Buzzkill: California says no to pot legalization
posted at 3:35 pm on November 3, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Does this signal an end to the Great Pot Strategy of 2012? The turnout value for turning on was supposed to help Democrats to victory in California when Proposition 19 made the ballot, drawing younger Democrats and libertarians to the polling booth and generating some serious buzz as it sailed to victory. The success of legalization as an electoral strategy would heal the breach between Democrats and libertarians and force Republicans to either back legalization or become increasingly isolated.
Of course, in order for the strategy to spread to other states like weeds through a garden, it had to actually work. Bummer, man:
In a landmark ballot measure that tested the boundaries of the public’s acceptance of pot, California voters decided Tuesday night they’re not ready to legalize marijuana smoking as a leisure activity.
With more than one-fifth of votes counted, Proposition 19 was losing by 56 to 44 percent. The initiative would have allowed adults over 21 to possess up to an ounce of pot and cultivate small amounts of marijuana at home.
The pot initiative – which would have made California the first state to legalize marijuana beyond medical use – drew international attention.
Who harshed the mellow? It was The Man, man — the Democratic Man:
Ultimately, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder weighed in on the campaign, vowing to “vigorously enforce” federal drug laws in California if voters passed the initiative.
“When the U.S. attorney general talked about the conflict with federal law, that gave people pause,” Roger Salazar, spokesman for Public Safety First, the No on 19 campaign, said as returns showed the measure headed to defeat.
There are good arguments on both sides of this debate, although in California it more or less degenerated into sloganeering and silliness, such as the supposed difficulty of determining impairment of drivers (which California has been doing for decades) and the notion that pot would significantly help balance the budget. The real question is whether the cost of prohibition in terms of both dollars and civil rights is worth the amount of success it has provided in keeping marijuana out of the hands of people who want to use it.
Unfortunately, the “pot strategy” made that basic question an afterthought to electoral strategy. In this case, the strategy was obviously not successful. Democrats turned out anyway and voted against the bill. If the strategy would work anywhere, it would only work in liberal-leaning states like California, where Democrats rarely have trouble winning statewide elections anyway. For better or worse, the consensus in the US appears to strongly favor prohibition, so as a lever for partisan gains, legalization referenda don’t seem to be terribly useful.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Yet they vote for a hippie from the 60’2 named “Moonbeam”. Yeah, they make perfect sense out there.
Tony737 on November 3, 2010 at 3:37 PM
Those who say that making pot legal will eliminate drug cartels are full of pot.
maverick muse on November 3, 2010 at 3:37 PM
60′s even
Tony737 on November 3, 2010 at 3:37 PM
And they’re really going to need some kind bud to get through the next several years…
Security Mom on November 3, 2010 at 3:38 PM
Can Moonbeam enact Prop 19 by executive order?…just kidding
d1carter on November 3, 2010 at 3:38 PM
So the lawsuits to overturn the will of the people through the courts as they did with homosexual marriage commence in 4…3…2…
catmman on November 3, 2010 at 3:38 PM
I voted no. ‘Nuf said.
unclesmrgol on November 3, 2010 at 3:38 PM
…and pizza delivery joints rend their garments and gnash their teeth in despair!!!!
search4truth on November 3, 2010 at 3:39 PM
I was hoping it would be legalized just so all of the arguments for legalization could be shot down with factual data afterward.
Now we have to listen to the inane arguments for legalization for years upon years. (And equally inane arguments against legalization)
ButterflyDragon on November 3, 2010 at 3:39 PM
I think the most of the voters in CA are on stronger drugs.
Please note: I live in CA, I’m not on drugs…When I go to other states I say I’m from AZ….
Oil Can on November 3, 2010 at 3:40 PM
Hey, didn’t San Fran ban the Happy Meal? Doesn’t make sense to then legalize Pot.
MeatHeadinCA on November 3, 2010 at 3:40 PM
You want to have your nurse show up to work messed up on dope? Your airline jet engine mechanic?
Thought not.
pseudonominus on November 3, 2010 at 3:40 PM
Also, will the drug legalizers STHU now?
If your gonna do it, then do it. Well, no one is doing it, so maybe its time to move on?
catmman on November 3, 2010 at 3:40 PM
I really, really reject to your idea that difficulty in determining impairment of driving was “silliness”.
MayBee on November 3, 2010 at 3:40 PM
What’s his face at Reason was visibly angry in his latest video — something about how this election means nothing has changed.
As always with libertarians, it always always always boils down to being about the pot.
