Prop 19

[BustedS13]

I'm interested to hear opinions on Prop 19 from California voters. for it, against it, undecided? it seems there's some sort of resistance to it from both sides, and I'd like to hear your reasoning.


edit: before you post, please take the time to do some fact checking. Prop 19 will not make any changes to prop 215. please do not post misinformation. please do not post anecdotal bullshit. please do not use this thread to talk about your last pickup, or anything at all about recreational use. this is about the law, not your hippie burnout tales.

[ronmcdon]

I'm undecided, some convincing arguments on both ends.
what's your stance on this?

[BustedS13]

I'm all for it. any step forward is fine by me. I believe that most people who are against it have been either misinformed or are making money off marijuana's legal status. then there's the all-or-nothing types who think that it's too restrictive.
if you aren't making money selling marijuana right now, you have absolutely nothing to lose by voting yes. the channels that exist to get it right now will still exist if prop 19 passes, so who cares?
I want to see it pass because, of course, "as California goes, so goes the nation". Prohibition has done nothing but ruin lives.

[stinky_180]

I'm against it. When people here 'legal' and 'marijuana' in one sentence they automatically think its going to be totally legal. As a matter of fact, there will be more restrictions and current patients will have less 'freedom'. Read the entire bill before thinking its totally legal. Or, visit:

Stoners Against the Prop. 19 Tax Cannabis Initiative: WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE PROP. 19: 19 REASONS TO VOTE KNOW

[BustedS13]

[I]
Myth #1: The initiative will end the War on Drugs and substantially reduce marijuana arrests, saving millions in prison costs.

any step towards legalization/decriminalization of marijuana is a good one.

Myth #2: The initiative will keep young adults out of jail for using marijuana.
Fact: This initiative would put more young people in jail for pot. If it becomes law, any adult 21 or over who passes a joint to another adult aged 18-20 would face six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. [8] (NORML's Web site reports that the current penalty for a gift of marijuana of 1 oz. or less is a $100 fine.[9])

these ones about what happens when you break the law are ridiculous.

Myth #3: You'll be able to light up freely in the privacy of your home.
Fact: That depends. Under the initiative, even adults consuming marijuana in the privacy of their homes could face arrest if there are minors present

you shouldn't smoke around people who would call the cops on you anyway.

Myth #4: Under the initiative, anyone 21 or over will be allowed to grow marijuana in a 5’x5’ space.
Fact: Not quite. This allotment is per property, not per person.

oh man, you can only have 25 square feet of marijuana per household? that would only churn out a couple pounds every grow cycle! how would you get by?

Myth #5: Adults 21 and over will be able to possess up to one ounce of marijuana without penalty.
Fact: Perhaps the most ironic piece of the puzzle is that the initiative to legalize marijuana actually makes it illegal to possess marijuana if it was purchased anywhere other than the very few licensed dispensaries in the state.[12] [B]So if this initiative passes, better not get caught carrying marijuana you bought off your neighbor, your current dealer, or at a party; you could get arrested.

wow, that's so different from how it is now!

i'll make fun of the rest of these later

[bb4_96]

why not legalize. Country is going down the tubes anyway.

[ronmcdon]

Well I don't agree that penalties should be any higher than what they are now, especially if it's drastically more severe.

Now if they just increased the fines to gouge (as a means to make more $$$), I'd be okay with that.
To add incarceration, from a financial point of view would just defeat that purpose.
It's also ridiculously harsh to imprison someone for 6 months because of that.

That aside, America really has to get rid of that backwards 21 age limit thing.
We're not stuck in the goddamn 1950's anymore.

Myth #2: The initiative will keep young adults out of jail for using marijuana.
Fact: This initiative would put more young people in jail for pot. If it becomes law, any adult 21 or over who passes a joint to another adult aged 18-20 would face six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. [8]
(NORML's Web site reports that the current penalty for a gift of marijuana of 1 oz. or less is a $100 fine.[9])

My biggest pro for the prop is to add much needed income for the state.
Does it really do anything to benefit recreational users?
It might add legitimacy, but in practical terms I doubt it.
As mentioned prior it's already easy to obtain pot legally & conveniently here.

Does CA law really set a precedent?
I'm not entirely sure of that.
Not all states adopt CARB, so why would they do the same for the tentative prop 19?
If anything, I think Obama stating that he wouldn't enforce the federal law over state law had a bigger impact.
Think financial pressure will be the biggest motivation for all states to come up with some law to regulate pot.

