READER COMMENTS ON
"CA's Prop 19 Would Regulate, 'Legalize' Cannabis; Begin Roll-Back of Phony U.S. 'War on Drugs'"
(24 Responses so far...)
COMMENT #1 [Permalink]
...
Steve
said on 9/13/2010 @ 8:21 pm PT...
Isn't it illegal by Federal Law? They need to change that. What will the Federal government's stance be on Prop 19 if it does pass, any idea?
COMMENT #2 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 9/13/2010 @ 10:57 pm PT...
Steve @1 raises an excellent question about a very thorny issue of possible federal preemption, which was the central legal issue raised in response to Proposition 215 (Medical Marijuana), which was passed by CA voters in 2006.
As noted by the "Guidelines" [PDF] provided by CA Attorney General Jerry Brown:
The Controlled Substance Act (CSA) "reflects the federal government’s view that marijuana is a drug with ‘no currently acceptable medical use.’ Accordingly, the manufacture, distribution or possession is a federal criminal offense."
The argument that California’s existing medical marijuana laws were preempted by federal law was rejected by CA appellate courts.
"Congress has provided that states are free to regulate in the area of controlled substances, provided that state law does not positively conflict with the CSA…California did not ‘legalize’ medical marijuana, but instead exercised the state’s reserved powers not to punish certain marijuana offenses…."
Proposition 19 would continue to "control" and regulate the cultivation, sale and possession of marijuana, but it removes additional areas from criminal prosecution under CA law.
Prop 19 specifically says that "it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age, or older to: Personally possess, process, share or transport not more than one ounce…"
It does not state that it is lawful under federal law; merely that the state's resources will not be used to prosecute those activities as a crime under state law.
It is an open question as to how the courts would rule on the preemption issue. However, politically, if voters in the nation's most populous state --- the state with the most electoral votes --- overwhelmingly approved Prop 19, I anticipate that this would place significant pressure on Congress and the President to remove marijuana from the CSA.
Long-term, it will require a great deal more if we are to, finally, end the "war on drugs."
COMMENT #3 [Permalink]
...
Brian
said on 9/14/2010 @ 1:16 am PT...
Prop 19 DOES NOT say 1 ounce. In fact it says nothing of amounts. But even if it did....Read it again.
Many people in California are allowed to have more than one ounce at this point in time.
This is because of Proposition 215.
Medical recomendations allow up to what the doctors determie, as well as local guidelines.
The new ACT would limit people to 1 ounce, which would really increase the drug war!
Not only that, but many communitites would suffer from the big business groups taking local money out of town.
COMMENT #4 [Permalink]
...
Brian
said on 9/14/2010 @ 1:20 am PT...
By George,
Your electronic PDF does say one ounce.
I printed a copy a long time ago, and it does NOT say one ounce under section 3.
Weird, anyhow the other arguements still stand.
COMMENT #5 [Permalink]
...
Larry Bergan
said on 9/14/2010 @ 2:07 am PT...
It doesn't matter whether Marijuana has medical qualities or not. It was unconstitutional to make alcohol illegal and the same applies to pot.
The damage this virtual century of ignoring the constitution has caused to "the fabric of" our society is incalculable. The gutting of our freedoms which resulted from 911 were just the icing on the cake and the natural progression of those constitutional abuses.
COMMENT #6 [Permalink]
...
angelinaharrison
said on 9/14/2010 @ 4:18 am PT...
Comment deleted as commercial spam --- EAC
COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
...
malcolm kyle
said on 9/14/2010 @ 5:23 am PT...
The illegal drug trade is now estimated to be somewhere in the region of $400 billion a year ( equal to the defense budget ). This "former land of the free" arrests 1.5 million of it's citizens a year for drug law violations, half for marijuana alone, The majority of the 2.2 million inmates in the USA are incarcerated because of this insane drug war (Prohibition 2) at a staggering cost to all taxpayers and trauma to their families.
