Proposition 64

In November 2010, California voters rejected a state ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana (Proposition 19) with a vote of 53.5% to 46.5%.

In November 2016, Californians will vote on Proposition 64 to legalize commercial sales of recreational marijuana. A September 8, 2016 Los Angeles Times poll of 1,909 California voters shows it passing with 58% of the vote. It is opposed by 34% of respondents, and 8% have no opinion. (Margin of error 3%).

There are already 4 states with legal recreational marijuana, but those states have much smaller populations than California: Oregon, Alaska, Colorado, and Washington state.

Proposition 64 would levee a statewide 15% excise tax on retail sales, (much lower than Oregon, Colorado, & Washington state’s 30% tax.) California cities and counties could add their own tax on top of this, or even ban retail sales within their jurisdictions. Personal cultivation (6 plants) and possession (1 ounce) would be legal statewide, regardless of bans on retail sales.

As for federal intervention, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have both promised to respect states' rights on this issue. (There's no way to predict whether either would honor their promise.)

Perhaps some people aren’t particularly impressed by how profound and revolutionary this particular ballot initiative is, because medical marijuana is already available in so many states. Ho-hum, yawn, no big deal. But I think that Proposition 64 is huge.

If it passes, it's going to make a lot of drug dealers very angry. Though perhaps they've already gone partway through a loss of market transition with medical marijuana...

I wonder how many police departments will be mad as hell, too.

Quote: Nareed

I wonder how many police departments will be mad as hell, too.

Heck, you think cops don't see a profitable band wagon.

Quote: Nareed

I wonder how many police departments will be mad as hell, too.

Not really
Most cops are just regular people
The percentage of people overall that smoke also applies to the police

Quote: Nareed

I wonder how many police departments will be mad as hell, too.

The law still has possible provisions for ticketing people. (too many plants for instance) Just like legal speed limits there is still money to be made on violations.

Quote: reno

Personal cultivation (6 plants) and possession (1 ounce) would be legal statewide, regardless of bans on retail sales.

So you can cultivate your 6 plants, but as soon as you harvest you're a felon? Unless you have the touch of death, 6 plants is gonna yield a hell of a lot more than 1 ounce =/

Quote: reno

As for federal intervention, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have both promised to respect states' rights on this issue. (There's no way to predict whether either would honor their promise.)

Until and unless either works to strip that power from the fed, they're full of the stuff used to cultivate your 6 plants.

Quote: Face

So you can cultivate your 6 plants, but as soon as you harvest you're a felon? Unless you have the touch of death, 6 plants is gonna yield a hell of a lot more than 1 ounce =/

I'm sure it's up to six plants, and not that you must have 6 plants.

The real question is: does possession mean how much you have on your person or in your property? You could keep three metric tons of weed at home and never carry more than 1 oz. on you at any time.

BTW, I expect many of these restrictions to go away in time, say one hundred years or so. After all, almost no state regulates alcohol that strictly (maybe Utah).

Quote: Nareed

... I expect many of these restrictions to go away in time, say one hundred years or so. After all, almost no state regulates alcohol that strictly (maybe Utah).

I don't think the restrictions will go away. With time, the negative effects of cannabis smoke in lungs, second hand exposure, and injuries to the underaged (pregnant mom smoking weed to help with morning sickness, brain development problems / psychosis in high school aged users) will put recreational use of weed in the "How could they have been so stupid when they approved that?" list of laws.

Quote: Nareed

BTW, I expect many of these restrictions to go away in time, say one hundred years or so. After all, almost no state regulates alcohol that strictly (maybe Utah).

Mississippi waited until 1966 to end Prohibition. I'm not joking.

Quote: Nareed

I'm sure it's up to six plants, and not that you must have 6 plants.

Oh, sure. But if I CAN have six plants, I'd likely grow six plants. At which point I must ask "When does a plant turn into weed?" Is it a plant until I trim, pick, and dry it? Or is it weed as soon as it's viable? Either way, there's a big problem with their plan here, in that it is impossible to have both 6 plants and <1oz.

Quote: Nareed

The real question is: does possession mean how much you have on your person or in your property? You could keep three metric tons of weed at home and never carry more than 1 oz. on you at any time.

Indeed. I remember a gun talk where they touched on this and what "possession" means.

Possess: verb - have as belonging to one; own.

Whenever I'm stopped by 5-0 and am asked if I possess any weapons, I use context and assume he means on my person. But in this case, should one assume he would mean on you and all the rest you own? What if I have a pound at my house, and I call 15 friends and family and advise them they each have one ounce. "But we don't smoke!" "Yeah, that's why I gave it to YOU." So 5-0 shows up and this one's Mavis', and this is Betty's, and this one's grandma's... it's all "theirs". It's just when I run out, I ask them if I can have theirs and they give it to me.

And, as an aside, isn't this just one more asinine, idiotic, and downright retarded law? I mean, and I know legislators don't really give a tin s#$% about this lately, but this little thing called the Bill of Rights says they can't just knock down your door and start rummaging through your stuff. So if Nareed has 3 metric tons of it at home... how they gonna know?

Quote: Ayecarumba

I don't think the restrictions will go away. With time, the negative effects of cannabis smoke in lungs, second hand exposure, and injuries to the underaged (pregnant mom smoking weed to help with morning sickness, brain development problems / psychosis in high school aged users) will put recreational use of weed in the "How could they have been so stupid when they approved that?" list of laws.

Oh, Aye. You assume these folks are benevolent and beneficent. Of course, if you believed that, you'd then be tasked with explaining tobacco, and on that, I wish you all of the luck =p