American Elephant on November 3, 2010 at 3:41 PM
Tony737
I’d guess that Democrats went in to vote straight ticket, and didn’t make it as far as the propositions.
maverick muse on November 3, 2010 at 3:41 PM
Likely so.
maverick muse on November 3, 2010 at 3:42 PM
Now people in CA won’t high enough to not care about their impending financial ruin.
WashJeff on November 3, 2010 at 3:43 PM
I don’t think legalizing pot unifies Dems and Libertarians. The plan was to tax the hell out of pot. Not so sure Libertarians want to gain a freedom at the cost trading it for another form of government intervention.
Notice that Humbolt county, where A LOT of pot growing happens, voted no on 19. They don’t want the government taking over their business.
There already exists a path to getting pot legally in CA. The scam is called “medical” marijuana. Its easy enough to get a pot perscription for a hang nail, so why mess with the current system?
BVM on November 3, 2010 at 3:43 PM
YOU’RE the one living in CA. You tell us.
I heard it was the free toy that was banned from the Happy Meal, unfair trade practice bribing children to buy food to get the prize.
maverick muse on November 3, 2010 at 3:44 PM
It would have passed, but too many stoners forget why they were in the booth.
Patrick S on November 3, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Why worry what the Constitution says, either the federal one or the state one.
rbj on November 3, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Went ahead and voted no on this one. It was trailing badly when I left to vote so not like my say made much difference. (Just like all the things I voted for…)
Grayson on November 3, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Sorry, Ed, but this isn’t conclusive. The point of the “pot strategy” wasn’t to legalize pot… it was to get the Democrats elected. And California did, indeed elect Democrats yesterday.
To find out whether it worked, we need to survey people and find out: how many of them turned out, wouldn’t have turned out if 19 wasn’t on the ballot, and of those, how many voted for Jerry Brown and Babs Boxer.
joe_doufu on November 3, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Good, let ‘em be totally conscious when the state defaults and falls into the ocean.
I wonder how much Mexico would pay for it?
Iblis on November 3, 2010 at 3:45 PM
So much for all the Cheetos and Doritos lobbyists.
DrAllecon on November 3, 2010 at 3:45 PM
If the people who want to legalize pot would stop smoking so much pot, maybe they’d figure out a way to make it legal.
SlaveDog on November 3, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Eh, we’d probably have to sell it at a loss.
Iblis on November 3, 2010 at 3:45 PM
The democratics’ favorite Nazi stooge has to be most disappointed.
slickwillie2001 on November 3, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Hey, thanks for energizing the potheads in California to come out and vote against Meg and Carly. And you didn’t even win your prop. Dumbasses.
Ronnie on November 3, 2010 at 3:45 PM
You want to have your nurse show up to work messed up on dope? Your airline jet engine mechanic? – Pseudonominus
“Dude … like … where’d I leave my wrench?”
Tony737 on November 3, 2010 at 3:46 PM
Bong hitz 4 democracy!
WisCon on November 3, 2010 at 3:46 PM
Well that clears it up…can’t argue for it, or argue against it…hey, man, like that’s a really cool post, I mean you like take both sides. So, you know, you can’t be wrong, that’s trippin, that’s kinda of like what I kinda think too it’s like a safe way, and no confrontation, everyone is cool, because you know it’s like not taking a stand.
right2bright on November 3, 2010 at 3:47 PM
Surrendering to silliness, if I had to contend with living in the midst of the liberal land of California, it would be proper and necessary to alter the state of my mind.
fourdeucer on November 3, 2010 at 3:47 PM
Buzzkill
Heh
CWforFreedom on November 3, 2010 at 3:48 PM
That was the point of the Prop 19, wasn’t it? To motivate the pot-heads to get to the polls and vote for Gov. Moon Beam and Senator Ma’am, no?
SlaveDog on November 3, 2010 at 3:48 PM
That’s a pretty broad brush. I’m a Libertarian and I don’t smoke pot nor do all my decisions revolve around pot.
I believe it’s up to each individual to be responsible for what they put in their body. But I am also for extreme punishment when those decisions affect other people.
We often hear of “compromise” in politics and I guess I view compromise on a personal level instead of on a political party level.
I am willing to compromise on the government nanny state in relation to drugs in order to vote for someone that will reign in government overspending at this time.
It’s never an all or nothing scenario.
