Yes, but how would the Federal Government's laws be valid on a matter that has nothing to do with any other states and only affects those who are in California? Supremacy, sure, but only on powers that legally belong to the feds.

I drove behind someone that was smoking pot while driving the other day. what a ****ing moron.

Guys, the government has been 'condoning' the sale and use of weed for thirty years here in the Netherlands. It's not exactly legal, but they allow it. I know it sounds crazy, but anyway that's how it works.

The point is though, people who normally don't smoke weed aren't suddenly going to smoke in large numbers because it's now legal. That argument is just nonsense.

It's as good as legal here. It's an experiment that has lasted for 30 years. When it comes to numbers of people smoking weed, we're just an average country. (And yes, I'm talking about percentages, not absolute numbers) Even though the popular belief about Holland is that everybody smokes, it's not true. It's just more visible than anywhere else because people do it in public.

In percentages, we're far below the New Zealand, Australia, Canada, US, UK. Only about 5 % of Dutch people smokes weed. That's below world average, even.

To reiterate, the point is that legalization will not lead to massive use.

The supremacy clause does NOT grant the federal government a single power. It says that where the federal government does have power, it has absolute power. Prop 19 does not say 'federal law is not supreme' but instead that the feds don't have the power to pass that law in the first place.

Well, marijuana has been legal in Denver, CO for some time now. How's it working out there?

Wouldn't the Feds have jurisdiction under the commerce clause? Or am I mistaken in that?

Thanks for explaining the Supremacy Clause to me, because it should be obvious to everyone reading this thread that I had no idea what the clause meant. But wait! Well-established law says that the federal government has the power to regulate manufacture, distribution and possession of drugs that the federal government deems illegal. What the **** do we do now?



I'm quite aware that Prop. 19 doesn't say, in so many words, that federal law is not supreme. I'm also quite aware that Prop 19 also doesn't say any of the things you're pretending it does. I'm staring at the text of the initiative right now, and if any part of it claims to limit the ability of the federal government to regulate the drugs that it considers to be illegal, that part is very, very well camouflaged.

Again, to be clear, if I lived in California I would vote for Prop. 19. I think a decision by the voters to cease prosecuting nonviolent soft drug offenders would be both ethically and pragmatically correct. But please, let's not pretend that California is entitled to act as it pleases and that the federal government doesn't have broad authority to enforce its own drug regulations within California.

No. The feds use the commerce clause to justify an incredible amount of power; but remember that the supreme court supporting them does not make them right. The supreme court is also part of the federal government. It's kind of like a bunch of KKK elders deciding if the KKK has the power to attack black people.

You're welcome.

But wait! Well-established law says that the British have the power to force us to board soldiers and to tax our industry to pay for the French-American war! What the **** do we do now?

The very fact that it exists says those things. Why are you so literal?

In closing : You seem to be a statist. And a dishonest one. You're willing to support a cause... but only through the first step. You'll campaign to end the drug war; but as soon as the first concession to pot use is made, you declare victory and go home. The fight has barely begun, and you already think you've won. But you really don't. It's just a happy face you put on it, because you've seen the extent of federal power, and what must be fought to restore the freedom that made this country great, and you despair in your mind while your heart cries out for more government.

Since there's no appropriate political process that we can use to get rid of impressment and British taxes, we have a revolution. Fortunately, that's not a problem that marijuana advocates have. Go to Congress.



Again, no. It's quite explicitly a modification of state and local laws, full stop. By its terms, it no more limits federal authority to enforce drug laws than a "sanctuary city" law authorizes local law enforcement to prevent ICE from enforcing immigration laws.



Because we're talking about a proposed law, and generally speaking the text of a law matters most.





There's not a lot of actual content here for me to respond to, but I'll say that if understanding how our federal system works makes me a statist, guilty.

Meant to respond to this last night. The simple answer is yes. The complicated answer is complicated. It's obvious enough that the federal government has the power to regulate any activities in California that are part of interstate trafficking in marijuana. Under Gonzales v. Raich, which I mentioned earlier, it can also reach purely in-state conduct that has an effect on the interstate (black) market. (The Court relied on Wickard v. Filburn to reach this conclusion.) Now, I think Raich was a terrible decision, and it's one of the few modern decisions that have drawn condemnation from both conservative and liberal legal scholars. Unfortunately, I think we're stuck with it for the foreseeable future. Two of the three justices who dissented in that case are no longer on the court (Rehnquist and O'Connor), and they've been replaced by justices who don't get as excited about the whole federalism thing.

