JelloChex

iTrader: (6)

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/cali...ossession.html

http://thenewsoftoday.com/schwarzene...-prop-19/3047/

Governor Schwarzenegger today signed SB1449 - Possession of 1 oz or less of Marijuana is now reduced from a Misdemeanor to an Infraction with a fine of up to $100 and No Jail Time. The new law will take effect on 1/1/11.

Personally, I think it should just be legalized. That way it can be taxed and really start bringing in some real revenue for the state to help alleviate the budget issues that this state has currently.

McLovinMyWRX

iTrader: (1)

i agree. in all honesty, i feel like marijuana has always been seen as a minimal offense (at least around here). i've had friends who have been caught with weed on them, caught smoking, etc and cops will let them go with a warning. plus our state is in so much f-ing debt, we could definitely use the money from taxing it. this new bill just kinda puts the icing on the cake.

Heedz

iTrader: (51)

If it was fully legalized what may happen though is that the deals that are not done by state will become very unstable, people putting in other stuff to say their weed is better, which may cause a lot of issues. But why not it hasnt been done before.. Can go either way, but the fine reduction plus no jail time will make it much more relaxed state of mind.

RU-X

iTrader: (9)

Taxing it should not be the focus of legalizing it.

eastbaysubaru

iTrader: (9)

Agreed.

-Brian

McLovinMyWRX

iTrader: (1)

i agree as well, i just see tax money as an added benefit

RU-X

iTrader: (9)

but really.... taxing it is the best playing card for it. other then that, why should the man care? keep it classy people!

buzzword

iTrader: (11)

While it should not be THE focus, it is certainly one good reason to do so. I think this SB1449 thing should really help with prison over-crowding, which is yet another reason to legalize.

I am 100% not a 420 dude anymore, but I can see the benefits to decriminalizing. Unfortunately, you'll probably always have the crowd that things it is a gateway drug or whatever. Winning their hearts and minds will likely prove to be a tricky task.

subie OCD

iTrader: (11)

This is good news. Also, it's pretty easy to get a license for medical marijuana... that way you skip the whole infraction/penalty process.

Turbo Rob

iTrader: (1)

As a supporter of marijuana, there is one argument against Prop 19 that I have found very valid.

Hopefully, I can make this clear as clear as I heard it on KQED. Basically, companies can get tax breaks (or some incentives) from the Federal Government by having a Drug Free Workplace. If Prop 19 passes, employers will no longer be in compliance with a Federally mandated Drug Free Workplace program SINCE there isn't a good way of testing marijuana use. This means that business's would be negatively affected by not having the incentives given by the Federal Government, thus the consumer would be negatively affected by increased prices of good. Also, it may be harder for California corporations to get Federal Contracts or contracts that demand a Federally sponsored Drug Free Workplace for say construction or whatever else.

It's definitely a different perspective on the issue, but the guy I was listening to wasn't arguing the benefits of marijuana use. He argued that Prop 19 is flawed as a Proposition and needs to be rewritten.

eastbaysubaru

iTrader: (9)

But what's the difference between Prop 19 and Prop 215, which already passed, in regards to the Drug Free Workplace federal program?

-Brian

akdmx

iTrader: (6)

My initial instinct when I saw that Arnold passed SB1449 (especially with the upcoming election so soon, and prop 19 building momentum) was that perhaps he was trying to fight prop 19 by giving the unsure voters a "middle-ground" to stand on instead of feeling like they should decriminalize.

I'm not familiar with Arnolds political history as it pertains to legalization, but if that was his tactic, here is my critique: it won't be enough to get marijuana-users not to vote for 19, and without the taxation there is no tangible benefit for the non-users (other than an insignificant amount of savings on enforcement relative to decriminalization).

If he IS in favor of proposition 19, I don't know why he bothered with this when he could have come out and supported 19 (heck, his term is up anyway).


Anyway - that's what I was sort of confused about.

JelloChex

iTrader: (6)

As far as prison overcrowding goes, I didn't see anything saying that people in jail / prison for marijuana use will be retroactively freed. Who knows if that will happen or not, but I didn't see it listed yet with SB1449.

As for the "gateway drug" aspect of it, I will refer to Denis Leary:

"What was the problem with just smoking a joint, eating a couple of Twinkies, and going to sleep? Was that a problem? They say marijuana leads to other drugs. No it doesn't, it leads to ****ing carpentry. That's the problem, folks. People getting high going, "Wow man, this box would make an excellent bong! *snort* This guy's head would make an excellent bong! *snort*" Relax! That's why I stopped doing drugs in the first place. Not because I didn't like 'em, but because I didn't want to build anything, ok?"

nokio

There isn't a good way to test on the spot, for instance a police officer pulling someone over (besides the glassy eyes and empty Cheeto bag in the passenger seat). In terms of testing for jobs they have been doing that for a long time via urine and hair sample tests that take a week or two to complete once collected. Many companies already screen for marijuana as well as a multitude of other drugs via these tests and have done so successfully for a while now.

buzzword

iTrader: (11)

I think you misunderstand me - I said nothing about retroactive releases. I was referring to the idea that if it is decriminalized further, it could mean less new convictions + prison sentences. I think if you are convicted under a certain legislative paradigm, the sentence shouldn't be reversed if the paradigm changes.