ButterflyDragon on November 3, 2010 at 3:49 PM
It’s ok with a brain surgeon on alcohol?
the_nile on November 3, 2010 at 3:49 PM
Prop 19 failed for the simple reason that there are Taco Bells near too many of the polling places. Prop 19 supporters got the munchies, and forgot to vote.
malclave on November 3, 2010 at 3:49 PM
You’re right, it is too broad a brush. But it overwhelmingly does seem to be the case.
Is that better?
American Elephant on November 3, 2010 at 3:50 PM
If they don’t enforce the law, it’s pointless. How many perscriptions for it have been written?
You can’t stop someone from destroying themselves if they are determined to do it. It’s a pointless waste of money.
dogsoldier on November 3, 2010 at 3:50 PM
FIFY. Better ban alcohol!
strictnein on November 3, 2010 at 3:51 PM
Can stoners even comprehend?
These people re-elected the same morons who are driving the state over the cliff. They elected a guy they got rid of 28 years ago b/c he was such a bad Gov AND they didn’t vote to legalize pot.
catmman on November 3, 2010 at 3:51 PM
OT: Shep Smith is a POS. He’s trying to make the rep-elect from NJ (Runyan) look like a fool by hammering him about specific spending cuts.
Most important, Shep, like all liberals, doesn’t understand the counterintuitive points that as tax rates are decreased, tax revenues actually increase, and as tax rates are increased, tax revenues actually descrease.
But then it’s about fairness, right?
BuckeyeSam on November 3, 2010 at 3:52 PM
I hate to disagree with you, Ed… But just because the measure failed does not mean it did not mobilize many younger voters to come to the polls. You can have an awful lot of voters come out and vote for something in California and not make it to 50% of the vote.
Say, for the sake of argument, that one in ten voters who actually voted for Prop 19 would not have bothered to vote otherwise. That’s four percent of the votes cast, enough to swing the Senate race, if not the Governor’s. Even in a blue state like California, 4% makes a big difference.
I was doing GOTV in Berkeley, CA, and I can tell you that a significant portion of that electorate was very charged up about Prop 19. A lot of UC Berkeley students voted who would have otherwise not bothered.
Haiku Guy on November 3, 2010 at 3:52 PM
Meanwhile, over in Arizona…
mankai on November 3, 2010 at 3:52 PM
Wasn’t just Cali that said no.
Arizona, S. Dakota, Oregon all said no as well last night.
I was sure Oregon would have voted yes. If you can’t get Portland to legalize pot, then you won’t get anyone to legalize it.
angryed on November 3, 2010 at 3:53 PM
If Prop 19 failed, who voted for Brown and Boxer?
InterestedObserver on November 3, 2010 at 3:53 PM
They tried that with an amendment (which by the way proves Obamacare is unconstitutional) and then a few years later when everyone realized Prohibition was not working, they passed ANOTHER amendment to undo the problem.
dogsoldier on November 3, 2010 at 3:54 PM
What makes you think I’m not drunk right now
pseudonominus on November 3, 2010 at 3:55 PM
WRONG!
It’s actually the three P’s of America’s founding principles… pot, prostitution and pornography… just as the Founder’s envisioned when they crafted the Constitution.
mankai on November 3, 2010 at 3:55 PM
The really LMAOROTF! part of this proposition was that weed growers WANTED to pay taxes on their “product”. Mendocino, Humboldt, and Trinity counties (the Emerald Triangle – pot growing counties) – ALL voted OVERWHELMINGLY against the proposition.
Even dopers aren’t that stupid.
GarandFan on November 3, 2010 at 3:55 PM
Actually, I have very clear ideas on drugs. I believe they should be legal to purchase.
But I also believe punishment for abuse should be extreme when it endangers other citizens.
Think about all the DUI’s in this country and what people do. They go to a class, pay the state a few hundred (some a thousand or so), get a pat on the back, their driver’s license right back and then a few months later… another DUI. Rinse and repeat until someone dies.
The arguments stating legalization of drugs is going to eliminate drug-related crime is ludicrous. It’s equally ridiculous to think government budgets are going to benefit by taxing it.
The arguments against it are silly, as if all of a sudden everyone is going to show up to work buzzed out of their mind. Well, people with the mentality that they’ll go to work stoned, are already doing it. It doesn’t matter if it’s legal or not.
ButterflyDragon on November 3, 2010 at 3:55 PM
I voted nay, for a number of reasons. One never mentioned is that there was no item in the bill that says that pot smokers have to abide by every single nit-picky regulation that affects cigarette, cigar and pipe smokers.