Prisons have been filled to capacity. Violent criminals, murderers, rapists and child molesters are released early to create space for these so called drug offenders. Half of court trial time and also a huge chunk of police officers time is pointlessly wasted. Enormous untaxed profits from illegal drugs fund multi-national criminal empires which bribe law enforcement authorities and spread corruption faster than a raging bush fire. These laws take violent criminals and turn them into multi-billionaires whilst corrupting even entire countries such as Columbia, Panama, Mexico and Afghanistan. The extreme violence on and south of the border is drug gangs fighting for turf in this lucrative business. The drug laws are also funding the Taliban whose illegal opium profits allow it to buy weapons and pay it's fighters more than $300 a month, compared with the $14 paid to an Afghan policemen.
The definition of insanity is great folly, madness, extreme senselessness, lunacy. The present drug laws cause all of the above and may therefor be deemed insane.
There will be many of you who probably fear a theoretical free-for-all, but that overlooks one major point: That's exactly the situation we have at the moment. Sure, there are laws against the possession and sale of these drugs, but they have no impact on actually restricting either one. When we allow such drugs to remain in the criminal market, they finance the activities of street punks, violent gangs, drug lords and terrorists. That's why there is now such an urgent need to legalize, which will not only allow us to properly regulate these substances, but also strip the illegal cartels of their main income.
So please consider the following very carefully : It wasn't the alcohol that caused the surge in crime and homicide during alcohol prohibition, it was prohibition itself. That's why many of us find it hard to believe that the same thing is not happening now. We clearly have a prohibition fueled violent crime problem. A huge number of these violent crimes are perpetrated by criminal syndicates and gangs who use the proceeds form the sales of illegal substances to further even more of their criminal activities.
Prohibition is nothing less than a grotesque dystopian nightmare. We have to regulate and we have to do it now!
COMMENT #8 [Permalink]
...
malcolm kyle
said on 9/14/2010 @ 5:44 am PT...
The war on drugs is a tale of a once great and free nation which fell down a rat hole into a fantasy world riddled with peculiar and dystopian logic. Based on the unalterable proviso that drug use is essentially an unstoppable and ongoing human behavior which has been with us since the dawn of time, any serious reading on the subject of past attempts at any form of drug prohibition would point most normal thinking people in the direction of sensible regulation.
By its very nature, prohibition cannot fail but create a vast increase in criminal activity, and rather than preventing society from descending into anarchy, it actually fosters an anarchic business model - the international Drug Trade. Any decisions concerning quality, quantity, distribution and availability are then left in the hands of unregulated, anonymous and ruthless drug dealers, who are interested only in the huge profits involved. Thus, the allure of this reliably and lucrative industry, with it's enormous income potential that consistently outweighs the risks associated with the illegal operations that such a trade entails, will remain with us until we are collectively forced to admit the obvious.
Because Drug cartels will always have an endless supply of ready cash for wages, bribery and equipment, no amount of tax money, police powers, weaponry, wishful thinking or pseudo-science will make our streets safe again. Only an end to prohibition can do that! How much longer are we willing to foolishly risk our own survival by continuing to ignore the obvious, historically confirmed solution?
Why on earth does anyone think it's acceptable to want to control certain behaviors, such as the bedroom habits or choice of poison of fully grown adults? Isn't it high time we evolved enough to get past this crap? Debating whether a particular drug is harmless or not is missing the whole point. are drugs dangerous? I simply don't care. If another adult wants to destroy their lives with drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, heroin or meth thats their business, not anybody else's. Their lives aren't ours to direct. Surely we need to accept, that the only way to truly be free, is that you agree, in return, to allow other people to be free, even if it offends your personal sensibilities. What's more; if it's not directly hurting you and you forbid it, then you can be sure that it will create unforeseen circumstances, which WILL have an adverse affect on YOUR wellbeing! --- Actually, a large proportion of those arising circumstances may not come as such a surprise to those of us who are capable of paying due attention to historical precedent.
