Even one city or county ending prohibition is a huge improvement. We may very well have to end prohibition one city at a time. Just because one or two cities are going to try and pass stupid laws, doesn't mean the rest of California shouldn't be allowed to try and end prohibition.
As far as me personally, yeah "i got mine" by personally talking to ever member of the county board of supervisors and city counsel and explained to them how they could make prop 19 a good thing for the county with out passing restrictive laws and excessive permits. If you think I am somehow guilty of being selfish for participating in our democracy and doing my part to ending prohibition in my home town, then you must be high on something stronger than bud.
Nice deflection, but once again your hypocrisy is showing. As you've often pointed out, Prop. 19 isn't needed for local authorities to make changes both positive and negative. But, you also like to gloss over the blanket policy ban option that Prop. 19 makes quite legitimate and despite your erroneous conclusions, very difficult, if not impossible to challenge legally. From your accounts, you've achieved major improvement by swaying the opinions of your own local authorities and have done so without Prop. 19. Good job, but I'd have to say that at a early tally of 2 douche-bag cities versus one allegedly good one, the trade offs are still way against the pot smoking community at large and only serve to circumscribe their lives more.
I appreciate the attempt to cloak your profit motives in flowery rhetoric like "democracy" (not mentioning that profit-driven lobbyism is one of the worst aspects of the current democratic process) and "ending prohibition" (of course, pretending that it's still the mid-80's and no progress
has been made). Problem is that no matter how you put it, actions and intents speak for themselves. As someone intimately familiar with and vested in sustainable agricultural operations and in support of local sustainable food systems over the production-intensive system of modern agri-industrial operations and their impact on the culture of farming and the diminishing standards of modern food, I recognize all too well the implications of Prop. 19 in respects to cannabis. This is nothing more than corporatization and lays the groundwork for centralized distribution systems.
Alcohol and tobacco are actually good examples of potential outcomes of this proposition. The similarities to contemporary national agricultural policy and the history that lead to it shouldn't be ignored either. The fact that it's not only happened before, but has happened every time with every "industry" concerns me. I can see how it would not concern someone who looks to profit from passage of Prop. 19.
In the case of tobacco, yes, one can in fact grow and smoke their own tobacco. And much like this law is attempting to do, you cannot sell that tobacco, in any amount, without paying the various excise taxes and satisfying the various regulations. Taxes which are too onerous for any but large-scale end product producers to burden. Even the typical production tobacco grower is suffering much the same plight as the mid-west grain farmers face. Surviving on federally subsidies in the presence of a reducing market demand and the availability of cheaper imported raw materials to large scale end product producers. Not to mention that the damage to the tobacco industry that the current trend of anti-smoking sentiment and litigation is doing. Not to mention the monoculture that such industry models inherently induce. Also, not to mention the absolutely insane number of shortcuts that large-scale producers are able to take in the production of their product and the regulation that allows them to, thanks to profit-motivated lobbying. There are no provisions or shelters of any kind for small or medium scale producers. Not even the shoddy ones that are available to "conventional" cultivators. Big tobacco in my cannabis, I think not.
So how about the alcohol industry. After all, one can make beer and wine galore! Hurray for the 21st Amendment! Pffft... yeah right. Anyone with an understanding of the history of Prohibition and the results of the 21st Amendment beyond what they brainwash children with in public schools knows that this is one of the worst examples of laissez-faire legislation with regards to it's effect on what was previously a thriving regional/local industry of hundreds of small/medium scale producers and associated industries. The 21st Amendment, much like Prop. 19 proposes to do for local government authority, gave states unilateral rights to determine the legality and regulation of alcohol without regard to the desire of it's citizenry. Hell, even Mississippi remained "dry" until 1966. You honestly think no one in Mississippi drank or wanted to brew/distill until the mid-60's? Or that they even could... I'll admit I'm a little short on my Mississippi specific history, but I'm willing to bet the shift from dry to not-dry status was more for the sake of retail sales rather than a blessing of tidings and business for the small/medium producer. But, in any case, let's not assume uber-conservative locality. Hell, let's even pretend the fed's come around and reschedule it and blah blah blah. Well, even under federal standards (as enforced by the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Agency) there are limits on the amount of beer or wine that can be produce for personal consumption and no allowances at all for distilled alcohols. In fact, there are regulations that allow them to request customer lists from companies that manufacture and distribute stills. So what are those standards and how are they set? Roughly, 100 gallons of beer or wine each can be produced for personal or family use per adult, for up to two adults per household, per calendar year. Roughly about a 6-pack/person/day worth of beer
and wine together per household, assuming only two adults in the household. Yep... sounds a lot like what Prop 19 wants to do. Unreasonable limits that make for a system that leaves clients dependent on large-scale/commercial interests to provide supply with no protections or consideration for small or medium scale operations. But, since you're of the "no one needs more than an ounce or a grow bigger than 5'x5'" crowd, I'm sure you see no issue. Not really surprising since you're looking to gain yourself a nice little retail business on the back on Prop. 19. In addition, there is an all out ban on distillation of alcohol for any reason other than commercial distribution. In fact, the ATF has regulatory policy that allows them to request customer lists from the manufacturers and distributors of stills and distillery equipment. I certainly don't want similar standards applied to cannabis.
