Cannabis for California
 

It's officially on the ballot.

Official site.

I'm all for it, in case you hadn't guessed. I'm sure Orange County would be among the "dry" counties sales-wise, but it's a minor quibble.

I'm all for legalization, and that's with a number of years away from the stuff because it doesn't *ahem* agree with me. Unfortunately, if someone sparks up a doob, I have to leave the area, or I end up breathing it in and suffering the consequences. If you're enjoying a gin and tonic, I don't need to leave. That gin and tonic stays put, right there in its glass. The pot smoke doesn't. Someone did this on the sidewalk outside of a meeting I was attending a couple of weeks ago. I had to leave.

I don't have a moral issue, just a "there's kids in the house, now" issue.

To be perfectly crystal clear - my child will never be near enough such stuff to inhale it, and no one will be in charge of my child while under the influence. Same goes for alcohol.

No doubt laws restricting when and where it's consumable would follow in short order. But, at risk of seeming dismissive of your concerns, I'm going to go on a limb and say that the thousands of people in jail for something that hurt no one are slightly more inconvenienced than you would be by having to cross the street.

There's already too many pot stores in L.A., and they are nearly unregulated. The city is finally cracking down and closing many of them, because it was out-of-hand for so many years. I don't see how the farce that you need a prescription is going to change so much if it becomes completely "decriminalized." Certainly, there could hardly be additional pot stores to buy it at - it would just be easier to do at less stores than currently exist.


Feh, a few years after I stopped my quarter-century daily habit, the stuff starts being sold out of brick&mortar on every third street corner. I haven't even bothered getting a fake prescription because I don't smoke enough to bother.


I guess I'm glad for teenage Theo - - but this is a little too little, too late for the likes of ex-stoner me. :(

It's a little late for us as well, but this isn't all about you or us. It's about what's honest and fair. It's about people in jail for no good reason, about cops chasing pot instead of real criminals, about billions of tax dollars spent and billions more never gathered.

I find I don't have a strong opinion either way. I really see no reason why most drugs are illegal and alcohol is not. If it provides more tax dollars, great.

Yeah, I think the best argument for it is the money issue. California's having a rough enough time as it is, do we want to spend millions and billions investigating, prosecuting and incarcerating a non-violent crime? Plus, what an opportunity to turn that business into revenue for the state, instead of revenue from Johnny with the dime bag.

And yeah, I'm among the "used to do it, then realized that it just doesn't agree with me" crowd.

Maybe the next generation will be brought up thinking this is a way to make an honest living, but I have a hard time thinking that the average armed to the teeth big farm grower is going to weep with gratitude and say, "Thank you, now I can contribute my fair share to society."

To me the economic issue is secondary. The liberty issue is primary. I don't care if it ends up being MORE expensive for the state (which it won't). I don't think people should be sitting in jail for something that shouldn't be illegal.

I'll probably vote against it. Not because I don't support the intent but because I don't really support the initiative process. So unless it's pointed out that this is one of those things that must go through the initiative process I'll be on the no side but for a different reason that most who say no.

Neither did the bootleggers but regardless of their willingness to go straight the end of prohibition did still eventually mostly eliminate them. Plus they still need to provide for the out of state market.

==

Per the language in the initiative, smoking that which is legal for personal possession can only happen in residences, non-private locations, or specifically licensed public locations. So it isn't going to become legal to smoke it in the local park or while standing in line for the ATM.

Well, the only thing the passage of this bill would change for me is that I would now have to pay a tax.

really, thats not different than most of the alcohol laws in place or now being popularized. no more drinking on beaches, many (most?) parks or in public in general. public intoxication has been against the law for quite awhile, regardless of what youre using.

I'd be very curious to see the actual percentages of pot related offenders in jail and in prisons currently compared to the overall prison population.