If you support prohibition then you're not only a black market profiteer, a sadomoralist, a socialist or a fake-conservative, you've also helped trigger the worst crime wave in this planet's history.
If you support prohibition you've a helped create a black market with massive incentives to hook both adults and children alike.
If you support prohibition you've helped to make these dangerous substances available in schools and prisons.
If you support prohibition you've helped raise gang warfare to a level not seen since the days of alcohol bootlegging.
If you support prohibition you've helped create the prison-for-profit synergy with drug lords.
If you support prohibition you've helped remove many important civil liberties from those citizens you falsely claim to represent.
If you support prohibition you've helped put previously unknown and contaminated drugs on the streets.
If you support prohibition you've helped to escalate Theft, Muggings and Burglaries.
If you support prohibition you've helped to divert scarce law-enforcement resources away from protecting your fellow citizens from the ever escalating violence against their person or property.
If you support prohibition you've helped overcrowd the courts and prisons, thus making it increasingly impossible to curtail the people who are hurting and terrorizing others.
If you support prohibition you've helped evolve local gangs into transnational enterprises with intricate power structures that reach into every corner of society, controlling vast swaths of territory with significant social and military resources at their disposal.
COMMENT #9 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 9/14/2010 @ 7:23 am PT...
Re Brian @4 & 5. While you've corrected your misreading of Prop 19, your argument erroneously assumes that Prop 19 would supersede the existing medical marijuana laws.
I don't believe that's accurate. Whatever is currently lawful under CA's medical marijuana laws would remain lawful if Prop 19 passes.
The new ballot measure merely removes additional categories from California's penal statutes.
COMMENT #10 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 9/14/2010 @ 7:31 am PT...
Larry Bergen @5 writes:
It was unconstitutional to make alcohol illegal and the same applies to pot.
Prohibition of alcohol came about in 1919 with ratification of the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933.
I am not aware of any appellate decision which would support your argument that the inclusion of marijuana in the federal Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional.
The fact that a law is unwise, even absurd, does not mean that it is unconstitutional.
COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
...
carpe peche
said on 9/14/2010 @ 7:54 am PT...
I m French and i d reallu would like our country to have the same point of view than yours.
France is staying in its hypocrisy, cause 80% of youg people already tried it...
COMMENT #12 [Permalink]
...
questionseverything
said on 9/14/2010 @ 8:34 am PT...
the dea just successfully prosecuted a guy from canada for selling mj seeds in the us...they bragged after that they had shut down a voice for the legalization of mj ..i have also read stories about cops confinscating petions to legalize mj...they is nothing they will stop at to keep their jobs,including harassing peops trying to legally change the laws...if i lived in cali i would start counting precincts now as the numbers will have to be vastly inflated(with non exisistant voters) to defeat this
COMMENT #13 [Permalink]
...
Disillusioned
said on 9/14/2010 @ 9:45 am PT...
Larry @5, also commented on by Ernest @10.
Making alcohol illegal wasn't unconstitutional, because the constitutional amendment they made in order to accomplish that aim made it, by definition, constitutional.
That said, it was stupid, and the laws against marijuana are equally stupid.
COMMENT #14 [Permalink]
...
zapkitty
said on 9/14/2010 @ 10:27 am PT...
COMMENT #15 [Permalink]
...
Larry Bergan
said on 9/14/2010 @ 12:50 pm PT...
Ernest:
Maybe you know something I don't because I've never had children, but is separating children from their parents "domestic tranquility","general welfare" or "liberty" in the case of marijuana?
COMMENT #16 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 9/14/2010 @ 1:27 pm PT...
I really don't want to to get into a semantics dispute with you Larry Bergan, especially since you and I are in agreement that laws making the use of marijuana a crime are irrational, but I don't think you've got the hang of this constitutionality thing.
The law does not prevent the government from depriving you of your liberty per se. It prevents the government from depriving you of your life, liberty or property without due process of law.