If you can’t light up a fine Cohiba, then you can’t fire up a doobie. Not it taxi cabs, office spaces, restaurants, bars, beaches, sidewalks, or even in your condo or apartment with common walls. Fair is fair.
kurtzz3 on November 3, 2010 at 3:56 PM
With resultant loss of memory recall ability, Marijuana makes the user stupid. Period.
That’s not to say HEMP wasn’t the finest US CROP before CA magnate Hearst got it outlawed so that his forestry could monopolize the paper market. There is no finer paper, cloth or rope than those made of Hemp. Our Constitution is written on Hemp. Our Navy used to rely on Hemp Rope. Ford’s first auto was made ENTIRELY of hemp, frame body and upholstry, and fueled by hemp. Today, Whole Foods sells mashed Canadian hemp seed, a nutritious food source.
Aside from terminal cancer patients deserving the right to affordable pain medication, considering that Native Americans used ash to preserve corn, perhaps that’s about the only way burnt marijuana leaves would have a legitimate nutritional purpose.
The Libertarian political platform is laissez faire . The Federal Government should never have enabled Hearse to have his monopoly that required prosecution against anyone growing hemp, the original main crop of the USA.
Rather than legalize illicit drugs, focus efforts to criminalize PC and “Social Justice” that prevent and subvert the Constitution’s standard for equality under the law. Reverse Discrimination is already the Federal policy, and rules many of our States.
maverick muse on November 3, 2010 at 3:56 PM
As another commenter stated: Which was probably the point, maybe?
As with gay marriage, this isn’t something which was goijng to get passed. Maybe it was on the ballot just to get more liberals to the polls to vote?
catmman on November 3, 2010 at 3:56 PM
OMG TIME TO OUTLAW BEER!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!11111!!!!!!!
SirGawain on November 3, 2010 at 3:56 PM
No big whoop. They’ll get high off the fumes of California’s new Governor, Moonbeam Brown.
Opposite Day on November 3, 2010 at 3:56 PM
Incorrect. Prohibition did work. It was repealed because people wanted to get their drink on.
ButterflyDragon on November 3, 2010 at 3:56 PM
100% correct and I agree.
dogsoldier on November 3, 2010 at 3:57 PM
Nope, it did not work, people drank all the time anyway. The criminals got wealthy off of it.
dogsoldier on November 3, 2010 at 3:57 PM
Um, that’s not what he said, so stop acting like a troll.
SirGawain on November 3, 2010 at 3:58 PM
Governor Ahnold has already made pot possession less than a misdemeanor. It is, as of last week, a “violation”, punishable by a small fine.
Haiku Guy on November 3, 2010 at 3:58 PM
Yeah, i saw that too. I keep wanting to give libertarians a chance, but they’re idiocy about weed and green party like stances on national defense make them irrevelant. They’re the Jon Stewart of political parties, hipsters who sit on the sidelines and complain and mock.
clearbluesky on November 3, 2010 at 3:58 PM
Why would they legalize something so many in CA are making tons of money smuggling in from Mexico?
These criminals aren’t stupid.
TheBigOldDog on November 3, 2010 at 3:58 PM
I don’t know why…I just had to re-post this…it is so Berkeley…so smart, and yet so dumb.
right2bright on November 3, 2010 at 3:59 PM
Interestingly, the county map of the CA vote yesterday shows more unanmity across the state on rejecting Prop 19 than on any other candidate or proposition.
Even the 800-pound gorilla, LA County, went “No” on 19. Blue-collar strongholds in Imperial County (on the border with Mexico) and the Central Valley went against it too. The Prop got a “Yes” only on the slice of coast between the Bay area and Santa Barbara, and in a couple of thinly populated stoner counties on the eastern slope of the Sierra.
J.E. Dyer on November 3, 2010 at 3:59 PM
The Libertarians that get airtime, yes, I’d agree. In fact, the reason they get airtime is because of their views on drugs that seem to be disconnected from reality.
ButterflyDragon on November 3, 2010 at 3:59 PM
The nanny state: always the road to tyranny, except when its not
way to be consistent, cons!
ernesto on November 3, 2010 at 4:01 PM
Those are all fine and valid points, but NOT why people want pot legalized. They simply want to get high.
The average MJ user isn’t touting the strength of hemp rope or the skin moistening properties of hemp oil – they simply want to get high. And if they are touting the other benefits of hemp, then why try to get MJ legalized for ‘recreational use’?
catmman on November 3, 2010 at 4:02 PM
Red State Update
Republicans Take Back House, America
Dunlap, California voted no on legalizing marijuana, now I got to go unpack.