That video is completely illogical. Like you couldn't just go buy marijuana from some guy if it was legal? If anything, it'd be easier to find someone. Just like it's extremely easy to get beer from an older friend if you're under age now.

The logic behind the video is that Marijuana is currently the easiest drug to get, far easier than Alcohol or prescription drugs. If you legalize and tax it, people that sell from the streets will essentially have their businesses cut down since people will have a reliable source of pot to get.

People that smoke Weed would rather spend more money (i.e on the tax part) on what is guaranteed to be good pot, than take a chance from a street dealer (even their friends) that the pot might not be as strong, might be grown differently, etc. A lot of dealers, even your friends, will charge you a higher price for their more potent strains of Weed, thus the government would be charging a higher price (with a tax) for their Marijuana.

My friend who currently holds a card even pays more at his medical shops depending on the strain/potency. He can choose to get the ****tier weed for 8.50 per gram, or he can get a super high potency one for around 15.00 per gram. Or, he can go out on the streets and call his friend who will charge him usually 10 bucks a gram for what is not guaranteed to be good weed and a strain he cannot choose from.

Sure, but that's all in reference to (potentially) legally aged people. For underage kids all it will mean is that everyone and their brother over the age of 21 (or whatever it is) will have easy access to weed. So...a better argument might be that your underage kids will be buying quality weed from older siblings, or quality weed from some guy they know, rather than questionable weed from criminals. But they'll still be getting it, and in fact it'll be much easier to get. This is what I mean by "right idea, wrong reasons".

Wow $15 per gram for high quality marijuana is actually very reasonably priced, I thought the shops were a bit more expensive than that.

In fact it will be easier to get? Please fill me in on these facts because I see it as only being harder to get. If your under 21, and don't have friends that will buy it for you, then how are you going to get it? The street sellers will dwindle away.

When alcohol came out of prohibition I bet all the basement brewers started buying from bars and stores, what was the point of making it yourself when you can just legally go buy better quality. Besides a hobby, there is no point.

So probably less people will be growing weed in their basement (except for those who choose the legal way with their petty 5x5 ft. growing space, which is hardly enough for personal use), and less people will be selling it on the street. ya? na?

You can't grow enough for personal use in a 5x5 foot space? What are you RogerSpruce?

I make RogerSpruce look like a rookie

I don't think that's possible.

I think one of the reasons use goes down after legalization is that the communal aspect of doing something illegal disappears, and a great deal of people only consume cannabis when other people bring it out or have it around. As soon as it's no longer something you have to "get away with," and the abundance and low cost make it less of a delicacy, the novelty wears off for most people.



Assuming even a short 2 month cycle and an ounce for each plant, there's no way that'd be enough and I'm a little dude.

It'd be enough if you could reach the top of the plants.

Have you never encountered someone underage getting beer? It is the easiest thing in the world. Either there's some place that flies under the radar and doesn't check IDs, or you know a guy who you can give some money to and he'll go get some, or you just use someone else's all the time.

Okay Bob, let's assume you are correct. If this is the case, why don't you just let them get older people to buy from them. If underagers are so certain to find ways to get these prohibited products, they'll use them to purchase weed, and ON THE MARGIN wouldn't you rather them still getting their weed from sources that are gov't approved/regulated/taxed than into the hands of black market dealers? Who cares where these underages are getting it from? At least we know WHAT they are getting is safe. You clearly don't get that people who want to smoke weed already are smoking weed. So we have to analyze the argument from the given that people are buying weed already who want it, we might as well make some money off of it and also make people healthier. That is the only relevant angle.

...I am completely in favor of legalizing marijuana. I completely don't care if kids buy it from older people who buy it legally. I agree that it's much better than the way it is now. I'm just saying that the reasoning and point that video makes are stupid. Namely "legalizing it will keep it away from kids". You said it yourself: if you want to smoke weed, you will find it and you will smoke it.

Don't know where you got the idea that I was against it.

I got hydraulics in this *****.

Canada bra.

Our weed is cheap and ****ing amazing. And being able to practically pick from any strain I want is also amazing

"They see me rollin'. They hatin'"