If one parent murders the other, no one would argue that the government does not possess the right to deprive the murderous parent of his or her liberty irrespective of whether that deprivation will separate the parent from his or her child.
The fact that you and I feel that laws against the cultivation, sale and use of marijuana are obscene, does not change the fact that the law is the law.
While government enforcement of that law carries with it the burden of proving that an individual violated the law, that is a far cry from suggesting that prosecution under existing law deprives the accused of due process simply because a conviction carries with it a separation of parent from child.
Your reference to separation of parent and child simply establishes one more reason why voters in CA should seek to change the law. It does not rise to the level of a constitutional deficiency in the current law.
COMMENT #17 [Permalink]
...
Shortbus
said on 9/14/2010 @ 1:33 pm PT...
Great Article Ernie!
From what I remember in my history classes, It was the far right wing at the time that pushed for prohibition. Half of the tax revenue at that time was from the excise tax on alcohol. A new tax had to replace that tax if congress was going to make prohibition law. Income Tax! Thank the religious right for Income tax!
COMMENT #18 [Permalink]
...
Steve
said on 9/14/2010 @ 4:11 pm PT...
If the sale of marijuana is against federal law, could the cities which regulate and tax the sale of marijuana be in violation of federal law as accessories to trafficking?
In a way, this brings to mind the Arizona law and resulting federal lawsuit which claims it's the federal governments responsibility to enforce federal law, not the state. California can simply say the same goes for marijuana in our state no?
COMMENT #19 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 9/14/2010 @ 6:55 pm PT...
Steve @18 wrote:
If the sale of marijuana is against federal law, could the cities which regulate and tax the sale of marijuana be in violation of federal law as accessories to trafficking?
I seriously doubt it. Those cities are already regulating the sale under the Medical Marijuana initiative, and no one has suggested anything of the sort.
COMMENT #20 [Permalink]
...
Larry bergan
said on 9/14/2010 @ 8:51 pm PT...
Ernest:
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Nobody has the right to test my piss.
They can fire me, but they don't have that right.
COMMENT #21 [Permalink]
...
Larry bergan
said on 9/15/2010 @ 5:22 pm PT...
Disillusioned said:
Making alcohol illegal wasn't unconstitutional, because the constitutional amendment they made in order to accomplish that aim made it, by definition, constitutional.
That's the correct take on it. I was wrong to say prohibition of alcohol was unconstitutional, but concerning marijuana, there had never been an amendment, so the laws against it ARE unconstitutional.
COMMENT #22 [Permalink]
...
Ty Palmer
said on 9/16/2010 @ 3:28 am PT...
A quick note to say we support a vote of YES on Prop 19 to regulate, tax, and control cannabis in 2010 in California. We feel the current marijuana laws are racist in their application, are divisive and actually push medical professionals away from the people who need their care because of fear of prosecution by law enforcement. Harm reduction is our shared goal.
Ty Palmer :: Founder
COMMENT #23 [Permalink]
...
Ernest A. Canning
said on 9/17/2010 @ 10:44 am PT...
I appreciate your comment @22, Ty Palmer, but you list yourself as a "founder" and then fail to identify what you are the founder of.
If you are a representative of a particular organization that supports Prop 19, I'm sure readers would appreciate your identifying what that organization is.
COMMENT #24 [Permalink]
...
Paul Jo
said on 9/26/2010 @ 6:47 pm PT...
What a delight to read. I am glad there is tons of discussion over this topic. It's time to vote and really see what California thinks. Everyone should vote and should make it an absolute must to see where our state really stands on this. I have a feeling if it does get legalized it will change a lot for good and for bad. Obviously there is going to be a lot more regulations on it if it is legalized. Its not going to just be legalized and everyones happy-go-lucky smoking everywhere. Legalization will definitely come with a small price. I am voting on prop19 just because I want to see some change in our society. Get a Shirt and support the cause! Here are some catchy ones if you support it:
http://www.maryjaneshirt...om/political/prop-19.php