Ive been saying it needs to be legalized and regulated for decades, and while Im truly glad to see its going to make it on to the ballot, I fear Prop H8 has proven how truly fearful of change and entrenched in unfounded BS the cali populous can be. getting to vote and passing it are very different animals. even then, I can see it being tied up in courts from now until the end of days.

I have hope, but little faith at this point.

Legalize it, place [fairly useless] restrictions on it like cigarettes and alcohol and tax it. Oh and let everyone who has been arrested for possession or use out of jail/prison unless there is another reason to keep them locked up.

That unfortunately is not realistic. Marijuana possession in the amounts covered by this bill has not been a jail offense for quite some time. There are very few people (if any?) in jail right now JUST for possession of < 1oz. of marijuana. Perhaps growing, I'm not sure about the law regarding that. If all you were busted for was possession of a small amount, and you are in jail, odds are you are in jail because you couldn't pay the fine. Which means you've essentially been convicted of bail violation (or whatever you're charged with for not paying the fine). So while their original crime will be wiped out, they will still be required to serve sentence for the crime of not paying.

Will this make it commercially available a la the Marlboro Brand of Maryjane?

Were people in jail for purely alcohol related offenses -- as opposed to other criminal activities surrounding bootlegging and speakeasies -- released simply because Prohibition ended?

Yes, theoretically it would be a commercial enterprise (though it also legalizes growing for personal use up to certain limits. But because of limits related to commercial operations I doubt you'll see it in your corner convenience store but rather still pretty much limited to pot-only outlets. One of the rules in there is that any business licensed to sell pot can not employ anybody under the age of 21. So either that will keep a lot of business away from selling pot or it will cut off a lot of entry level employment to young adults. It also does not change, so far as I can see, the criminal punishments for selling pot if it is to a minor, which are much harsher than selling alcohol or cigarettes so I doubt many businesses would take the risk.

But it's still gonna happen.

It was still illegal when they chose to do it. Ergo, they still deserve jail time for breaking the law.

Yep. And it will be a nuisance. But is occasionally getting a whiff of pot smoke really a complaint that has any bearing in a discussion where the other side involves jail time?

"I agree in theory that people shouldn't be put in jail for playing loud rap music, but if it's legal then I might hear it on the street, and so might my kids!"

I am also curious how (if it were to actually pass) they are going to reconcile this new law with Federal regulations. State law isn't supposed to be able to supersede Federal law

Yes, Kevy, but federal law does not have to be enforced. Obama's Justice Department has chosen not to enforce federal law re medical marijuana in California. So I guess it will all depend on the direction of the wind.


(and that works for GD's hypothetical, too.)

So when can we grow our own Poppy beds and put the Taliban out of business?

I know what you're saying, and logically it makes sense. However if they weren't arrested to begin with then they wouldn't be in jail for a bail violation.

You can't sell alcohol if you are under 18. You probably wouldn't be able to pick up a pack of Camel Mary Jaynes at the local 7-11 but I suspect some smaller liquor stores and smoke shops would sell it.

Like it doesn't already. Disneyland, concerts, the beach, the park, blah blah blah. People already smoke pot in public, they just do it discretely.

Or, not so discretely, like at my school. I smell pot 3-4 times a day around campus.

It's never made me even remotely loopy though.

I have more complaints about the amount of cigarette smokers on campus though (they don't have designated areas at OCC). I can barely walk anywhere without gagging on that crap.

That's not quite right, you can sell alcohol in convenience stores (for example) if you're under 18 so long as your under direct supervision of someone over 21. And you can certainly hire people under 18 even if they aren't going to be the one selling it.

The language in the marijuana initiative doesn't just bar under 21 from ever selling the stuff it bars anybody under 21 from being employed by an establishment licensed to sell the stuff. So you can't hire a high school kid to come sweep floors in the morning or stock shelves or whatever.

I've no doubt that some small establishments would be ok with such a restriction but I think it will either be rule that keeps mixed use pot selling establishments at the fringe or, if it is widespread will cut off a lot of employment opportunities to young adults.

