Damn I almost won...

[Ledzepp02]

Lol@colbert

http://i474.photobucket.com/albums/rr107/Ledzepp_wow/LedZeppColbert.jpg

[Abacab niggah]

a 57-42 is barely a victory it just shows group ethics overruling individual choice and the numbers are skewed since most people who use pot have been criminalized thus ineligible to vote due to being convicted or currently serving time.

Even with the current statistic it shows a strong favoring for legalization, which should be seen as personal accountability.

[Airdefier]

I love colbert report, and daily show.

[Extunarian]

most people who use pot have been criminalized thus ineligible to vote due to being convicted or currently serving time.

lol...that's the reason they didn't turn out and vote? They were all serving felony sentences? In a state that, on a bad day, treats MJ possession like a parking ticket?

[Abacab niggah]

lol...that's the reason they didn't turn out and vote? They were all serving felony sentences? In a state that, on a bad day, treats MJ possession like a parking ticket?

Smoking weed there is a parking ticket, moving 10 lbs of the shit is 15 years

[Kraftwerk]

lol...that's the reason they didn't turn out and vote? They were all serving felony sentences? In a state that, on a bad day, treats MJ possession like a parking ticket?

You do not have to be actually serving time in a prison to be disenfranchised from voting. In California a person falls under a category making them ineligible to vote if they are either serving time or on parole. That being said, there are approximately 150,000 CA felons in prison and 110,000 CA parolees. That being said, the results of the Proposition 19 voting was as follows:

Yes - 3,297,590
No - 3,826,487

Even if one illogically assumes the entirety of the prison and parolee population combined (~260,000) were only there due to marijuana charges and would have otherwise voted yes for proposition 19, the results would still be a failed ballot as follows:

Yes - ~3,557,590
No - 3,826,487

Meaning, regardless of who was in prison/on parole for whatever reason and falls under voter ineligibility due to felony conviction, Proposition 19 still would have failed.

[Abacab niggah]

You do not have to be actually serving time in a prison to be disenfranchised from voting. In California a person falls under a category making them ineligible to vote if they are either serving time or on parole. That being said, there are approximately 150,000 CA felons in prison and 110,000 CA parolees. That being said, the results of the Proposition 19 voting was as follows:

Yes - 3,297,590
No - 3,826,487

Even if one illogically assumes the entirety of the prison and parolee population combined (~260,000) were only there due to marijuana charges and would have otherwise voted yes for proposition 19, the results would still be a failed ballot as follows:

Yes - ~3,557,590
No - 3,826,487

Meaning, regardless of who was in prison/on parole for whatever reason and falls under voter ineligibility due to felony conviction, Proposition 19 still would have failed.

That's only current parolees you need to take the data of past criminals who still haven't gone through the process of regaining their voting rights.

[Kraftwerk]

That's only current parolees you need to take the data of past criminals who still haven't gone through the process of regaining their voting rights.

I fail to see how the process of regaining voting rights should be any argument for a hypothetical passing of proposition 19 had arrests for marijuana possession not resulted in possible voters becoming felons. CA has the following listed by the US Department of Justice in reference to the ex-felon re-eligibility process:

"Automatically restored upon completion of sentence, probation and/or parole; felon must register to vote."

The 'process' is basically completing your prison sentence and parole, then registering to vote. It appears that it is no more arduous a task for an ex-felon to vote than it is for a regular citizen. Any ex-felon who did not vote on Prop 19 is no more a cause of it failing than a regular citizen who was too lazy to register to vote. The process for CA ex-felons merely involves registering, unless I am missing something here. If I am please point it out, but as far as I can see Prop 19 was not doomed to fail based on felon ineligibility.

[Abacab niggah]

I fail to see how the process of regaining voting rights should be any argument for a hypothetical passing of proposition 19 had arrests for marijuana possession not resulted in possible voters becoming felons. CA has the following listed by the US Department of Justice in reference to the ex-felon re-eligibility process:

"Automatically restored upon completion of sentence, probation and/or parole; felon must register to vote."

The 'process' is basically completing your prison sentence and parole, then registering to vote. It appears that it is no more arduous a task for an ex-felon to vote than it is for a regular citizen. Any ex-felon who did not vote on Prop 19 is no more a cause of it failing than a regular citizen who was too lazy to register to vote. The process for CA ex-felons merely involves registering, unless I am missing something here. If I am please point it out, but as far as I can see Prop 19 was not doomed to fail based on felon ineligibility.

Right.

It was doomed to fail on the basis of group morality v. individual morality and was further hindered by apathy to the situation.

The problem is, was the vote was a strict "yes" or "no" but if the percentage was used to calibrate the laws for the individual so the state gives it a "Do it or don't it's up to you" then both sides would be happy.

