|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 19, 2010 15:32:22 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 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. No, but doing it that was is inefficient and does lead to some confusion to people not from a particular area. And California is a much MUCH bigger state with a lot more people than most other states. For something like this I would only support it if it is VERY well thought out ahead of time to make sure that it works the way it's supposed to. This prop wasn't well thought out at all. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 19, 2010 15:45:06 GMT -8
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. No, but doing it that was is inefficient and does lead to some confusion to people not from a particular area. And California is a much MUCH bigger state with a lot more people than most other states. For something like this I would only support it if it is VERY well thought out ahead of time to make sure that it works the way it's supposed to. This prop wasn't well thought out at all. Confusion? How so? Not from a particular area? So. They will soon figure it out. Have you lived where there is local option rules? |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 19, 2010 15:48:34 GMT -8
No, but doing it that was is inefficient and does lead to some confusion to people not from a particular area. And California is a much MUCH bigger state with a lot more people than most other states. For something like this I would only support it if it is VERY well thought out ahead of time to make sure that it works the way it's supposed to. This prop wasn't well thought out at all. Confusion? How so? Not from a particular area? So. They will soon figure it out. Have you lived where there is local option rules? No, and I wouldn't want to. It's like the no right turn on a red signal law in Arizona. When I'm driving in Nevada I'm always nervous about turning right on a red because I can't remember if it was Arizona or Nevada. What a pain in the ass! Plus, this being a legalization of a currently illegal drug I don't think it's a good idea to give anyone any leeway. Make the rules concrete and clear, and have a solid enforcement element to the law as well. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 19, 2010 16:05:10 GMT -8
Confusion? How so? Not from a particular area? So. They will soon figure it out. Have you lived where there is local option rules? No, and I wouldn't want to. It's like the no right turn on a red signal law in Arizona. When I'm driving in Nevada I'm always nervous about turning right on a red because I can't remember if it was Arizona or Nevada. What a pain in the ass! Plus, this being a legalization of a currently illegal drug I don't think it's a good idea to give anyone any leeway. Make the rules concrete and clear, and have a solid enforcement element to the law as well. I did not think you had. Millions of people live with wet and dry countys. It is not a big deal. You need to come up with a different argument. This one does not hold water. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 19, 2010 16:20:16 GMT -8
No, and I wouldn't want to. It's like the no right turn on a red signal law in Arizona. When I'm driving in Nevada I'm always nervous about turning right on a red because I can't remember if it was Arizona or Nevada. What a pain in the ass! Plus, this being a legalization of a currently illegal drug I don't think it's a good idea to give anyone any leeway. Make the rules concrete and clear, and have a solid enforcement element to the law as well. I did not think you had. Millions of people live with wet and dry countys. It is not a big deal. You need to come up with a different argument. This one does not hold water. Regulating something like this needs to be done at the state level, not the local level. We're talking about drugs that are currently illegal. Plus for the tax revenue portion there needs to be consistency so that the collection of those taxes is easier and more cost effective. What's the problem with writing a better law that is consisten up and down the largest state in the country? NONE of those states that have differing laws regarding alcohol have anywhere near the size or population of California. A better law with consistency throughout the state makes things easier. You can't tell me that isn't true... Plus the current proposition has NO enforcement or regulation mechanisms. That's a joke. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 19, 2010 17:23:00 GMT -8
Alcohol is a drug. It is illegal in some states. So much for the pot is illegal argument. If you add up the population of states with local option they will have more population and area than CA. So much for that argument.
Sorry, your dog won't hunt.
What is the matter with letting people, through their local governments, run their own lives?
When did you become Mr. Big Government?
|
|
|
|
Post by survalli on Oct 19, 2010 19:17:30 GMT -8
legalizing pot will not reduce crime. it wont make pot cheaper, and it wont make it anymore difficult to keep our kids from using it.
