|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Oct 15, 2010 19:55:19 GMT -8
Being a born again Liberal, I am now totally in favor of legalizing pot. As long as they do not tax it too much, I think it could actually help the state pay some of its bills.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 16, 2010 6:48:05 GMT -8
I kind of like the idea of taxing pot and helping with the state budget on the backs of people stupid enough to partake. The reality is that with the Feds vowing to enforce Federal Law, it would just cost California more money. If you want to change things, work on changing the Federal Law.
|
|
|
|
Post by joshjones1 on Oct 16, 2010 9:04:50 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 16, 2010 9:28:35 GMT -8
I doubt it passes. The current law is so lax it is almost as if it were legal. If it does pass I suspect the Fed response to bring more show than go. There are limited funds and manpower. Would spending money to bust people selling ounces of pot be a good use of our tax dollars?
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Oct 16, 2010 10:13:38 GMT -8
i can't believe it's 2010 and it is still illegal
|
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 16, 2010 10:21:32 GMT -8
My concern about the proposed law is that the actual specifics of the regulations may not be good to go.
There are a lot of details that have to be hammered out before a law like this gets passed. The mechanisms to the taxing and regulating of pot sales, the departments it falls under, who's going to oversee it and enforce it, etc.
I don't know if the current proposition as written is as good a law as would be needed to effectively tax, regulate, and enforce the sales of pot. The last thing we need is de-facto legalized pot dealers. There need to be clear cut, detailed guidelines with mechanisms in place to keep sales limited to specific businesses in specific locations (away from schools, etc).
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 17, 2010 7:15:48 GMT -8
Josh, You need to put a comma between "prick" and "Holder". Your use of the cap "H" is the only way we would know you are referring to Eric Holder. Other wise you may have been talking about Jerry Brown or Perez Hilton.  ;D |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 18, 2010 9:30:13 GMT -8
Josh, You need to put a comma between "prick" and "Holder". Your use of the cap "H" is the only way we would know you are referring to Eric Holder. Other wise you may have been talking about Jerry Brown or Perez Hilton. ;D Don't you mean Larry Craig? BTW, who is "Perez" Hilton? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 18, 2010 12:40:50 GMT -8
Josh, You need to put a comma between "prick" and "Holder". Your use of the cap "H" is the only way we would know you are referring to Eric Holder. Other wise you may have been talking about Jerry Brown or Perez Hilton. ;D Don't you mean Larry Craig? BTW, who is "Perez" Hilton? Larry Craig was only a "toe tapper". Perez Hilton is a full blown open queer who was a judge for the Miss America pagent. |
|
|
|
Post by 01aztecgrad on Oct 18, 2010 13:31:10 GMT -8
Even if the feds do decide to crack down on marijuana if the state legalizes it, it will still be a financial benefit to the State. The cost of enforcement and incarceration would then be passed on to the rest of the country, instead of only Californians. It would be a good way to get some of the tax dollars back that Californians send to the south.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 18, 2010 17:16:19 GMT -8
Even if the feds do decide to crack down on marijuana if the state legalizes it, it will still be a financial benefit to the State. The cost of enforcement and incarceration would then be passed on to the rest of the country, instead of only Californians. It would be a good way to get some of the tax dollars back that Californians send to the south. Bizaro! Might be true, but that is typical liberal thinking. Pass the cost of your own support on the the rest of the country. I don't know if you are liberal or not, but that is just plain mush headed liberal thinking. How you will reply with a more well thought out train of thought. |
|
|
|
Post by 01aztecgrad on Oct 18, 2010 17:54:09 GMT -8
Even if the feds do decide to crack down on marijuana if the state legalizes it, it will still be a financial benefit to the State. The cost of enforcement and incarceration would then be passed on to the rest of the country, instead of only Californians. It would be a good way to get some of the tax dollars back that Californians send to the south. Bizaro! Might be true, but that is typical liberal thinking. Pass the cost of your own support on the the rest of the country. I don't know if you are liberal or not, but that is just plain mush headed liberal thinking. How you will reply with a more well thought out train of thought. What are you talking about? If something is a Federal crime, it should be enforced by the Federal government. Should California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas bear the cost of border enforcement, or is it the responsibility of the entire country to ensure the borders are protected? If Californians want to legalize marijuana and the Representatives of every other state think it should remain illegal, why should Californians be responsible for the cost of enforcing something that isn't a state crime? If the Federal government wants to waste billions enforcing its law, more power to them. It's better than California continuing the waste, and since Californians are already getting the shaft in terms of Federal taxes paid vs Federal dollars received, it will even things out a little. Maybe they can send the convicts to Alaska since they are the biggest beneficiaries of Government welfare. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 18, 2010 19:51:11 GMT -8
After reading the UT's editorial on the prop I've got to say that it seems like this was a rushed proposition where they really screwed it up.
It opens up the door for every single city and county can come up with their own laws, their own procedures, their own enforcement, etc. It would be a mess.
This kind of law needs absolute, concrete rules for everyone to follow. A mechanism to regulate, enforce, and tax the sale of marijuana. The current prop is just a free for all and would lead to chaos and not a bit of the benefits that it's supporters promise. It would be a VERY poorly written law.