Biggest con (to me) is really whether states actually make $$$.
Like I said, they really ought not to have such harsh jail penalties.
Pot ought to made avail to ppl as young as 18 (they are adults legally by then) to provide a wider taxable market.
For the recreational user, I can see how in practical terms it becomes far more restrictive.

Barring Prop 19 is by no means a step backwards either.
I think users and those concerned with the state economy such as myself (don't currently smoke nor intend to in the future), would prefer a less restrictive approach.
Like I said, propose a new law that get rid of putting ppl jail, then I'll be more open to that.

I'm leaning against it.

[shift_jin]

well if it does pass the rest of the nation can have a chance in looking into the short term pros/cons. I think that some positives can happen from this and plenty of negative consequences...

[kingkilburn]

If it passes it is a step in the right direction.

If it were my soul decision to make it would be completely legal for any one over 18 with the same penalties for DUI, selling to minors, and the like as tobacco and booze.

Any ill effects from the smoke are the responsibility of the smoker so why does the government have any say in it's legality.


EDIT
The biggest pro for me is that legalizing it will put the money into the hands of legitimate businessmen and out of the hands of violent drug cartels. That makes the industry as a whole safer and cleaner, and possibly makes the end product cheaper.

[ronmcdon]

I'd say the existing dispensaries are already pretty legit.
There's a store a few blocks around the corner from where I work in Dowtown LA.
The dudes there seem pretty easy-going & don't resemble drug lords.
Maybe it's different in other cities in CA (Central CA is very conservative).

The only' black-market' is really there if you intend to peddle to high-schoolers or younger, which is another argument in itself.

I also think that all things equal, heavy penalties should also be imposed on minors obtaining illegal substances
(not just the person passing on/selling the pot).
Responsibility should fall on both ends.
Again, gouge them with fines, but don't throw them in jail.

I think for the recreational user in CA, things are pretty good right now.
I think for the state's budget, a better bill could be written.

[kingkilburn]

Speaking of the state's budget. I don't want this legalized for the sake of tax revenue.

[stinky_180]

^you should read the article that I linked in my previous post.

[brndck]

first off, i don't smoke marijuana. even if i didn't get random drug tests for work, i still don't have a desire to smoke pot.

i think it should be legalized.
it'll provide tax revenue that the state of california desperately needs at this point, will eliminate thousands of court cases clogging up the system to allow the focus to be shifted towards more serious criminal offenses, and will drastically reduce the influx of drug runners streaming over the border, carrying narcotics and sometimes killing american citizens while doing so.

just my opinion.

[ronmcdon]

here's one of the more thoughtful discussions in FAVOR of CA Prop 19

California’s Prop 19: A Word-for-Word Analysis | NORML Blog, Marijuana Law Reform

[TheWolf]

I don't understand the logic of this "tax revenue" stream..

It's like offshore jobs. Some people do grow in the US although illegal etc but most are farm workers in mexico etc. Working for peanuts. Cost to grow, very minimal. Cost to transport expensive. Once "legalized" in california, expect to see these costs go down leading to cheap "street" weed and "expensive" legal weed.

Now take the california new legal grower. Ok once legislation gets into this, the money will be extracted in bucket trucks. The grower will need a license, inspections, tax forms, impact fees, fines, etc. The dispenser will definitely need some kind of license, inspection, and monumental fine for selling underage. Just like how cops send kids into bars with fake id's trying to buy booze. they'll send kids into dispensers with fake perscriptions, fake id's etc. The fines will be huge. According to the article the license for a dispenser will be about 30k a year. That's about what a bar pays for it's booze license.

Once it's legal then they'll need a standardized container with a tax stamp on it. This will be the goto for money just like packs of cigarettes are. So back to our economics lesson. How is a legal grower who pays workers comp, and atleast cali minimum wage, property taxes, state income tax, federal income tax, impact fees, manage all of these forms, with penalties etc. Navigate all the legal issues. This all takes a substantial investment with significant overhead. This guy is going to compete with weed grown in mexico and smuggled in???

The dispenser is going to pay all these taxes and fee's etc etc run a store selling "legal" weed and compete with the local weed dealer on your corner?? One needs 500k in revenue to survive, the other needs 30k. I can't imagine paying workers comp on a store that sells weed. Eventually people will just rob these stores blind over and over and over and over. Take the product and sell it on the street. It's not traceable.

