You do realize it's illegal to smoke in public now right? That's not a new law. It doesn't make smoking in public any more illegal than it is now.
Show me where in California law it says it's illegal to consume in public? You can be cited by the cops and given a misdemeanor (once again, the only one without jail time and only $100 fine) for possessing cannabis, but that's it. It's about as reasonable as expecting people not to drink in public places and no one seems to have a problem with beer and wine all over the place. I think you have the wrong perception of cannabis. You seem to join in with the Kool-Aid drinkers that it's an illicit drug that we have to protect society from. I'm not afraid of a plant that is of great benefit to life, so I have no issue with people and kids in general being around. I don't see a need to restrict people just because you're a canna-shy. You keep moaning and complaining about "80 years of Prohibition" while supporting the same short-sighted and misinformed views of Prohibition. Ending this Prohibition isn't just about making cannabis taxed and regulated, but also about ending unfounded discrimination and the lies that create it.
i thought you wanted it to be like booze. i can drink beer at the park, with my kid next to me.
Well if you get a misdemeanor for doing it then it's illegal. I don't need to show you anything. And by the way, where does it say you'll get a felony for consuming it in public? No where. Show me evidence that people will be given a stiffer penalty than they are now.
To be fair, cannabis is more comparable to cigarettes than alcohol in this respect. When you drink a beer, the guy next to you doesn't inhale beer smoke as a result. Of course I believe ultimately much more problems are created by drinking alcohol in public than smoking, but whatever.
lol. Wtf? What have I ever said to make you believe this? I work full time in the medical cannabis industry and have so for a long time.
That's nice. Unfortunately other people in California have different opinions about cannabis. It's our job to incrementally introduce it to them so they learn the truth about this. The way to do this isn't to start sparking up in front of their kids. It's to slowly show them it isn't that harmful step by step. Step one was 215. Step two is this.
And you're the one who wants another 80 years of it.
I'm fine with that. But Rome wasn't built in a day. Just because this law doesn't go far enough that doesn't mean we should reject our best chance to start to end it.
I never said that. I said their were comparisons. And by the way, in many parks, it is illegal.i thought you wanted it to be like booze. i can drink beer at the park, with my kid next to me.
in many parks it's legal, as pot WON'T be. you can't use a positive comparison of booze when it suits you, then ignore the next one when it's against you. you are hand picking your arguments and changing things around to suit your point. then you accuse others of doing the same. you have done nothing to make any valid points in this thread. you are trolling for an argument. no one is changing their minds.
Pardon me, fdd, but it is YOU who are trolling. This thread is titled "Reasons to vote YES," so why are you posting here?in many parkas it's legal, as pot WON'T be. you can't use a positive comparison of booze when it suits you, then ignore the next one when it's against you. you are hand picking your arguments and changing things around to suit your point. then you accuse others of doing the same. you have done nothing to make any valid points in this thread. you are trolling for an argument. no one is changing their minds.
A few more at mine, and about 50+ more between friends and family....why do you care?
5 NO's at my house.
For much the same reason that proponents of Prop 19 keep posting and "trolling" in Anti-Prop 19 threads. Funny how it's alright for proponents to shit up anti-prop 19 threads with their "arguments", but you only pop up to say anything when opposition shows up in an Pro-Prop 19 thread. Hypocrisy much anyone?
why do you care?
5 NO's at my house.
dude, you really aren't that much older than me. and if this is as far as you've gotten after 40+ years, you're doing it wrong.Why would I care? Because I've been fighting for this since before you were born.
We'll pass this in spite of the naysayers.
Nice of you to change idiots to naysayers. And I have no doubt you could very have been fighting for "this" for quite some time. It's not like commercializing cannabis and squeezing out the locals is a new strategy.Why would I care? Because I've been fighting for this since before you were born.
We'll pass this in spite of the naysayers.
No, I get it. You have your reasons for this bill. I've been working and fighting for decriminalization for almost 20 years myself. I know for a fact that things are far better now than they've ever been before because of our decriminalization efforts. Prop 215 and Prop 36 brought progress to the decriminalization movement through protection for those who use cannabis to enrich their lives and through a massive reduction in penalties for non-violent possession charges, which also includes drop of the charges after completion of a court program. Only one thing is strictly prohibited according to current California statutes and legal precedents, sales or "intent to sell". Even amounts over one ounce and excessive plants numbers are eligible for a personal consumption defense under current California law as there is no actual definition of "personal consumption" currently. Prop 19 sets those standards and give local law enforcement a new set of standards by which to determine "intent to sell". Yes, local governments have the option to set more generous limits. They've always had that option. This proposition does nothing to really alter the blockades to real decriminalization which all lie in existing Health and Safety and California Penal Codes. The proposition does nothing to reduce the ability of law enforcement and local government to prove "intent to sell", but gives them new concrete numbers to live and arrest by. It adds new definitions and laws which translate into more restrictions and more arrests. The past 20 years speak to that. That's just history. Someone who's been fighting for legalization for as long as you claim to have been should know better.
Misinformation. Nothing in prop 19 squeezes out locals. And on what bizarro world have legal cannabis that you can't sell in a commercial store?
Only as much misinformation as your claim that the proposition favors the existing market of small and medium growers by granting local government broad authority to determine regulation, taxing and fee schedules. That worked out real well for all the small and medium entities in the alcohol industry following Prohibition. But, if your last sentence is any sort of metric, it would appear that you're the typical product of the American public educational system and therefore not as versed in the in-depth history, follow-up and impact of the end of Prohibition. So if it's still confusing to you how this proposition does to cannabis what we've already done to our agricultural, alcohol and tobacco industries, I would strongly suggest you do some research. Even Wikipedia can't deny the massive negative repercussions that followed Prohibition.
I'm glad the attempted genocide of the Jewish people and the near-subjugation of the European continent resulting in the deaths of millions was worth trains running on time in your opinion. You've already shown that you're ready to let the 18-20 crowd go to jail so you can feel safer about your ounce of weed. Who else are you ready to cut loose? I'm fighting for all of us, even the ones that are ready to cut and run.
I never claimed anything like that. I claim it gives equal footing to everyone. I challenge you to find anything in the text of prop 19 that cuts out small businesses.
Oh stfu, I was clearly joking.
Just as soon as you find the part of California law that specifically outlaws consumption. You didn't feel the need to indulge me, so I feel no need to point out the obvious to you. But, that's alright... you can continue to pick and choose what to respond to and ignore the context that surrounds the items you choose to challenge. It's rather like watching fledgling forensics students who continue to fall back on circular logic to try and make a point. Or a bad episode of Glenn Beck.
OH! Well, if it's a joke, that makes it soooo much better.
You asked me to prove it was illegal, then admitted it was illegal in the very next sentence! Why would I prove something to you after you just admitted you already knew it was illegal?