Come up with a better written law and I'll support it. This one's crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Oct 19, 2010 10:09:35 GMT -8
Maybe they can send the convicts to Alaska since they are the biggest beneficiaries of Government welfare. Gosh, I never thought of it that way. You've got a valid point there. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 19, 2010 11:44:14 GMT -8
After reading the UT's editorial on the prop I've got to say that it seems like this was a rushed proposition where they really screwed it up. It opens up the door for every single city and county can come up with their own laws, their own procedures, their own enforcement, etc. It would be a mess. This kind of law needs absolute, concrete rules for everyone to follow. A mechanism to regulate, enforce, and tax the sale of marijuana. The current prop is just a free for all and would lead to chaos and not a bit of the benefits that it's supporters promise. It would be a VERY poorly written law. Come up with a better written law and I'll support it. This one's crap. What? Don't trust locals to rule themselves? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 19, 2010 13:10:44 GMT -8
Bizaro! Might be true, but that is typical liberal thinking. Pass the cost of your own support on the the rest of the country. I don't know if you are liberal or not, but that is just plain mush headed liberal thinking. How you will reply with a more well thought out train of thought. What are you talking about? If something is a Federal crime, it should be enforced by the Federal government. Should California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas bear the cost of border enforcement, or is it the responsibility of the entire country to ensure the borders are protected? If Californians want to legalize marijuana and the Representatives of every other state think it should remain illegal, why should Californians be responsible for the cost of enforcing something that isn't a state crime? If the Federal government wants to waste billions enforcing its law, more power to them. It's better than California continuing the waste, and since Californians are already getting the shaft in terms of Federal taxes paid vs Federal dollars received, it will even things out a little. Maybe they can send the convicts to Alaska since they are the biggest beneficiaries of Government welfare. Stated that way it would make sense. I was thinking along other lines. Here is the rub. We would have people thinking that there is no problem since the state would no longer enforce those laws. The Feds would strep in if California tried to tax something that is in violation of Federal law. We would be in a real pickle then and the Feds could make it real expensive for the state. You do make a good point however. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 19, 2010 14:22:23 GMT -8
After reading the UT's editorial on the prop I've got to say that it seems like this was a rushed proposition where they really screwed it up. It opens up the door for every single city and county can come up with their own laws, their own procedures, their own enforcement, etc. It would be a mess. This kind of law needs absolute, concrete rules for everyone to follow. A mechanism to regulate, enforce, and tax the sale of marijuana. The current prop is just a free for all and would lead to chaos and not a bit of the benefits that it's supporters promise. It would be a VERY poorly written law. Come up with a better written law and I'll support it. This one's crap. What? Don't trust locals to rule themselves? The way this proposition is written, no. Seriously, it sets up a situation where there would be 60 something different laws regarding pot throughout the state. Every city and county would have their own laws. That's pretty much as chaotic as having it sold by dealers on the street. (Which county am I in, where do the city limits end? What laws are being enforced here? etc...) Who's coordinating this thing? Under Prop 19, no one. Like I said, give me a STRONG law, with statewide guidelines and concrete regulations and enforement mechanisms and I'm all for it. This prop sucks. A poorly written law is a bad law. This would be a very bad law. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 19, 2010 14:45:43 GMT -8
What? Don't trust locals to rule themselves? The way this proposition is written, no. Seriously, it sets up a situation where there would be 60 something different laws regarding pot throughout the state. Every city and county would have their own laws. That's pretty much as chaotic as having it sold by dealers on the street. (Which county am I in, where do the city limits end? What laws are being enforced here? etc...) Who's coordinating this thing? Under Prop 19, no one. Like I said, give me a STRONG law, with statewide guidelines and concrete regulations and enforement mechanisms and I'm all for it. This prop sucks. A poorly written law is a bad law. This would be a very bad law. I am a "States Rights" kind of guy. Now don't you think that getting the Federal Law repealed or rewritten to defer to the States is a better first step? No matter how well written, a state law that violates Federal law would be a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 19, 2010 15:02:41 GMT -8
The way this proposition is written, no. Seriously, it sets up a situation where there would be 60 something different laws regarding pot throughout the state. Every city and county would have their own laws. That's pretty much as chaotic as having it sold by dealers on the street. (Which county am I in, where do the city limits end? What laws are being enforced here? etc...) Who's coordinating this thing? Under Prop 19, no one. Like I said, give me a STRONG law, with statewide guidelines and concrete regulations and enforement mechanisms and I'm all for it. This prop sucks. A poorly written law is a bad law. This would be a very bad law. I am a "States Rights" kind of guy. Now don't you think that getting the Federal Law repealed or rewritten to defer to the States is a better first step? No matter how well written, a state law that violates Federal law would be a problem. You're absolutely right in that the Feds need to change their laws on the subject before a state law has any real relevance. Except that it may take a few states issuing laws legalizing and regulating pot before the Feds will actually change anything. But this Prop isn't the right one to pass. It's a horribly written prop/law that could conceivably make things worse rather than better. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 19, 2010 15:28:42 GMT -8
What? Don't trust locals to rule themselves? The way this proposition is written, no. Seriously, it sets up a situation where there would be 60 something different laws regarding pot throughout the state. Every city and county would have their own laws. That's pretty much as chaotic as having it sold by dealers on the street. (Which county am I in, where do the city limits end? What laws are being enforced here? etc...) Who's coordinating this thing? Under Prop 19, no one. Like I said, give me a STRONG law, with statewide guidelines and concrete regulations and enforement mechanisms and I'm all for it. This prop sucks. A poorly written law is a bad law. This would be a very bad law. I have to tell you that back East lots of states let countys decide about liquor laws. There are dry countys and wet countys. People figure it out. It is not rocket science. |
|
;D