Sorry but the weed grower was outsourced a long time ago. I think you'll see more illegally imported weed brought in and sold as legal. The revenue is just vapor ware. It won't fix the budget issue. It will make people "feel good" about it though.

DUI? how do you test for it? Currently the only method of testing if you're under the influence of weed while driving is via a blood test. THC measured in nanograms in the blood. It's not a cheap test. So other than the sobriety road side test, you're kinda up shits creek. Can these tests be piggy backed on the legality of the DUI submission statement on your license? I'm no lawyer.

Personally I think all this will do is stoke the drug war because now state revenues will be lost by every punk kid peddling weed on the street. It won't be possession with intent to distribute any more but "tax evasion". Uncle sam has some serious tax laws regarding their cut which include things like carte blanche to annex all your shit. I can see some preppy kid loosing his car and house over selling 3 joints to his friends. Keep in mind, tax rules are not innocent until proven guilty, They're opposite. The gov't says if you sold x number of joints to undercover officer, they lost out of X dollars of revenue because they think that you "could have sold $X in product". Now it's your job to prove you didn't sell that much weed financially or pay the penalty. Study when the taxation and regulation of alcohol came into be and see how aggressive the gov't was about their revenue. How many citizens lives were ruined over family traditions. How big manufacturers bank rolled detectives to find local brewers and turn them in.

I'm all for weed legalization but you must register with the county, it must be grown outside, and no more than a 4'x4' space. Then people can learn to farm, get their hands dirty, enjoy something they cared for, and get outside in the sun instead of sitting in front of the TV.

[bb4_96]

^^ That is genuine insight from someone who has actually done their homwork.

[hendeeze]

The alternative to legalization is putting more non-violent offenders in our jails. Not only further burdening our state budget, but also mixing recreational non violent offenders with hardened criminals. Forget tax benefits, what benefit does a non-violent user get when he is thrust in jail with murders /pedophiles/ rapists? Do you want to willingly surround someone who has socially been deemed as someone who made "poor" choices, with others who have made "undeniably wrong" choices and expect a positive outcome?

[ronmcdon]

For those too lazy to look up the specifics of Prop 19
It's not just a simple matter of legalization, please get that straight.
Note also, that whether or no CA prop 19 passes, the question of legality only pertains to CA state law.
As per Federal law, it's technically still illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19

Proposition 19, also known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, is a California ballot proposition which will be on the November 2, 2010 California statewide ballot. It legalizes various marijuana-related activities, allows local governments to regulate these activities, permits local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorizes various criminal and civil penalties.[1] In March 2010 it qualified to be on the November statewide ballot.[2] Yes on 19 is the official advocacy group for the initiative.

As of September 2010[update], even if the proposition is passed, the sale of marijuana will remain illegal under federal law via the Controlled Substances Act.[3][4][5]


Effects of the bill
According to the State of California analysis, the bill will have the following effects.[6]

[edit] Legalization of personal marijuana-related activities
Persons over the age of 21:

May possess up to one 1 ounce (28 g) of marijuana for personal consumption.
May use marijuana in a non-public place such as a residence or a public establishment licensed for on site marijuana consumption.
May grow marijuana at a private residence in a space of up to 25 square feet for personal use.
[edit] Local government regulation of commercial production and sale
Local government may authorize the retail sale of up to 1 ounce of marijuana per transaction, and regulate the hours and location of the business.
Local government may authorize larger amounts of marijuana for personal possession and cultivation, or for commercial cultivation, transportation, and sale.
Allows for the transportation of marijuana from a licensed premises in one city or county to a licensed premises in another city or county, without regard to local laws of intermediate localities to the contrary.
[edit] Imposition and collection of taxes and fees
Allows the collection of taxes specifically to allow local governments to raise revenue or to offset any costs associated with marijuana regulation.
[edit] Authorization of criminal and civil penalties
Maintains existing laws against selling drugs to a minor and driving under the influence.
Maintains an employer's right to address consumption of marijuana that affects an employee's job performance.
Maintain existing laws against interstate or international transportation of marijuana.
Any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to sell marijuana, who knowingly sells or gives away marijuana to someone under the age of 21 results in them being banned from owning, operating, or being employed by a licensed marijuana establishment for one year.
Any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to sell marijuana, who knowingly sells or gives away marijuana to someone older the age of 18 but younger than 21, shall be imprisoned in county jail for up to six months and fined up to $1,000 per offense.
Any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to sell marijuana, who knowingly sells or gives away marijuana to someone age 14 to 17, shall be imprisoned in state prison for a period of three to five years.
Any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to sell marijuana, who knowingly sells or gives away marijuana to someone under the age of 14, shall be imprisoned in state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years
[edit] Fiscal impact
In the time leading to 2010, California's state government's budget deficit has grown to be the largest of all American states. The State Board of Equalization has estimated that imposing a $50 per ounce levy on marijuana sales could generate $1.4 billion a year in new tax revenue, thus generating a large amount of revenue at a time when the state is experiencing financial pressure.[7]

