California Proposition 19 - need your guys' opinions

Weird. I mean, unless you have some issues with being high, there definitely are situations when weed is better, or alcohol is not an option at all.

I?m not really sure what you mean by that. Care to explain?
 
I?m not really sure what you mean by that. Care to explain?

Generally speaking, weed is more activity-friendly than alcohol, unless you get well baked. If you don't get too high, you can still go about your business without drawing any attention or doing silly things. Weed tends to make you more creative and thoughtful in a good sense, while alcohol makes you rather blunt. Alcohol hangovers are much, much worse than weed burnouts (which are virtually nonexistent for most strains), so if I knew that I had things to get done the next morning, I'd definitely prefer smoking to drinking.

Then, there are medicinal applications: pain relief, anxiety relief, et cetera. Alcohol is pretty useless for many of those.
 
Last edited:
I can tell you right now, I experience much less pain and have far less anxiety when drunk.

Legalize it - wish we had got that initiative on the ballot here.
 
I wonder what will happen if it passes. The medical dispensaries are what I wonder about the most. Will they stay in business if you can get it everywhere? Or will they all of a sudden become more crowded and have less in stock now that anyone can buy?
 
Weed is still illegal under federal law, so forcing you to report income from it would be akin to California forcing you to incriminate yourself under federal law.

Tenth Amendment said:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Unless the law is in the Constitution California can ignore it.
 
^ You forget the interstate commerce clause, which states that Congress can make laws regarding anything involving interstate commerce, which is just about everything these days. When federal law states that it is illegal to buy and use a substance, that is the part of the constitution that it falls under.
 
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/marijuana-270653-prop-prohibition.html

Hanna Dershowitz: Pot's an infraction, but we need Prop. 19


SB1449, which reclassifies present penalties for small amounts of marijuana as an infraction rather than a misdemeanor, is a signal of the true necessity of Proposition 19. It is an acknowledgment by the legislature and the governor that marijuana prohibition has failed and is not worth spending scarce law enforcement resources on.
SB1449 means that if a guy is caught smoking a small amount of marijuana, he is subject to the same $100 fine as has been the penalty since 1972, under a different name. Prop. 19, in turn, would eliminate the catching and fining part for adult petty possession, freeing up more police resources to devote to crimes that pose a real threat to public safety. Prop. 19 would also address the pressing need to bring our $14 billion per year marijuana industry into the light of day and control and regulate it, taking it out of the hands of violent criminals and drug cartels.

Reclassification is not a negative, but it does not allow the state or localities to tax marijuana, and it does not end law enforcement involvement in possession of marijuana, a widely consumed commodity that is objectively less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.
Reclassification also leaves marijuana distribution in a completely unregulated environment, with no consumer protections in place, even as it fails to redirect the revenues from its sale to our cash-strapped cities, counties and state. We need Prop. 19 to convert the prohibition-generated black market into a legitimate industry, replete with jobs, economic development, taxes and innovation. So while it is great to hear the powers that be in Sacramento say marijuana prohibition is not a valid priority, SB1449 is just a step in the right direction that underscores the need for true reform.
And California voters are poised to make that real change, one that will start to repair decades of damage, including ruining countless lives for conduct that did not harm another person's body or property, incarcerating millions of people, and creating and fostering a violent criminal underground.
Prop. 19 is also needed to help reverse the shameless pattern of racially disproportionate enforcement that has been a hallmark of marijuana prohibition. We know from a recent study that in every one of the top 25 California counties, black residents are arrested two, three and even four times as often as whites, even though U.S government studies consistently show that usage patterns are lower among young blacks than young whites. SB1449 would not ameliorate this problem. In fact, police could still target communities of color and may even be motivated to issue more citations than in the past, since they won't cost as much under SB1449. Prop. 19, by contrast, will end futile practices of subjecting otherwise law-abiding consumers to detention, citation and collection of personal data, while wasting law enforcement effort and cost; SB 1449, by contrast, preserves these practices.
All told, Prop. 19 moves the ball forward to reject the failed relic of a system under which we operate today. If it passes Nov. 2, it will be the harbinger of a new era in which it is truly possible to thaw fossilized debates and rethink policies based on evidence, rationality and fair administration of justice.
SB1449 shows that California is ready to make changes to the old, broken-down, wasteful, ineffective and harmful policy of marijuana prohibition. Prop. 19 will show that California is willing and able to make the change meaningful, to build a new, common-sense system of control and taxation. Anything less than that is more of the same.



http://www.420magazine.com/2010/04/rope-and-dope/

Rope and Dope

On a recent day, the grandson of ?America?s Hemp King? relaxed poolside while reminiscing about his family?s ?sordid? history in Wisconsin?s once-booming hemp industry.