Dr Evil on November 3, 2010 at 4:02 PM
Why do you care what something you don’t use does to people who choose to do so?
You want Bloomberg making a similar argument to keep you from using salt or eating transfats?
It’s all the same. Prohibition has just made the violent criminals ruthless and rich. It’s been tried for decades and has done nothing but turn America’s cities into 3rd world war zones where people are being gunned down in the street over a few pounds of pot. Time to try another approach.
TheBigOldDog on November 3, 2010 at 4:03 PM
I worked for Joe Kennedy…both liquor “rum-runner” and stock manipulation…a real gem among shysters…
right2bright on November 3, 2010 at 4:03 PM
They do anyway. Anyone who really wants it gets it. I don’t advocate it, but I’m a realist. It’s a gigantic waste of resources.
dogsoldier on November 3, 2010 at 4:04 PM
Let’s try the word “It” instead of “I”…
right2bright on November 3, 2010 at 4:04 PM
They smoke the flower, not the leaf, duuuuuude.
SirGawain on November 3, 2010 at 4:05 PM
My family goes back many generations in New England and I grew up listening to those who lived through that era. They knew whereof they spoke….
dogsoldier on November 3, 2010 at 4:06 PM
The vote’s over. Get over it brain dead Cali pot heads.
And comparing prohibition of alcohol experiment is NOTHING like marijuana being and having been illegal. That is the lamest of all the arguments to legalize weed and disingenuous to the point of being laughable. Only brain mushed pot heads would even suggest the comparison.
FlatFoot on November 3, 2010 at 4:09 PM
I don’t disagree with you, but that wasn’t my point.
Another commenter made the case about the other benefits of hemp. As I said, all good and valid points, but irrelevant to the real reason for wanting to legalize pot.
Hemp makes good rope. Yes it does, and in the days of the clipper ship, that meant something. Not so much today. Hemp also makes a good moisturizer. Yep. You know what else does? Cocoa butter. And CB doesn’t smell like crap. Oh, and you can get mashed up hemp seeds at Whole Foods. Yummy…
Legalizers simply want to get high. But apparently they don’t want to make it legal like everyone says – otherwise why the loss?
catmman on November 3, 2010 at 4:10 PM
Yes it did. You’re falling for the myth. Alcohol consumption was halved. Related medical problems, arrests, etc. Dropped dramatically after prohibition.
Government studies and independent studies have proven over and over that prohibition’s intended result (decrease alcohol consumption) happened.
ButterflyDragon on November 3, 2010 at 4:12 PM
True.
the_nile on November 3, 2010 at 4:13 PM
So you’re saying that weed has always been illegal, right? I mean, your point is already incoherent, but then you throw in some factual errors for good measure.
SirGawain on November 3, 2010 at 4:13 PM
California elected an old hippie governor yet refused to legalize pot.
Talk about mixed messages.
AaronGuzman on November 3, 2010 at 4:15 PM
There are just too many people making too much money off the system the way it is now for them to change it and open up competition in that market. Illegality is a barrier of entry to competition. This way the gangs and the mob keep all the money.
crosspatch on November 3, 2010 at 4:15 PM
Test.
Odie1941 on November 3, 2010 at 4:16 PM
Even hippies hate taxes. Given the current non-enforcement and non-taxing versus a new regulatory scheme with taxes, I’d pick the current situation too.
SirGawain on November 3, 2010 at 4:17 PM
Marijuana is already legal here, A Medical Marijuana card cost between $50-$100 and you can get one for any reason. 80% of kids here between the ages of 18 & 25 have one.
borg on November 3, 2010 at 4:18 PM
Those then who chose to quit drinking did not NEED Prohibition, but the will power to quit.
Prohibition certainly made Camelot’s papa Joe Kennedy the millionaire Democrat Party Irish organized crime lord. And ol’ Joe certainly was only one of many, many thugs running whiskey.
Prohibition did enable blackmarket bootlegging, frequently of poisonous liquor.
Society then did not tolerate the mob ruling America. When organized crime succeeded, at least it had the “decency” to keep from broadcasting its own crime sprees. The mob back then also wouldn’t have united to fight against the USA during war as enemy combatants.
The world changed for the worse. Drug cartels certainly do plot to take down the USA. Making THEM legitimate would only formalize the unification between the two entities, organized crime and US Govt. that should never be allowed to amalgamate.
