California Proposition 19 - A Citizen's Initiative to Legalise Cannabis

[alannanana]

The Washington Post Magazine had a great article on the future of federal legalization:

Washington D.C. (Nov. 1, 2020) -- In the capital's chic Georgetown neighborhood, where nearby university students beam messages to one another's iFaces while buzzing to class on single-engine jet packs, people used to line up for cupcakes. A decade ago, people waited for hours outside Georgetown Cupcakes for $3-a-pop munchies tucked neatly into pink boxes. They especially craved the red velvets. The cupcake craze at 33rd and M streets NW gave way to a gourmet french fry joint called My Fry, where patrons selected "base" potatoes from around the world, then to Shake Rolls, a sushi-and-milkshakes bar where Sasha Obama celebrated her 16th birthday. All of them have gone off to fast-food heaven. Now for sale in the very same spot: pot.

[lattaland]

Originally Posted by fluxquanta

But I really do hate stoners. As you pointed out, smoking weed is not unique or rare, but the culture of stoners who think it is is fucking insufferable.

Did a stoner molest you?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by picard102

I'm excited to see the meltdown if it passes. With the looming economic crisis and the continued splintering of Americans, any state vs federal rights fight is going to be highly entertaining to watch.

True, and participate in ... if you like.

[bofadeeznizzles]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

States being stripped of jurisdiction over issues is a double edged sword. The Federal Government was given the power to tell you that you can't smoke pot so that they can turn around and tell other people that they can't have slaves.

Everybody cries for state's rights when the Federal Government stops something they want and everybody cries for federal control when the states allow something they don't like.

This is really an interesting issue for me. I have to disagree with you a bit though. The federal government has explicit power to tell people they can't have slaves through the 14th amendment. That is a constitutionally approved use of its powers. I think the argument that the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate marijuana use comes from the 10th Amendment mostly. Meaning if the right to govern it isn't explicitly given to the Feds then it is reserved for the states. The Feds say that it is given to them through their right to regulate interstate commerce, and this is where the constitutional argument is argued most heatedly. Does marijuana use, distribution, etc.. effect interstate commerce in any way? Generally speaking, if you think it does.. then they have the right to govern it. If you think it doesn't, then it seems unconstitutional as there has been no other argument for federal involvement in regulation. To me, I think it's an abuse of the interstate commerce clause.

I do think you're right though that people praise federal involvement when it suits them and shun it when it doesn't. I'm sure I've been guilty of it somewhere along the line. But I'm a states rights man, which means I'm a states responsibilities man. I'd prefer states be given more leeway on how they want to handle sensitive issues like abortion, euthanasia, drugs, etc... But I also think they need to take more responsibility for themselves in things like education and disaster relief.

I'm sure I got off topic. I think I liked the CA weed law though (I just glossed over its text) and would like to have seen it pass. Regulating it like alcohol seems very reasonable to me. Less crowded jails, more state revenue, less things for criminals to control, etc... And since this argument comes up all the time, I mean JUST like alcohol. If you have weed in you and are driving, you are fucked. Keep that shit off the roads.

[fluxquanta]

Originally Posted by lattaland

Did a stoner molest you?

Yes. This thread is like reliving it all over again.

On a more serious note -- haha you guys lost suck it stoners.

[lattaland]

Originally Posted by fluxquanta

Yes. This thread is like reliving it all over again.

On a more serious note -- haha you guys lost suck it stoners.

Did we?
I can still smoke pot. No problems there.

[fluxquanta]

Originally Posted by lattaland

Did we?
I can still smoke pot. No problems there.

In all honesty, as I said before, the proposition was flawed, and I'd like to think the main reason for it not passing was that it was poorly constructed and full of loopholes and major issues that would come as a result of it's passing.

And as far as hating potheads, I hate anybody who does anything to the point where the sole activity defines who they are. Potheads are just more annoying because they have more slang to throw around and think that their "hobby" is without repercussion.

[lattaland]

Originally Posted by fluxquanta

And as far as hating potheads, I hate anybody who does anything to the point where the sole activity defines who they are. Potheads are just more annoying because they have more slang to throw around and think that their "hobby" is without repercussion.

I would have to agree with you on this one. I don't understand people with potleaf shirts and other accouterments. I don't want everyone that looks at me to know I break the law daily. Heck, I barely smoke the good herb with anyone so I don't have to have endless conversations about it.
Anyway, I hope I didn't bogart your point.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by bofadeeznizzles

This is really an interesting issue for me. I have to disagree with you a bit though. The federal government has explicit power to tell people they can't have slaves through the 14th amendment. That is a constitutionally approved use of its powers.

If constitutionality is derived from cracking open a pen and writing "The shit I just did? Totally constitutional" at the end of the document, then yes, the 14th Amendment does that.

I'm not saying a federal prevention of slavery is unconstitutional, but the 14th Amendment isn't something that proves its constitutionality. No matter how much one may agree with what it did, make no mistake that it was passed after all opposition was quite literally beaten and silenced.

The core Constitution really isn't clear on what has control of what, and events in our nations history have determined that the federal level dominates the state level. The federal government did not start with the amount of power they have today, and a big part of why that is is the South required a boot to the face. The federal government was given power to secure a good thing, and it has retained that power, for good or ill.

Originally Posted by bofadeeznizzles

I think the argument that the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate marijuana use comes from the 10th Amendment mostly. Meaning if the right to govern it isn't explicitly given to the Feds then it is reserved for the states. The Feds say that it is given to them through their right to regulate interstate commerce, and this is where the constitutional argument is argued most heatedly. Does marijuana use, distribution, etc.. effect interstate commerce in any way? Generally speaking, if you think it does.. then they have the right to govern it. If you think it doesn't, then it seems unconstitutional as there has been no other argument for federal involvement in regulation. To me, I think it's an abuse of the interstate commerce clause.

We all know the "interstate commerce" stuff is just horseshit and dancing around the real reasoning. What it comes down to is the federal government has the power to regulate or ban any sort of substance ingested for leisure. The 18th Amendment demonstrates that. If the people have a moral issue with the use of a substance, the federal government has the power to act on that. The 21st Amendment didn't invoke take-backs because the federal government never had that sort of jurisdiction; they retained the power, but changed their minds on the issue. It's an important distinction.

In the first paragraph you take Amendments into account to determine constitutionality, but in the second you ignore them. The 14th and 18th establish precedents and secure power for the federal government that remain in effect today.

Originally Posted by bofadeeznizzles

I do think you're right though that people praise federal involvement when it suits them and shun it when it doesn't. I'm sure I've been guilty of it somewhere along the line. But I'm a states rights man, which means I'm a states responsibilities man. I'd prefer states be given more leeway on how they want to handle sensitive issues like abortion, euthanasia, drugs, etc... But I also think they need to take more responsibility for themselves in things like education and disaster relief.

I think the concept of the states possessing any effective or valuable rights died with the Civil War. And I think that might just be the natural cycle of things. People try to push the line as far as what they're allowed to do and when a majority of the nation decides that's not okay eventually the dicks end up shooting at the rest of the nation because the dicks don't want to honor their agreements. After that, nobody trusts the dicks to go make their own stupid town and be reasonable about it.

States' rights is a thing of worth and merit, but not because it can give some people pot. Modern contentious issues of domestic rights really don't matter to me in a discussion about federal vs. state control. I'm fine with those issues being decided on either level.

[DWarrior]

haha potheads failed. Again.