?I get chuckles and sly smiles until I clarify what I?m talking about,? says Dennis Rens, 70, in a phone conversation from his winter home in Fort Myers, Fla. Rens? grandfather, Matt Rens, was the state?s largest hemp producer and owner of the state?s largest hemp processing mill during the crop?s heyday from 1914 to the 1950s. ?In casual conversations, most people associate hemp with marijuana. Back when my grandfather had the mill, hemp was a crop, not something people talked about smoking.?

But that was a different time, a time before the government dealt the hardy crop its final blow by including it in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 along with its cannabis cousin, marijuana.

?The peace, love, hippie movement kind of demonized it,? says state Rep. Phil Garthwaite, D-Dickeyville, the sponsor of a bill this session to create a committee to study the market for hemp. ?Because of some lack of education, people are resistant to allowing farmers to grow hemp. That will change when they start looking at the facts.?

Hemp is showing up again in a slew of products ranging from makeup and clothes to milk products and protein powder. Cashing in on the bulk of the production are countries like China, Australia, France and Germany. Canadian farmers are making money, too. Yet Wisconsin, which for the first half of the last century was the country?s second-leading producer of hemp, is shut out of a market that is growing by 20 percent annually worldwide and grossing $365 million in products in North America alone, according to the Hemp Industries Association.

The logjam is at the federal level, with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration refusing to permit the growing of cannabis crops, which include hemp, except for a handful of researchers in university settings. U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, is pushing to change that by supporting legislation that would declassify hemp as a controlled substance under the regulation of the DEA.

Despite the fact that the DEA isn?t handing out permits, nine states have sided with farmers and legalized hemp farming. In January, state Rep. Louis Molepske Jr., D-Stevens Point, introduced a bill that would make Wisconsin the 10th. With smoking bans on the rise and tobacco use on the decline, struggling state farmers say they want another cash crop to replace tobacco. Some in law and drug enforcement circles remain opposed, saying a state law will have little effect if the federal government continues to restrict hemp and that the need to test different varieties of cannabis for court cases will be costly.

Molepske says the state had it right at the time when the Rens family cultivated acres of hemp. ?Nobody had concerns about growing hemp back then. It wasn?t an issue,? he says.

Hemp Oil Canada incorporated three days after hemp was legalized by the Canadian government in 1998. To date, its biggest customer base is in the United States.

From January to October of 2009, the company exported roughly $600,000 in hemp oil and $1.8 million in hemp protein powder to the United States. As evidenced by Canadian exports, the hemp market is much more diversified than when Wisconsin farmers last grew hemp. Lack of product diversification led to decreasing sales for hemp when demand began to shrink after World War II and cheaper, synthetic fibers started to enter the market.

Anndrea Hermann, Hemp Oil Canada?s industry liaison, says the company, along with the Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance, works with up to 150 hemp farmers annually to supply the expanding market.

?The years they plant hemp are the years my farmers go on holidays,? says Hermann, a Missouri native who immigrated to Canada to cultivate hemp seeds. ?They know they will make a profit.?

Farmers can make up to $750 an acre for hemp, while corn farmers, for example, are barely breaking even in a volatile market, according to figures provided by UW-Extension and Hemp Oil Canada.

?If there is a legal market for it, there should be a legal crop to produce for it,? says Farron Havens, president and chief executive officer of the Wisconsin Agribusiness Council, which has registered in favor of Garthwaite?s bill to study the hemp market. ?Any viable cash crop is worth looking into.?

No one can say exactly how large the hemp market could be in Wisconsin, but so far this year, Hemp Oil Canada has found two new customers in the state: Pearl Street Brewery in La Crosse and O?Fallon Brewery.

Although based in Missouri, O?Fallon is under contract to begin brewing and bottling its Hemp-Hop-Rye beer at the Stevens Point Brewery as soon as next month.

Brian Owens, O?Fallon?s head brewer, says the brewery was interested in using hemp as a way to educate the public about the market potential of the crop, though he was wary of creating something that would be viewed as ?quirky? or ?gimmicky.? He says that once he started making samples, he was impressed with the flavor imparted by hemp seeds.