According to the States Legislative Analyst's office the following fiscal impact would result from the bill:[8]

Result in significant savings to state and local governments, potentially up to several tens of millions of dollars annually due to reduction of individuals incarcerated, on probation or on parole.
Cells currently being used to house marijuana offenders could be used for other criminals, many of whom are now being released early because of a lack of jail space.
Major reduction in state and local costs for enforcement of marijuana-related offenses and the handling of related criminal cases in the court system, providing the opportunity for funds to be used to enforce other existing criminal laws.
Potential increase in the costs of substance abuse programs due to speculated increase in usage of marijuana, possibly having the effect of reducing spending on mandatory treatment for some criminal offenders, or result in the redirection of these funds for other offenders.
The measure could potentially reduce both the costs and offsetting revenues of the state's medical marijuana program as some adults over 21 would be less likely to participate in the existing program as obtaining marijuana would be easier for those patients.
The measure would provide the opportunity for significant additional revenues as the result of the taxation of sales and businesses engaged in commerce relating to marijuana.
There would be a reduction in fines collected under current state law but a possible increase in local civil fines authorized by existing local laws.
The cumulative effect on fines is largely unknown.
[edit] History
The measure's originator is Richard Lee, a marijuana legalization activist and medical marijuana provider based in Oakland. Lee named political consultant Chris Lehane as the head of the campaign to pass the measure.[9]

In order to qualify for the ballot, the initiative needed 433,971 valid petition signatures. The initiative proponents submitted 694,248 signatures, and it qualified through the random sample signature check.[10]

In the 1972 California November elections, a similar initiative to legalize cannabis was on the ballot, and coincidentally it was also named Proposition 19.[11][12]

[HalveBlue]

Originally Posted by TheWolf

I don't understand the logic of this "tax revenue" stream..

It's like offshore jobs. Some people do grow in the US although illegal etc but most are farm workers in mexico etc. Working for peanuts. Cost to grow, very minimal. Cost to transport expensive. Once "legalized" in california, expect to see these costs go down leading to cheap "street" weed and "expensive" legal weed.

Now take the california new legal grower. Ok once legislation gets into this, the money will be extracted in bucket trucks. The grower will need a license, inspections, tax forms, impact fees, fines, etc. The dispenser will definitely need some kind of license, inspection, and monumental fine for selling underage. Just like how cops send kids into bars with fake id's trying to buy booze. they'll send kids into dispensers with fake perscriptions, fake id's etc. The fines will be huge. According to the article the license for a dispenser will be about 30k a year. That's about what a bar pays for it's booze license.

Once it's legal then they'll need a standardized container with a tax stamp on it. This will be the goto for money just like packs of cigarettes are. So back to our economics lesson. How is a legal grower who pays workers comp, and atleast cali minimum wage, property taxes, state income tax, federal income tax, impact fees, manage all of these forms, with penalties etc. Navigate all the legal issues. This all takes a substantial investment with significant overhead. This guy is going to compete with weed grown in mexico and smuggled in???

The dispenser is going to pay all these taxes and fee's etc etc run a store selling "legal" weed and compete with the local weed dealer on your corner?? One needs 500k in revenue to survive, the other needs 30k. I can't imagine paying workers comp on a store that sells weed. Eventually people will just rob these stores blind over and over and over and over. Take the product and sell it on the street. It's not traceable.

Sorry but the weed grower was outsourced a long time ago. I think you'll see more illegally imported weed brought in and sold as legal. The revenue is just vapor ware. It won't fix the budget issue. It will make people "feel good" about it though.

DUI? how do you test for it? Currently the only method of testing if you're under the influence of weed while driving is via a blood test. THC measured in nanograms in the blood. It's not a cheap test. So other than the sobriety road side test, you're kinda up shits creek. Can these tests be piggy backed on the legality of the DUI submission statement on your license? I'm no lawyer.