Thinking more about it, I was focused on the employment part of that language, but if nobody under 21 is even allowed into a business selling pot then that would mean no customers in the store under 21 either. I'm guessing that's not a restriction that any convenience store would accept.

So these would be pot only establishments or maybe bars would start selling pot since they're already all 21.

GD, I hope you didn't think I was saying that my inconvenience is worth someone going to jail. Not at all. I think most drugs should be legalized, with the possible exception of crystal meth. That sh!t makes people craaaazy.

Nevertheless, there is the issue of keeping pot smoke to oneself. Unlike open container, which is fairly obvious, if not by sight then by smell, weed can disappear in an instant. At this point in history, I can ask someone to move along with their smoke, I still have the threat of the cops on my side. When legalized, I expect that a hearty "fvck you" might greet any request to take their pot smoke elsewhere. Not saying it should stay illegal, just wondering how our social contracts are going to adapt. Maintaining my sobriety trumps your desire to get fvcked up, if your method of achieving fvcked-uppedness impinges on my sobriety. I'm sure there are those who would disagree.

DP, catching a whiff of weed in an open area is not a big deal for me. Being in a room, or at a venue where I can't escape it, is.

The smell of pot doesn't bother me, but I was never a bit pot smoker. The smell of a good cognac, well that's another story.

I have been in the room with smoke blowing right in my breathing area and have never, ever gotten anything remotely resembling a contact buzz.

I understand the actual bothering people because of breathing issues, but just being around it won't result in you getting stoned or failing a drug test.

I'm starting to think I am friends with a bunch of pot heads and drunks

I'm sorry, how many Renn Faires have you been to? ;)

j/k

(although I do remember a Poxy Boggards concert where the crowd nearly drank the bar out of beer...)

How many people (including yourself) were at that King's Canyon camp fire?

I think it was the Sequoia camp fire that's the infamous drunken one (of, ya know, several drunken swank camp kampfires).

Ah, yes. The drunken sausage fest. ;)

Only enough to make sure it lives on in legend :D

But it's a good question... had to be at least 12, yeah?

You mean Kevy's Big Black Dick?

Ah, well. Thank goodness someone has done my research for me. Get me into a room full of pot smoke, quick! And make it a LOT of smoke, it's been a while.

All due respect, but I'm sure you're just fine to drive on a couple lite beers, too. I, on the other hand will be frustrated by your sh!tty lite beer, find myself something real to drink thank you very much, steal money out of your sock drawer, and try to make out with your boyfriend. Then throw up.

A piece of cake has probably never put you into a coma, a diabetic would likely have a somewhat different reaction.

Gn2 - I think you may have misunderstood what I am saying.

Are you saying if you were walking past someone smoking in a park and caught a wif you would instantly get stoned or you would want to go out and get stoned (which I do understand would have dire results).

From the 2nd analogy about sh!tty beer I think it's the later. Which is not what I'm saying.

^ No. As I said, a whiff of weed in passing is not a big deal. And then I responded to your post, which I realized later was not necessarily directed at me. Sorry. That said, in answer to this post, :) , you talked about being in a room filled with smoke and not getting so much as a contact high. That's where my mileage varies. Definitely contact high, possible actual high, 'cause, you know, I'm breathing actual smoke. If I'm at a party, I remove myself from the smoky area. If I'm at home, or a place of business, and the room is filling up with smoke from an adjacent area, I'm kinda screwed. When I first got sober, I had an apartment that had windows that wouldn't quite close looking into an alley that was a favorite haunt of the smokers. I'd just have to leave. Eventually I moved. Kind of a drag.

Actually, I'm likely to have more trouble resisting the delicious pizza that you just pulled out of the oven, than the weed the guys are smoking out on the back patio. Someone in the room sparks up a doob, though, it's time to say goodnight.