?It reminds me of a blend between a sunflower and pumpkin seed,? Owens says.

But nothing with hemp is easy.

Owens had to submit a ?statement of purpose? to use hemp as an ingredient in the beer?s recipe to the federal Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. In addition, he had to submit verification to the agency about the THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) level of the seeds. THC is the main psychoactive substance found in cannabis plants.

Hemp Oil Canada verifies the THC level of each seed package it sends. To satisfy federal bureau agents, Owens also needs to get the seeds tested at a lab in the United States. Each test costs $150. The test results don?t need to be turned in to the alcohol and tobacco bureau, but the company needs to keep them on file in case of an inspection, or to prove to law enforcement the seeds are from hemp, not marijuana.

?I know the results of the hemp seed tests have been within the acceptable threshold, but I still don?t know what that threshold is,? Owens says. ?I think that?s really odd.?

In fact, nowhere in the agency?s four-page ?Hemp Policy? does it state an acceptable level for the amount of THC that can be detected in hemp oil and seeds. The policy only says ?to specify the amount of THC detected, or state that none was detected.?

Last week, Owens was dealt his final, minor delay from the alcohol and tobacco bureau when officials denied the brewery?s label permit because it had a picture of a hemp plant on it. By removing the hemp plant and adding the words ?malt beverage brewed with hemp seeds,? the label was approved Friday.

?It?s unbelievable,? Owens says. ?This is just crazy, crazy, stuff.?


Owens expects to import between 2,000 and 4,000 pounds of hemp seeds annually from Canada to the brewery?s Stevens Point location. He says he would love to be able to find a local source for the seeds and Wisconsin farmers are itching to supply the product.

The Wisconsin Farmers Union has supported the hemp-farming movement for years, says Darin Von Ruden, the group?s president. With the decline in tobacco sales and the statewide smoking ban taking effect July 5, farmers want as many crop options as possible, he says.

?We want an alternative revenue source,? Von Ruden says. ?To be able to grow hemp is a change in policy we push for and support.?

Though hemp has been illegal to grow without a permit from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Adminstration since the 1970s, remnants of Wisconsin?s dominance of the hemp market can still be found growing alongside country roads and highways across the state.

?Older farmers know what it is when they see it growing in ditches next to their fields,? says Sgt. Gordy Disch with the Dane County Sheriff?s Office, Division of Narcotics. ?That?s where hemp got the name ditch weed.?

The uncultivated ditch weed that now grows in the wild was purposefully introduced to Wisconsin soil in 1908 when a few acres were cultivated as an experiment at the state asylum, now the Mendota Mental Health Institution, in Dane County, and the state prison in Waupun. By 1914, the limited amount of hemp that was being grown wasn?t enough to supply the country?s need for coarse threads and other rope products. With the onset of World War I, hemp imports also fell off.

That same year, the University of Wisconsin began encouraging farmers in Alto, Brandon and Waupun to grow hemp. Matt Rens was among them. He planted his first hemp crop along Wisconsin 19 between Brandon and Waupun. A year later, the Matt Rens Hemp Co. was created, opening the state?s first hemp mill outside Waupun.

At the height of the state?s hemp production in the 1930s and 1940s, Dodge, Fond du Lac and Green Lake counties produced 70 percent of the country?s total hemp crop, according to the Wisconsin Historical Society.

Hemp production continued strong through the start of World War II. When the fighting came to an end, the world?s largest hemp producers, including China, again began to dominate the market, not only with hemp, but with cheaper, synthetic fibers.

Though still a boy at the time, Dennis Rens remembers seeing his family?s hemp lose its value. By the time they grew their last crop in 1957, it had become so difficult to sell the hemp seeds that his uncle had to degerminate them and sell them as bird seed. That change decreased the price of the seed from $10 to $2 a barrel. The mill closed in 1959.

?By that time we started getting into the marijuana issue,? Rens says. ?And that was it.?

Not much more than a decade later, growing hemp became illegal.

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 classified all plants with any detectable level of THC as belonging to the plant family Cannabis sativa L. This designation created a legal union between hemp and marijuana that lawmakers like Baldwin are trying to undo.

?At a time when family farmers and manufacturers are struggling to recover from the recession, enacting this legislation is a no-brainer,? Baldwin says in a statement.

