off on public consumption.
Other than that, go ahead. Just the legal growing and distribution will create jobs (not many, but its a start), it will create a taxable revenue, it will divert money from drug cartels, and it will keep the court houses / jail houses from being filled up with stupid stoner kids, that haven't got good enough sense not to get caught.
Post by billypilgrim on Nov 2, 2010 19:48:53 GMT -5
As I see it, the problem isn't that it would be challenged in court, but that there would be conflicting state and federal laws. We have that now with medical marijuana. The Obama administration hasn't made it a priority to bust medical marijuana users or dispensaries. But if the feds wanted to enforce federal laws against possession or use of marijuana, a contrary state law wouldn't stop them.
The issues with this particular proposition that have received the most negative attention are:
*Individual cities and counties would get to decide how to enforce it, which would lead to inconsistencies (some say chaos).
*It doesn't address issues that need to be addressed. For example, the laws regarding driving while intoxicated would still apply. But there's no clear answer to questions about the legality of passengers smoking in a moving vehicle.
* Claims that it will become a huge source of tax revenue have been exaggerated. If it's legal, the prices will go down and there will be less income to tax.
* Finally, there's the ever-present WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?? argument. Detractors of the proposition argue that if marijuana is legal and more readily available, young people will be more likely to smoke it. And we all know what that leads to.
Having said all that, I voted for it. Maybe it isn't perfectly drafted. But it's an idea whose time has come. I agree with those who say that this is a first step.
The only real problem I have with prop 19 in the idea of licensing public places for consumption.
While I am not, nor have I ever been a user of this particular substance, I don't believe you should go to jail for possession of a minor amount, and have not problem with people doing this in the privacy of their homes.
However, when you let people get high in a public place, you are asking for problems. The main problem I see is when they leave. If they are driving, and they are still under the influence of this particular substance, then they are putting others at risk. Its no different than drunk driving. Big question: Is there some kind of test that can be administered by a police officer that will determine whether or not someone is under the influence of this substance?
That said, i doubt it will pass, but I think the general idea is well on its way.
It'll just be like bars that serve alcohol. Also driving under the influence of THC is different than alcohol. I still do not think it should be done, but a study in London reported that while Marijuana does effect coordination and reaction time, it also causes the driver to drive with more caution than a sober driver resulting in less accidents on their course than drunk drivers and similar to that of sober drivers. Also I would like to point out that never has there ever been a fatal car accident where the driver has been under the sole influence of cannabis. I'll post links to these studies later.
The only real problem I have with prop 19 in the idea of licensing public places for consumption.
While I am not, nor have I ever been a user of this particular substance, I don't believe you should go to jail for possession of a minor amount, and have not problem with people doing this in the privacy of their homes.
However, when you let people get high in a public place, you are asking for problems. The main problem I see is when they leave. If they are driving, and they are still under the influence of this particular substance, then they are putting others at risk. Its no different than drunk driving. Big question: Is there some kind of test that can be administered by a police officer that will determine whether or not someone is under the influence of this substance?
That said, i doubt it will pass, but I think the general idea is well on its way.
It'll just be like bars that serve alcohol. Also driving under the influence of THC is different than alcohol. I still do not think it should be done, but a study in London reported that while Marijuana does effect coordination and reaction time, it also causes the driver to drive with more caution than a sober driver resulting in less accidents on their course than drunk drivers and similar to that of sober drivers. Also I would like to point out that never has there ever been a fatal car accident where the driver has been under the sole influence of cannabis. I'll post links to these studies later.
just the fact that it will be difficult to test whether or not someone is under the influence of cannabis presently is what makes me question public consumption.
^You are missing the point dude, you can right now get a DWI by being intoxicated by ANY substance legal or illegal. Also a blood test can tell what your current level of intoxication is, the 30 days is for urine tests to see if you use at all.
^You are missing the point dude, you can right now get a DWI by being intoxicated by ANY substance legal or illegal. Also a blood test can tell what your current level of intoxication is, the 30 days is for urine tests to see if you use at all.
I was unaware that a blood test would give a current level of intoxication. If that is the case, then theres one less thing to be worried about.
