Prop 19: Marijuana Legalization Gets its Number in California

spike

spike

New Member
While California confirmed its state’s marijuana legalization initiative would be on the November ballot months ago, today the state assigned proposition numbers to this year’s slate of initiatives. Get used to hearing about Proposition 19, which is where you’ll get to vote to legalize marijuana in California.

The state restarts the counter for proposition numbers every ten years, last doing so in 2008 (hence why gay marriage was Prop 8 in 2009). While it’s inevitable proposition numbers will be reused, the LA Weekly notes a strange coincidence in the legalization initiative’s number. When pot legalization was on the ballot in 1972, it was also Proposition 19.

The Secretary of State’s office says it was a coincidence. But you can’t put anything past the people who named the state’s medical marijuana bill SB 420.

Anyway, if you still have your Prop. 19 buttons and posters, you won’t have to go buy new ones.

As you can probably tell, Prop. 19 failed in 1972. In fact, it wasn’t close. According to Ballotpedia, the measure went down by a vote of 66.5% to 33.5%. We’ll see in November how much attitudes have changed in the intervening 38 years.

The latest LA Times poll found 49% of Californians support marijuana legalization, with 41% opposed in May. Earlier that month, the Public Policy Institute found the state evenly split, with 48% supporting to 49% opposing.

I just really hope this year’s campaign can produce some equally awesome posters like the one here from the 1972 Prop 19 campaign for legalization.

Pot isn’t the only issue on which Californians will vote in November. Jon Walker has a rundown of the 10 initiatives on the ballot for Golden State voters.
Click to expand...

http://elections.firedoglake.com/20...a-legalization-gets-its-number-in-california/
 
Said it before, I'll say it again. If someone wants to legalize old fashioned, natural pot, go for it. This new, high potency stuff .... I'm against. Frankly, I don't see the attraction of it myself. IMHO, the population is too stupid to be trusted.
 
Any marijuana, high potency or otherwise, is far less harmful than alcohol.

Freedom and stuff.
 
Give me any study on one, I'll match it with a study saying the exact same thing for the other. That's the beauty of statistics ... they can say what ever you want them to. I can pull out half a dozen stats that say that alcohol (in moderation) helps reduce the risk of heart attack, stroke, even obesity. All the ill from booze comes from excess. Even oxygen has it's bad side effects.

And frankly, I think the general population is too stupid to be trusted with alcohol as well. Heck, I don't think most of the general population should be allowed to breed for that matter ... but that's not the point of this discussion, is it?
 
I say let Cali, and maybe one or 2 other states hit it wide open, and use um for a case study.
 
Professur said:
And frankly, I think the general population is too stupid to be trusted with alcohol as well. Heck, I don't think most of the general population should be allowed to breed for that matter ... but that's not the point of this discussion, is it?
Click to expand...

This looks distinctly anti-freedom.

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 20,000 Americans die every year as the direct result of alcohol consumption. The number for marijuana is zero.

Marijuana isn't addictive like cigarettes either.
 
spike said:
Marijuana isn't addictive like cigarettes either.
Click to expand...

bs (to a degree)
it has just about as much nicotine.

If you smoke cigs, quitting mj isn't too tough, but quiting cigs is tough......
quiting mj is tougher if you don't smoke cigs.

Now, that's taking into account the price....drop the price, make it alright legal,
and I bet it'll be harder to quit. That's kinda the way the mind works.
 
spike said:
This looks distinctly anti-freedom.
Click to expand...

It should. I've never made any bones about the fact that I think the american 'great freedom' is folly. I'm an avowed Monarchist for a good reason. I don't think 'the people' have any business running their own lives ... unless they prove they can do it ... by earning that right.

whenever I discuss freedom, or a lack thereof ... it's with respect to your established laws and charters and your (american) freely violating them. It's not that I think most of you deserve them, but i despise the hypocrisy that you (everyone) show when you cower behind them one minute and crush them underfoot the next depending on whether or not they suit you at the time.
 
Professur said:
It should. I've never made any bones about the fact that I think the american 'great freedom' is folly. I'm an avowed Monarchist for a good reason. I don't think 'the people' have any business running their own lives ... unless they prove they can do it ... by earning that right.
Click to expand...

Ah well, I'll have to disagree with you then.

Monarchist really?

Does that mean you think power should be concentrated in one family no matter how big a morons they turn out to be?
 
spike said:
There can be negative and positive health effects. It's generally not considered addictive though.

Here's a good explanation
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_marijuana_addictive

More here:
http://www.ehow.com/about_4596355_positive-effects-marijuana.html

Alcohol and cigarettes on the hand...
Click to expand...

Spike, you seem to be referring the 'physical/chemical' addition, but
it is quite mentally addicting.

I can tell you first-hand, ....
it depends a lot on the person, as to the problems it can cause....
for e.g....if a person is bi-polar, of schizo, it makes it worse at times.
 
spike said:
Ah well, I'll have to disagree with you then.

Monarchist really?

Does that mean you think power should be concentrated in one family no matter how big a morons they turn out to be?
Click to expand...

No, actually. Part of my faith in monarchy is that when the leaders fail ... they don't go home and collect a fat pension for the rest of their lives. They leave office feet first ... with the heir in attendance... seeing first hand the price of failure. If said heir chooses, he can renounce the throne not only his name,but for his entire lineage. The choice of king at that point becomes a matter for the house of Lords, who would naturally have to ratify any heir anyhow.

The key to this is that you have leaders who are born to lead, taught to lead from birth ... but own nothing. They're totally uncorruptable at that point, because they can't own anything themselves. Everything belongs to the kingdom. They get the use of it, and everything they want is theirs through the exchequer ... but they don't own anything.
 
catocom said:
I can tell you first-hand, ....
it depends a lot on the person, as to the problems it can cause....
for e.g....if a person is bi-polar, of schizo, it makes it worse at times.
Click to expand...

For some people it can be habit forming. Certainly not a good reason for it to be illegal. Coffee seems more habit forming.
 
Another reason for people to be fat lazy & stupid. I bet minks is all for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top