For the past three sessions of Congress, Baldwin has joined a short but growing list of Democrats in co-sponsoring Texas Republican Ron Paul?s Industrial Hemp Farming Act. The bill classifies industrial hemp as any plant variety of cannabis with a THC concentration that does not exceed 0.3 percent. Marijuana is typically cultivated by growers to have THC levels of between 10 and 22 percent.

?It?s one of the simplest pieces of legislation ever,? says Tom Murphy, the national outreach coordinator for Vote Hemp, a national advocacy group. ?It defines industrial hemp, excludes it from the definition of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, and lets the states regulate how hemp is grown and processed.?

Since 1998, nine states have legalized hemp farming; North Dakota was the first. That state?s farmers soon learned they wouldn?t be able to grow hemp, despite the state?s law, without a DEA permit. One farmer, Wayne Hauge, tried to get his by suing the government but a judge recently dismissed his case, telling him to lobby Congress instead.

?We thought it would work like it worked in Canada ? smoothly,? says Hauge, who filed suit in 2007 after being denied a federal permit to grow hemp. ?Nobody expected so much opposition from the DEA.?

In Wisconsin, Molepske says passage of his hemp-farming bill would show solidarity with the 25 other states that have either legalized hemp, established committees to study its market viability or passed resolutions urging Congress and the DEA to act on the issue; this, in turn, would help put pressure on the federal government to change its guidelines. Another factor boding well for the cause, says Molepske, is the growing number of states, now up to 14, that are allowing marijuana to be grown for medicinal purposes.

?If we passed these bills, we would be putting pressure on the feds to loosen up the reins, especially with the direction medical marijuana is taking,? Molepske says. ?What could be the problem with growing hemp? You can?t even smoke it.?

Molepske concedes that his bill, which is in the Assembly Agriculture Committee, has little chance of passage before the end of the legislative session next month. While farmers support the effort, law enforcement, the state Controlled Substances Board and the state Department of Justice have voiced opposition.

Another strike against it is cost.

The state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection estimates in the bill?s fiscal note that it would cost $233,000 for the department to modify its database to include hemp-growing farmers, test the THC levels of seeds, and hire staff to oversee the hemp farms. The department based its estimate on the number of farmers growing hemp in Canada, determining that if hemp farming was legal in Wisconsin, roughly 30 farmers would plant 50 acres of hemp.

Molepske says the estimate is ?not logical,? adding there would be no immediate fiscal impact until federal law is changed. ?The fiscal note on this should be zero,? he says. ?I?m disappointed DATCP can?t get its act together.?

Botanists and plant geneticists are quick to point out the chemical differences between hemp and marijuana. Yet state and federal laws classify both plants, despite their vastly different THC levels, in the most stringent category of controlled substances, a group that also includes ******. Consequently, any plant with THC cannot be possessed, grown or transported in the state. This is an obvious roadblock for hemp farming and the main reason some in the law enforcement and criminal justice communities oppose hemp-farming legislation.

?In Wisconsin, our (drug) laws echo the federal Controlled Substances Act, and the federal act makes no distinction between hemp and marijuana,? says Darold Treffert, a psychiatrist and chair of the state?s Controlled Substances Board, which is opposed to Molepske?s bill. ?Cannabis, is cannabis, is cannabis.?

Since state law does not distinguish between the THC levels of plants, neither do state crime labs. The labs simply test for the presence of THC and do not determine the exact amount.

?The analysis of marijuana is generally not a difficult thing to do,? says Robert Block, a controlled substance analyst with the State Crime Lab in Madison. ?The concern is that adding a quantitation (or THC-level determination) to every sample of marijuana analyzed would add considerable time to the overall analysis.?

In short, it would take longer and likely cost more for the state to analyze samples for a specific THC level.

While state and federal laws and crime labs do not distinguish between hemp and marijuana plants, officers in the field do. And they?re increasingly leaving it alone where it grows.

In 2005, the DEA ? the same agency that will not permit hemp growing ? ceased reimbursing local law enforcement for ditch weed eradication efforts. Consequently, Wisconsin police went from collecting roughly 925,600 plants in 2003 to 31,380 in 2006, according to the state Department of Justice. In 2007, the state quit keeping track entirely.

?The DEA isn?t focused on it because it?s poor-quality weed,? says David Spakowitz, director of field operations for the state Department of Justice. ?Neither are we. We?re focused on higher-quality marijuana because it is more likely to draw criminal activity. If you have headache-quality weed or marijuana with a THC level of 10 percent, people are going to go for the higher-quality product.?