Even modern agriculture is a prime example of broad-spectrum discretionary powers used in support of large-scale production and the resulting decimation of the small and medium farm population as well as the near disappearance of subsistence farming. Sadly enough, the demise of modern agriculture and the prohibition of cannabis share a fair number of causal factors. In fact, the two weren't really separate until 1937, when prohibition caused cannabis to diverge from the path of agriculture in general. Since then, regulations on agricultural practices and financial barriers to entry that favor large entities and central distributors have reduced the small/family and medium/cooperative farm to near extinction, replaced by vast swaths of monocultured production-intensive systems that deplete the land of vital nutrients and topsoil. Not to mention the loss of diversity not only the types and varieties of foods we produce, but also in the biospheres we inhabit. Also, similar is the use of government-funded public campaigns to misinform for the benefit of commercial entities. Obviously with cannabis, the public message is one of false dangers. With agriculture, the message is one of false assurances. It's taken numerous incidents of food poisoning and other health disasters to not only question the safety and security of our food but, also to realize that we've regulated ourselves nearly into a corner since almost all such cases originate from retail-driven intensive-production systems and monocultured farms/plantations.
That's three times that government and commercial interests have used regulation and taxation/imposition of fees to control industries. Three times that small and medium entities in those industries were squeezed out by regulatory practices that present financial or operational barriers to entry for anyone but those who seek to conduct business for the sake of profit. Also, three times that regulation results in mass-production of inferior products that result in public health risks. That's three times too many to me.
In fact, strangely enough... I think for once, I may have to change my mind and agree with you on one point you like to repeatedly make. All this reflecting on history and legislation, as well as personal and family interests in agriculture has got me thinking and realizing a few things. I suppose I am in support of prohibition as it stands. After all, what is really, truly illegal at the moment. Yes, you can get a misdemeanor for possession, but there is no jail time that is associated with a simple possession charge. The only misdemeanor without jail time, mind you. In addition, legislation is currently underway to reduce that to an infraction. That would mean near-impunity for the casual recreational smokers with the occasional bummer of a ticket and $100 fine should one get pulled over with the same ounce that Prop 19 allows for. A key difference will be paying the overhead and taxes that retail entails at every purchase under 19. I also agree that things are broken and there are people making more money than they should. Unfortunately, adding more middlemen and intermediaries doesn't fix the problem, but rather exacerbates it. Prop 19 isn't good for anyone but middlemen and intermediaries.
So yes... you are quite greedy for your "participating in our democracy" (lobbyism is the primary tool of greedy interests) and for "doing [your part to end] prohibition in [your] home town" and no amount of personal attack is going to cover your intentions to anyone with eyes to see it. The only part of "prohibition" that Prop. 19 changes is commercial sales and the enabling, if not straight out legitimization of large scale production operations. Far from control or removal of those who work outside the constraints of law now, Prop 19 will give them a veritable license to get legitimate and continue, if not expand their operations. The "ones making millions" will become the few making hundreds of millions. Personally, I'd rather have hundreds of thousands of relatively well-off small and medium scale growers than a small number of extremely wealthy commercial entities.