Personally I think all this will do is stoke the drug war because now state revenues will be lost by every punk kid peddling weed on the street. It won't be possession with intent to distribute any more but "tax evasion". Uncle sam has some serious tax laws regarding their cut which include things like carte blanche to annex all your shit. I can see some preppy kid loosing his car and house over selling 3 joints to his friends. Keep in mind, tax rules are not innocent until proven guilty, They're opposite. The gov't says if you sold x number of joints to undercover officer, they lost out of X dollars of revenue because they think that you "could have sold $X in product". Now it's your job to prove you didn't sell that much weed financially or pay the penalty. Study when the taxation and regulation of alcohol came into be and see how aggressive the gov't was about their revenue. How many citizens lives were ruined over family traditions. How big manufacturers bank rolled detectives to find local brewers and turn them in.

I'm all for weed legalization but you must register with the county, it must be grown outside, and no more than a 4'x4' space. Then people can learn to farm, get their hands dirty, enjoy something they cared for, and get outside in the sun instead of sitting in front of the TV.

I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with what you said.

Cannabis was decriminalized in the Netherlands decades ago, to the point where it's illegal in name only (Yes, technically speaking weed is illegal in Holland).

Coffee shops in the Netherlands face most, if not all, of the issues you mentioned. Despite this, these establishments are quite profitable.

I don't see how the situation in California would be any different.

[bb4_96]

Originally Posted by hendeeze

The alternative to legalization is putting more non-violent offenders in our jails. Not only further burdening our state budget, but also mixing recreational non violent offenders with hardened criminals. Forget tax benefits, what benefit does a non-violent user get when he is thrust in jail with murders /pedophiles/ rapists? Do you want to willingly surround someone who has socially been deemed as someone who made "poor" choices, with others who have made "undeniably wrong" choices and expect a positive outcome?

Would you be tempted to break the law so eagerly after being raped in the ass for a few months? If laws were more stringent less people would gamble with their civil liberties. Compare statistics for home invasions per capita in texas with home invasion in illinois. Do you know what accounts for the difference? In illinois if a crook slips in your kitchen and lands on a sharp object you can be sued. In texas if a homeowner blows out a theives brains on the front porch he's a hero. See a difference in the amount of occurances vs. severity of repercussions?

Point being if drug related convictions posed more serious consequences all along people wouldn't be as tempted to do it. I've seen people get away with a slap on the wrist for simultaneous dui/open container/speeding/wreckless driving/ public endangerment/ possession off sub./ possesion of paraphanilia.

[BustedS13]

Originally Posted by bb4_96

Would you be tempted to break the law so eagerly after being raped in the ass for a few months? If laws were more stringent less people would gamble with their civil liberties. Compare statistics for home invasions per capita in texas with home invasion in illinois. Do you know what accounts for the difference? In illinois if a crook slips in your kitchen and lands on a sharp object you can be sued. In texas if a homeowner blows out a theives brains on the front porch he's a hero. See a difference in the amount of occurances vs. severity of repercussions?

Point being if drug related convictions posed more serious consequences all along people wouldn't be as tempted to do it. I've seen people get away with a slap on the wrist for simultaneous dui/open container/speeding/wreckless driving/ public endangerment/ possession off sub./ possesion of paraphanilia.

but the point is that maybe these people don't BELONG in jail, because the law is wrong. do people really deserve to be raped for marijuana possession?

[ronmcdon]

Also if the objective of the bill is to make $$$, you don't want to be sending ppl off to jail/prison.
Fines are ok however, as that is revenue.
You do so much as smoke in the presence of someone who's under 21,
and you will be in trouble.
(it may sound like pot has the same restrictions as alcohol, but it's much more severe)

[bb4_96]

I realize the question of whether smoking pot should be legal or not is the point. I just feel like if they are going to put this into effect it ought to be enforced with more than the lukeworm fervor it is being now.

[kingkilburn]

Originally Posted by bb4_96

I realize the question of whether smoking pot should be legal or not is the point. I just feel like if they are going to put this into effect it ought to be enforced with more than the lukeworm fervor it is being now.

That(and your previous post) implies that smoking pot is inherently bad which no one has proven.

[bb4_96]

Originally Posted by kingkilburn

That(and your previous post) implies that smoking pot is inherently bad which no one has proven.