He admits there will always be teens driving around looking for what they think will be a good, free high. A field of hemp would be a logical target, he says.

Disch, with Dane County?s narcotics division, says officers broke up a group of teens harvesting ditch weed a few years ago in a town of Middleton park. A chemical test performed by the officers at the scene did not provide a presumptive positive for any THC level. Consequently, the teens were let go with a verbal warning, not a ticket. He says this is a rare occurrence.

?Rarely do we find people dumb enough to smoke ditch weed,? he says.

Though ditch weed smokers appear to be few and far between, the Wisconsin Sheriff?s and Deputy Sheriff?s Association is opposed to Garthwaite?s bill to study the hemp market and Molepske?s bill to permit the growing of hemp.

There does seem to be some wiggle room with the opposition. Block and Treffert cite a bill similar to Molepske?s that is under consideration in Missouri. The bill would shift the burden of proof for determining if a plant is hemp or marijuana from the state to the individual caught with the goods.

?If the DEA revised its position and would issue some permits to grow hemp, then we would not be opposed to that (hemp farming) if the burden of proof was changed in the state bill,? Treffert says. ?But so long as the federal government continues to lump rope and dope ? hemp and marijuana ? together, we are bound by that.?

Earlier this year, Dane County Board Supervisor Kyle Richmond suggested that the county lobby in favor of any hemp-growing legislation. As chair of the county?s Environment, Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, Richmond says it is a practice the county has supported for years. Hemp is an economically and ecologically viable crop, he says.

?We are handicapping ourselves and our farmers, and losing global market influence by not diversifying the crops our farmers can grow,? Richmond says. ?We are allowing entrepreneurs in China to do what we can?t do in Dane County,? he adds, ?all because of extremely old laws and standards that aren?t supported by science. Hemp and marijuana are not the same.?

Rich Ray, the owner of Hempen Goods on Williamson Street in Madison, was driven to open his store 12 years ago, in part, to educate people on that distinction. Now he?s dismayed that while his customers are local and many want locally produced goods, his products are not.

All the items in his store come from one of the world?s leading producers of hemp: China. He says he would gladly stop importing hemp products from China if hemp were grown locally.

?I started (the business) to promote the eco-friendly aspects of the plant,? Ray says. ?But it is a real handicap for me now.?
 
Last edited:
Holder promises to enforce U.S. drug laws if Prop. 19 passes
Attorney general joins local law enforcement officials in opposing legalization of marijuana. Prop. 19 supporters say the U.S. has no legal ground to challenge the measure.
By John Hoeffel, Los Angeles Times
October 16, 2010

Stepping up the Obama administration's opposition to Proposition 19, the nation's top law enforcement official promised to "vigorously enforce" federal drug laws against Californians who grow or sell marijuana for recreational use even if voters pass the legalization measure.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder's response to the initiative comes as the administration has been under pressure to campaign against it more forcefully. Last week, Mexico's president, Felipe Calderon, chided the Obama administration for not doing enough to defeat it. And last month, nine former heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration publicly urged Holder to speak out.

In a letter sent Wednesday to the former DEA administrators, Holder wrote, "Let me state clearly that the Department of Justice strongly opposes Proposition 19. If passed, this legislation will greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens."

Holder's letter underscores that a period of turmoil, pitting the federal government against pot legalization backers, will ensue if voters approve Proposition 19. After California legalized medical marijuana in 1996 the DEA launched numerous raids against dispensaries and growers.

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, who is a co-chairman of the main opposition committee, released the letter at a news conference at his headquarters Friday, flanked by two former DEA heads, the district attorney and the Los Angeles city attorney.

"He is saying it is an unenforceable law and the federal government will not allow California to become a rogue state on this issue," Baca said. "You can't make a law in contradiction to federal law as a state. Therefore Proposition 19 is null and void and dead on arrival."

Proponents of the measure on the Nov. 2 ballot assailed the attorney general's one-page letter, denouncing his intention to disregard the will of California voters and his defense of a failed war on drugs. "We're not necessarily surprised that the establishment is coming down on the side of the status quo," said Dale Sky Jones, a spokeswoman for the Proposition 19 campaign.

The initiative would allow Californians age 21 and older to grow up to 25 square feet of marijuana and possess up to an ounce. It also allows cities and counties to authorize cultivation and sales, and to tax them. Several cities, including Oakland, appear to be poised to do so if the law passes. Polls have consistently shown that about half of the state's electorate favors legalizing marijuana.