But since the state best serves the interests of the state and not the individual who resides in it, legalizing marijuana would've pissed the Federal Government off so much funding would've been cut all down the list and California is one state that just cannot thrive without Federal programs.

[toyodafenninro]

I see it like this, and please understand I'm totally neutral on this issue. Used to smoke, don't anymore, and could care less who does so long as their state of being high doesn't interfere with my life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

Abacab points out something that should be obvious to anyone who isn't asleep: the way the law stands, even if state X legalizes marijuana, the federal government can (and will) punish said state through the interstate commerce clause or other similar means.

This is why the whole notion of revenue generation, except perhaps tourism, becomes bunk - as no business owner of sound mind would enter into the market of a federally illegal substance - especially when uncle sam all but mandated that he would crack down on any offenders were this bill to pass.

States rights is really a two way street, and abacab is correct in comparing it to individual morality and group morality. A political society is, by definition, voluntary participation in group morality (ask John Locke). The two options if one is displeased is either changing the law through the process allowed, or returning to a state of nature or leaving for another political society whose group morality is more pleasing.

This issue isn't going to be resolved until a state legalizes it, a clash with the federal law occurs, and a case is escalated to the supreme court. Then, it's going to depend only on the court's makeup at the time...and how much each member wants to ally with their political party.

Not to sound overly pessimistic, but marijuana may have a popularity among a sizeable minority across the board in the USA...but it is going to have a rediculously difficult time getting through congress or the judicial branch.

[Dominick]

States rights is really a two way street,

Actually its a constitutional right. The first blow to states rights was well before the civil war, before you pop off, it was over the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

Southern States forced a bill through congress that required all states, including Northern ones, to return slaves. Many states burned down jails to free slaves, created new structures to get them to Canada, or took up arms to free slaves.

Before anyone thinks States Rights is code for Slavery, they should check the record. Its not a two way street, the constitution spells it out that states rights are superior to federal rights. It also says the citizens rights are superior to state rights.

The issue of slavery and the cause of the civil war is the same. The South seceded not because of state rights but because they feared all slaves would be freed. The south had backed removing the right of a state to free ex-slaves who were in a free state. The revisionist theory of the confederacy fighting for states rights only came out after reconstruction, well after the war.

Nobody really thought about states rights or limits on personal government when the depression hit and Roosevelt usurped powers such as gold ownership or the federal government making direct payments to individuals for welfare.

Today the Federals are superior to both states and personal rights.


This issue isn't going to be resolved until a state legalizes it, a clash with the federal law occurs, and a case is escalated to the supreme court. Then, it's going to depend only on the court's makeup at the time...and how much each member wants to ally with their political party.


I think the issue is going to be very clear to the court, but I doubt anything changes without a amendment to the Constitution, and good luck there with demo-publicans. This has to start with a fundamental shift in our politics.

There is a glimmer of hope now, with people actually questioning the basis for the huge criminal enterprise we call a federal bureaucracy. That basis is the FDA.

The issue I object to is a misuse of "interstate commerce" that allowed the Federal government to usurp State regulation of Food and Drugs. The application of interstate commerce is about 100years old, but it can still be overturned.

Growth in government was sold with a nasty little book called the Jungle that detail the unsanitary practices of food processors. It was a work of fiction that ended in a socialist rally.

As a result, state regulations were shoved aside in favor of Federal ones.

With Federal food regulation started it wasn't long before pot was proscribed by Federal Law. Frankly, if Californians smoke pot, I don't care in my state. If a sausage in New York has fingers, its easily remedied with lawsuits up the wazoo. If they transport it across state lines then I would see how the Federals could become involved.

Until then, its a unconstitutional encroachment of our rights as citizens.

[Henini]

Not to sound overly pessimistic, but marijuana may have a popularity among a sizeable minority across the board in the USA...but it is going to have a rediculously difficult time getting through congress or the judicial branch.

Why? I can totally see the judges of the supreme court going "hey dudes lets legalize pot, it will be bitchin!"

people who are trying to legalize pot... seriously, in a society that is doing all it can to crush smoking of Mr tobacco, you think you will go and get it's lil sister Mary legalized?

[baub]

I can only hope this is on the ballot again in 2 years, considering that the number of people voting in 2012 will be double that of 2010

[Lucrio40]

Don't worry, Liberals will get this overturned due to a "Human Rights Issue" like they did (doing?) with prop 8.

[Blazed420]

Epic step for the marijuana movement, even if it was a fail. The fact that it was so close just goes to show you. You'd be surprised at the amount of people that voted no on prop 19 that smoke weed.