btw if those "farmers" up in Sonoma and Mendocino think they can compete with El Jefe and company when they REALLY move into town...think again.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 19, 2010 19:28:22 GMT -8
Alcohol is a drug. It is illegal in some states. So much for the pot is illegal argument. If you add up the population of states with local option they will have more population and area than CA. So much for that argument. You do know that prohibition was repealed, right? Alcohol isn't illegal - it may be heavily regulated (as in Utah, for example), but it isn't illegal. And no one state with even half of California's size or population has differing alcohol laws and regulations. It's just not efficient or effective. You mean it local governments like Bell, or San Diego for that matter? Local governments are often the most corrupt and least effective. Sorry, THAT dog won't hunt. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 19, 2010 20:15:22 GMT -8
Alcohol is a drug. It is illegal in some states. So much for the pot is illegal argument. If you add up the population of states with local option they will have more population and area than CA. So much for that argument. You do know that prohibition was repealed, right? Alcohol isn't illegal - it may be heavily regulated (as in Utah, for example), but it isn't illegal. ###You do know we are talking about the sale of pot vs. the sale of alcohol. And no one state with even half of California's size or population has differing alcohol laws and regulations. It's just not efficient or effective. ###As I pointed out before if you add the populations of all the states that have wet and dry countys it is more populous and larger than CA. You mean it local governments like Bell, or San Diego for that matter? Local governments are often the most corrupt and least effective. ###Oh, OK. You're right we can't trust local government. We need a bigger government. It would be more efficient. Check with William on that. Sorry, THAT dog won't hunt. Your problem is that you have no experience with local option laws. Since you are ignorant it would be best to keep your uninformed opinion to yourself. I doubt that will happen though. After all you got your opinion form the UT. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 19, 2010 20:21:13 GMT -8
You do know that prohibition was repealed, right? Alcohol isn't illegal - it may be heavily regulated (as in Utah, for example), but it isn't illegal. ###You do know we are talking about the sale of pot vs. the sale of alcohol. And no one state with even half of California's size or population has differing alcohol laws and regulations. It's just not efficient or effective. ###As I pointed out before if you add the populations of all the states that have wet and dry countys it is more populous and larger than CA. You mean it local governments like Bell, or San Diego for that matter? Local governments are often the most corrupt and least effective. Oh, OK. You're right we can't trust local government. We need a bigger government. It would be more efficient. Check with William on that. Sorry, THAT dog won't hunt. Your problem is that you have no experience with local option laws. Since you are ignorant it would be best to keep your uninformed opinion to yourself. I doubt that will happen though. After all you got your opinion form the UT. ;D No, that was my opinion long before the UT printed their editorial. I was just looking to see how well written this proposition is. It's crap. You don't vote for a crap law just because the concept is good. If it's a poorly written law then it's going to have unexpected negative consequences all the time. I work in an industry that has to deal with a proposition that was a fraud and hurts the people it was supposed to help. Perhaps you should give that some thought. I'm not saying that the concept is bad - just that THIS proposition is. They could have, and should have, done a better job of thinking this one through and spent more time addressing all the issues that could come up. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 19, 2010 21:01:08 GMT -8
Your problem is that you have no experience with local option laws. Since you are ignorant it would be best to keep your uninformed opinion to yourself. I doubt that will happen though. After all you got your opinion form the UT. ;D No, that was my opinion long before the UT printed their editorial. I was just looking to see how well written this proposition is. It's crap. You don't vote for a crap law just because the concept is good. If it's a poorly written law then it's going to have unexpected negative consequences all the time. I work in an industry that has to deal with a proposition that was a fraud and hurts the people it was supposed to help. Perhaps you should give that some thought. I'm not saying that the concept is bad - just that THIS proposition is. They could have, and should have, done a better job of thinking this one through and spent more time addressing all the issues that could come up. Fine. The point of fact, though, is that people deal with local option laws for sale of alcohol in 33 states and they figure it out. As I said before it is not rocket science. If you do think that this is a very complicated thing and people need to think about it so long that they can imagine all the things that could happen...well that will never happen. No one can do that. There will always be surprises. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 19, 2010 21:39:34 GMT -8
No, that was my opinion long before the UT printed their editorial. I was just looking to see how well written this proposition is. It's crap. You don't vote for a crap law just because the concept is good. If it's a poorly written law then it's going to have unexpected negative consequences all the time. I work in an industry that has to deal with a proposition that was a fraud and hurts the people it was supposed to help. Perhaps you should give that some thought. I'm not saying that the concept is bad - just that THIS proposition is. They could have, and should have, done a better job of thinking this one through and spent more time addressing all the issues that could come up. Fine. The point of fact, though, is that people deal with local option laws for sale of alcohol in 33 states and they figure it out. As I said before it is not rocket science. If you do think that this is a very complicated thing and people need to think about it so long that they can imagine all the things that could happen...well that will never happen. No one can do that. There will always be surprises. Maybe, but the surprises will be minimized when you have a well written law that is clear, covers all the details, and is uniform for the entire state. A well written law is better than a poorly written one, right? Why are you opposed to having a better written law. This one's crap. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Oct 20, 2010 8:30:27 GMT -8
I notice that the self professed 'Libertarian' on this board has not chimed in on this issue.
|
|