"It takes the smoke right out of their hookah," said Robert Salazar, a spokesman for the No on 19 campaign. He noted that Californians could not count on seeing any of the promised tax revenues if the federal government arrests anyone who engages in commercial pot sales.

In an Aug. 24 letter and a Sept. 13 news conference in Washington, the former DEA chiefs asked Holder to make it clear that the initiative would be preempted by federal law and would put the United States in violation of international drug treaties, warning about "the unfortunate message that this silence conveys." Holder, responding two months later, did not mention either issue.

Instead, he noted that prosecutions under the federal Controlled Substances Act remain a "core priority" and wrote, "We will vigorously enforce the CSA against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture, or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law." He did not say how he intends to do that, but said the department "is considering all available legal and policy options."

Baca, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley and the other law enforcement officials insisted the initiative is unconstitutional because it conflicts with federal law. Baca also said he would not uphold the measure, if it passes, and would arrest anyone with a 25-square-foot plot.

Alex Kreit, an associate professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego and an initiative supporter, said Baca would be arresting people for acts that are no longer illegal under state law. "If he does that, he's inviting lawsuits left and right for unlawful arrest," he said.

Cooley predicted that the federal government would sue and a court would issue an injunction. "He didn't quite come out and say, 'We're going to sue you, California,' but it was close enough," said Cooley, who is also the Republican candidate for attorney general.

The initiative's proponents, reading a different implication between the lines, said Holder's decision not to mention a lawsuit suggests the department has concluded it has no grounds to challenge the law. Department lawyers have been meeting to discuss the issue. "It's almost as if they acquiesced that they're not going to challenge Prop. 19," said Jeff Jones, a co-sponsor of Proposition 19 whose Oakland cannabis club closed after the federal government sued.

Robert Raich, a lawyer who has handled two medical marijuana cases that went to the U.S. Supreme Court and supports Proposition 19, said the initiative does not violate federal law because it changes only state law, not federal law. "Simply because California and the federal government choose to punish an act differently does not mean they have a conflict," he said. He said it is no different than the state's medical marijuana laws, which have been upheld in court.

But he said DEA agents could still enforce federal drug laws. "If the federal government wanted to waste its limited resources trying to prosecute some marijuana facility in Oakland, then nothing would stop them from doing that," he said.

The measure's proponents noted that Proposition 215, the medical marijuana law, drew a similar federal reaction. "This is 1996 all over again," said Stephen Gutwillig, the state director of the Drug Policy Alliance. But he noted that, besides California, 13 states and the District of Columbia now allow medical marijuana. "All that happened without a single change in federal law."

Gutwillig criticized the Obama administration for continuing a costly war on drugs that has failed. But Peter Bensinger, who headed the DEA between 1976 and 1981 and was at the news conference, described it as a success because drug use is substantially lower now than at its peak in 1978.

President Obama has said he opposes legalizing marijuana, but last year his administration ended prosecutions of medical marijuana collectives and patients that abide by state laws, in effect choosing to ignore activities that violate the Controlled Substances Act.

Until Holder released his letter Friday, the Obama administration's fight against the initiative was largely being carried out by the drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske. The White House press office, calling it a "sensitive issue," referred questions on the president's role to the Justice Department, which did not respond to a request for information or for an interview with Holder.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marijuana-holder-20101016,0,5547626.story

Not entirely surprising that Obama and his administration are against this proposition.
 
If it passes (probably), and the Feds start cracking down, this will lead to one hell of a constitutional fight (10th amendment).
 
Then again, it all depends on who is elected to the Attorny General post. Or it might not be an issue at all if they both just roll over and play dead.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-armentano-marijuana-20101014,0,2529515.story

California's next attorney general can't punt on marijuana
Steve Cooley and Kamala Harris appear reluctant to fully enforce Proposition 19 if it passes. No matter what happens on election day, drug policy is an issue California's next top law enforcement official must be ready to deal with.

Regardless of which candidate wins the race for California attorney general, voters expect that San Francisco Dist. Atty. Kamala Harris or Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley will respect the outcome of the election gracefully.

But they appear reluctant to extend that respect to Proposition 19, which would legalize the private, adult use of limited amounts of marijuana statewide and allow local governments to regulate commercial production and retail distribution. At their debate last week at UC Davis, neither Harris nor Cooley would state whether they would, as attorney general, enforce and defend Proposition 19.

Democrat Harris was ambiguous regarding what her actions as attorney general might be: "I believe that if it were to pass, it would be incumbent on the attorney general to convene her top lawyers and the experts on constitutional law to do a full analysis of the constitutionality of that measure ... and what action, if any, should follow."

Republican Cooley was more blunt: "I really am strongly opposed to Proposition 19 for many reasons. I would be inclined to advise that it is unconstitutional and preempted by federal law."

Given that the attorney general is sworn to uphold all of the laws of the state, not just the ones he or she supports, the candidates' responses were disconcerting. In both cases it appears that their personal biases against marijuana legalization could compromise their ability to objectively carry out their duties as attorney general.

Further, both candidates' statements exhibit extreme arrogance. On the one hand, both Harris and Cooley believe that voters should be empowered to choose the state's top law enforcement officer; but when it comes to amending the state's marijuana laws, Harris isn't sure that voters have the final word, and Cooley disregards them outright. Both candidates ought to know better; after all, voters pay for enforcing these criminal policies with their tax dollars.

Of course, such disregard for voter sentiment is nothing new. Former state Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren vehemently opposed Proposition 215, the 1996 initiative that legalized the physician-authorized use of marijuana, and he threatened to use the power of his office to oppose it. Fourteen years after Lungren's bluster, it is apparent that the law is here to stay irrespective of the verbal threats uttered by the state's former attorney general. One can expect history to repeat itself if voters endorse Proposition 19 on Nov. 2.

But even if the measure fails, there is a strong likelihood that California's next attorney general is going to have to face this issue head on. National surveys on marijuana laws show steadily increasing public support for legalization ? from less than 20% in the late 1980s to just under half today. Support is even stronger on the West Coast, with nearly 60% of voters in this part of the country responding in a 2009 Zogby International poll that marijuana should be "taxed and legally regulated like alcohol." In other words, even if voters reject legalization this time around, they are more likely to support a similar measure in a future election.

Which ultimately brings up the question: If a government's legitimate use of state power is based on the consent of the governed, then at what point does marijuana prohibition ? in particular the federal enforcement of prohibition ? become illegitimate public policy? Ready or not, California's next attorney general needs to be able to answer that question objectively and definitively.

Paul Armentano is deputy director of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, and co-chair of the health professionals steering committee for the Proposition 19 campaign.
 
Does anyone have a good cliff notes to how the CSA doesn't trample on the toes of the states right to regulate medicine?
 
The who? CSA? Never heard of it, must be a Cali thing.
 
^ You forget the interstate commerce clause, which states that Congress can make laws regarding anything involving interstate commerce, which is just about everything these days. When federal law states that it is illegal to buy and use a substance, that is the part of the constitution that it falls under.

Only if it is imported into CA. They already grow weed there locally.
 
Ahh, yes, I do know what it is. I would put up a facepalm, but I will just admit to it.
 
Apparently the polls have this thing a dead heat. But it is only a 1000 person poll, and it also depends greatly on how the question is asked.

And a former Surgeon General says it is time to legalize it.


LP, has your opinion swayed one way or another?


EDIT:

found an article about another Poll that has Prop 19 ahead by a bit.
 
Last edited:
I think this ad says it all.



And this one is pretty good too.


And a new Poll shows it losing.
 
Last edited:
Well now the politicians are saying about how it won't be enforced to stop "high people" from getting in and driving cars until they crash and how employers couldn't force employees to not smoke while on the job. The actual bill however, said that employers RETAIN the right to stop employees from performing a sensitive or dangerous job if they appear to have smoked it before working. (Still the employer's decision of if they work or not, much like it is now.)

(Got my voter book yesterday after my grandma sent it to me and I started reading some of the stuff. Both of those attorney general candidates (Democratic and Republican) argued against prop 19 in the book.)
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

It's the act that allows the federal gov't to regulate drugs. I was always under the impression that it was explicitly up to the states how to regulate medicine within their borders. A subject I've never known much about though.

Unless it is in the Constitution the States can overrule it. There is a reason why prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment.

Obama has said he will have the Feds crack down on the CA government if they pass the law. This is a bluff, but I now consider the guy a shit bag for it. Yes I am a Republican in the true sense of the word (not as in the Republican Party which is everything but).
 
Top