I don't imagine this change in law would really make an appreciable difference in that respect compared to what goes on now. That's just a matter of courtesy, not law. I know for a fact that you've been to many-a-party at which marijuana was present, and I don't believe I've ever seen you have to leave for that reason. Most marijuana users, at least most of the ones I'd care to associate with, understand that it's kinda rude to just spark up in close quarters with people who may not be interested and go out of their way to be discreet and unobtrusive. Surely some don't, but seeing as the existing laws have not proven a significant barrier to marijuana's use, I don't really see the use patterns changing significantly.

You're absolutely right, and don't think I haven't appreciated it. Thank you. My question is, will that change? Probably not with my good friends. But, like I said, I can imagine a scenario where I'm told to take a hike if I don't like it.

I know I've been talking from a place of, "How will this affect me?" I'm really more concerned about children, or the elderly, or those who are otherwise incapable of communicating or realizing the effect second-hand smoke is having on them. I'm interested to see how our society works this out. If I'm uncomfortable, I can get up and leave. Many people don't have that option.

Mebbe some of you don't know what a pothead I used to be. My relationship with weed was not casual or occasional, to be sure, and caused me a lot of trouble. The scenario I described above? Not in the least theoretical, if you catch my drift.

I'm always getting teased that I get a "contact drunk". Better for me to get a contact drunk that a real drunk.

I dig. And I recognize that there's a good chance of a spike in less-than-polite behavior. But I am hopeful that it'll be a temporary celebratory spike that will settle as most of those celebrating will then simply settle back into their usual routines.

From the wording of that post, I take it you believe everyone who is going to smoke, is already smoking. I wouldn't be at all sure of that.

Nevertheless, I'm still in favor of legalization. Would this trump company policies on drug tests, or does federal law supersede?

Everyone? No, but there are already a huge number of new smokers all the time, and the rules of civility seem to be holding.

Here's the language that addresses that:

I don't know how this intertwines with federal employment laws, especially for industries regulated primarily at the federal level, but my reading is that the intent is you can't be fired for getting high unless they can show it was directly impacting job performance.

Well, there's the Walmart case in Michigan. A little different because it's medical, but it raises many of the same questions. So far it seems the feds are staying out of it. But I think the prevailing legal climate is that Walmart is allowed to enforce its policy. In the long run I think it'll lead to a major reevaluation of how companies write drug policies and it will end up in a similar place that alcohol is. Don't do be stupid and you're fine.

Current law in California is that employers can still fire employees for simply having smoked pot regardless of whether the employee was prescribed the marijuana and there is no need to show that the smoking impacted job performance. This was confirmed by the state supreme court in Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications in 2008. So in that regard this initiative would appear to overturn that. I'm sure that the FAA will still be able to pull you pilot's license or that Berkeley will be able to deny you a job at Lawrence Livermore if pot smoking is against the rules.

Yeah, similar to alcohol. The FAA has pretty strict drinking rules. They don't disallow drinking all together, but they forbid you from drinking within a certain amount of time before you fly. And that amount of time boils down to, how long of a gap can we mandate that A) ensures that you are sober when you fly and B) available testing can prove one way or the other whether you followed the rules or not. On that model, yeah, they're going to have to continue to forbid marijuana.

Most companies have no need to be that strict and won't be.

(24 hours on the pilot drinking, btw)

They don't let you drink and operate a nuke plant either - I suspect the same will apply to pot

That's not true. I've seen otherwise on that Fox documentary The Simpsons.

Yes, but that's just a re-enactment

No worries. I was speaking from my experience and some research that was done on amounts needed to fail a drug test. That doesn't mean being around the smoke won't effect some people.



Oh and you can't fly if you take Zyrtec either.

24 hours between bottle and throttle

Inches? ;)

you mean they dont let you drink and operate pot? that was half my youth!

Capt Jack used to do drugs in the 70's

Now he'll do them at any temperature