No. Nowhere did I imply that smoking pot is bad. I first stated more dire consequences will stave off breaking of the law. Then I stated that if they do put this law into affect it out to be harshly enforced.

Any implied bias is on your part.

My point is that law is the law. It's written and ought to be harshly enforced so people would... obey it?

I could care less which way this law goes(I've said before, what does it matter, this country is headed down the shitter anyway) I just want the judicial system to come down on people who can't follow the damn rules. This country spends so much damn time and energy on people who for whatever reason can't just obey the law. If the laws were really that unfair and that fact was agreed upon in a truly widescale basis there would be massive civil uprising and the government or that particular piece of legislature would be overturned.

My personal thoughts on drugs... despise them. Wish they were never developed for recreational purposes. If you legalize pot then why not cocaine? Heroin? shrooms? Why not dispense perscription meds over the counter? Why not allow meth labs? A mind altering substance is just that. Anyone is a hypocrite if they think that pot ought to be legalized and not the rest. Thats my thoughts. Keep the booze because as bad as it is its already well regulated and dealing with it is nothing new. Keep a hard line drawn there though. Legalizing pot(a drug) is a slippery slope. Smoking pot may not be bad but allowing it is opening a door...

[kingkilburn]

Just because it is law does not mean it is just.

Your opinion that they should be harsher shows that you think it is bad. You also say so yourself.




I'd like you to clearly define what exactly a "drug" is and explain to all of us why they are so bad. The only things I can think of as inherently bad are those that can lead to death or permanent injury on the first try, but most of that is do to improper use AND they ALL serve a purpose medically.

Cannabis is not one of those that can cause death or injury so what's your beef? Saying that it is opening a door is true but why do you or any other person/s get to decide what I do with my body?

[inopsey]

Originally Posted by TheWolf

I don't understand the logic of this "tax revenue" stream..

It's like offshore jobs. Some people do grow in the US although illegal etc but most are farm workers in mexico etc. Working for peanuts. Cost to grow, very minimal. Cost to transport expensive. Once "legalized" in california, expect to see these costs go down leading to cheap "street" weed and "expensive" legal weed.

Now take the california new legal grower. Ok once legislation gets into this, the money will be extracted in bucket trucks. The grower will need a license, inspections, tax forms, impact fees, fines, etc. The dispenser will definitely need some kind of license, inspection, and monumental fine for selling underage. Just like how cops send kids into bars with fake id's trying to buy booze. they'll send kids into dispensers with fake perscriptions, fake id's etc. The fines will be huge. According to the article the license for a dispenser will be about 30k a year. That's about what a bar pays for it's booze license.

Once it's legal then they'll need a standardized container with a tax stamp on it. This will be the goto for money just like packs of cigarettes are. So back to our economics lesson. How is a legal grower who pays workers comp, and atleast cali minimum wage, property taxes, state income tax, federal income tax, impact fees, manage all of these forms, with penalties etc. Navigate all the legal issues. This all takes a substantial investment with significant overhead. This guy is going to compete with weed grown in mexico and smuggled in???

the mexican cartels will and always have had an inferior product mainly from the drying and smuggling methods used. this will not change. everyone knows indoor grown is superior medicine since it doesent have bugs crawling on it shitting etc. lots of people will always want the best product and that will mean that there will always be a huge demand for premium specialty varieties, just like the wine industry, and people will pay a premium for it.

this will remove the mexican weed from the cali market because given the option noone will buy brown shitty mexican weed when they can have properly grown and dryed cali weed; even if big tobacco is the ones doing the growing. if the industry cant provide the good product a network of professional growers such as seen in n.cali will.

people will always pay a premium for the good indoor weed even if the state is overrun with outdoor. therefore coffee shop type dispensarys will be in demand like in amsterdam.

[TougeLove]

do you guys understand how crowded cali would get if pot was legal!?

i could see this going bad but im all for it.

[upsdude]

prohibition didn't work, and eventually weed will be as accessible as it is in, say, amsterdam. it's just a question of when...maybe this year, maybe in a couple generations. i just don't get the double standard that it's legal to buy alcohol yet not marijuana. both are are bad for your body, both alter your mood/state of mind. the only reason i think it's still illegal is all the old baby boomers are still in political power-once the last of them die off maybe it'll be different.

[kingkilburn]

Take a look at how many over the counter meds say not to drive or operate heavy machinery while on them. There are a lot of mind altering things out there and most of the are harmless.
If that is the major safety caution it is no different than taking to much benadryl.