That does not excuse the US Federal Law against growing Hemp. FDR propagandized a break in enforcement: “Hemp for Victory” media campaign as good rope was in dire need in our war effort.
If anything is to be worked out, I’m afraid that it wouldn’t help legalizing the pot crop today because of agribusiness already the monopoly food source with no nutritional ethics beyond corruption. A blind critic would scream “conspiracy theorist!” without himself researching in a scholarly fashion. I grew up in an agriculture household, my father’s specialty in animal nutrition. By 1960, the FDR subsidized “dirt farmer” was squeezed out of existence, agribusiness continuing to take over larger family farms. This past year, the longest existing American perpetually functioning family farm was sold. You’d think that agribusiness would be a perfectly legitimate producer of industrial hemp crops. Yeah, you’d think.
maverick muse on November 3, 2010 at 4:20 PM
They had my resume and proposal a year ago.
I blame second-rate talent making campaign decisions.
JohnGalt23 on November 3, 2010 at 4:21 PM
No kidding. I was thinking this very thing.
Gang-of-One on November 3, 2010 at 4:22 PM
I’m sure that is true and if it is, quite b!@ching about legalization.
If this can’t get passed, in the pot smoking, hippy capital of America, then it obviously isn’t the great idea many folks think it is.
catmman on November 3, 2010 at 4:28 PM
The way it currently is, existing in a semi-legal gray area, is not good for democracy. The correct Constitutional view is that it should be left up to each state to decide the legality.
SirGawain on November 3, 2010 at 4:33 PM
Yeah, it get that.
But as with homosexuality, pretty much every time it’s put up to let the states decide, they decide not to.
So like I said, quite b!@ching about legalization. No one, voters anyway, want it.
catmman on November 3, 2010 at 4:37 PM
And your argument that those opposing it state that “all of a sudden everyone is going to show up to work buzzed…” is a logical argument?
I have never heard that argument, I would like to see a link where “everyone is going to show up buzzed”…hyperbole perhaps?
right2bright on November 3, 2010 at 4:37 PM
TheBigOldDog on November 3, 2010 at 4:03 PM
Dream on, as if legalizing illicit drugs will eliminate the organized crime that already exists. Federally approved Pharmaceutical drugs are legal, as if that prevents burglars and thieves from breaking into pharmacies to steal.
Legalized marijuana will inevitably come with a laundry list of regulations that will encourage crime, yet, by those who don’t “qualify” to grow it.
We’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. But in the large picture, pot doesn’t help anyone except the helpless deal with their plight. Why not legalize suicide, then. It isn’t as if suicide being a criminal act prevents people from killing themselves, or helping someone die. Assenting to legal pot will of its own screw up the works, the nature of that drug which leaves the person mentally stunted without sharp recall and without quick physical responses. Locomotive engineers, drivers, pilots, captains on ships, tool and die makers, machinists, mechanics, teachers, dentists, surgeons, stoned. Being under the influence is a matter for prosecution. So enabling everyone with the authority to test others seems to be the only feasible way to actually be certain that YOUR dentist or pilot isn’t stoned on the job. Now, “if only”. No, the present problem isn’t as bad as the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES of legalizing illicit drugs would be.
maverick muse on November 3, 2010 at 4:38 PM
And so far every state has voted it down…end of discussion, next thread please.
right2bright on November 3, 2010 at 4:38 PM
Libertarian heartache. Legalizing pot, even if it *may* be the right thing to do in terms of personal liberty, will not be a panacea. It will not raise enormous revenues, the drug dealers will still be out there selling pot to minors and other drugs, there will still be arrests related to driving while high. Alcohol is legal and it should be but the we cannot deny the enormous social costs of alcohol abuse. Pot won’t be much different. Having more people walking around under the influence is not the key to a vibrant society.
echosyst on November 3, 2010 at 4:39 PM
You’re forgetting one tiny thing: the unconstitutional federal war on Some drugs.
SirGawain on November 3, 2010 at 4:41 PM
Gay marriage got shot down here in Cali, too, overwhelmingly in San Fran, too.
The potheads forgot to vote, and those that really wanted to vote FOR 19 had multiple felony convictions and couldn’t vote anyway.
Mazztek on November 3, 2010 at 4:41 PM
That’s what confounds me…a guy who would have no problem with passing the prop. gets elected.
Really what it shows is dems, true dems, vote for no one else. The only way to win a race is with independents.
right2bright on November 3, 2010 at 4:41 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »