The LA Times reports that the Secretary of State's Office certified that a random sample showed sufficient signatures among the 600,000 petitions turned in to qualify the Legalization of Marijuana initiative for the November 8 election ballot.
The initiative would allow adults ages 21 and older to possess, transport and use up to an ounce of cannabis for recreational purposes and would allow individuals to grow as many as six plants.
California would join Colorado, Washington, Alaska and Oregon as states that allow recreational use of marijuana. Eight other states also have marijuana measures on their ballots this year.
If the random sample of petition qualifies, one would think that the initiative will pass handily. California is a lot more conservative than you might think once you get out of the big cities. But there is no doubt the big cities supplied most of the signature for the petitions. However, this is one issue that may not be decided along party lines, as both sides seem to be gravitating toward legalization.
It might have something to do with the statistics that are starting to filter in from the legalized states.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @04:05AM
It's already safe to use right now. If any cop gives you a hard time, just say "I'm an illegal immigrant". Then by official California rules, they have to leave you alone because of your privileged position.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @04:28AM
And if you're a white male smoking weed, you're going to jail for being uppity!
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @04:05AM
What this random sampling is for, it sounds like, is to check that enough of the signatures on the petition belong to actual registered voters. It's a check that the backers of the initiative didn't turn in a pile of forged signatures.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Thursday June 30 2016, @04:45AM
The title says "California Set to Vote to Legalize Recreational Marijauna" and that's the news. They actually had several competing ballot initiatives that did not make the cut. Ballotpedia [ballotpedia.org] can help track most of these down. Here's what I wrote back in April at the end of a certain article [soylentnews.org]:
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:49AM
I was responding to the submitter's remark:
It seemed to be saying that the initiative will eventually pass in November, because of the validity of the signatures being turned in now.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Thursday June 30 2016, @07:01AM
Oh ok, yeah.
The previous attempt was in 2010. In 2016, more younger voters will cast votes because that is the trend in Presidential election years, and this is also coming after other states took the plunge on recreational.
One poll [ballotpedia.org] shows nearly 60% support for the general idea.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Doctor on Thursday June 30 2016, @04:34AM
The only thing this is going to change is the shyster doctors won't be able to charge people $40 for a medical marijuana card. Hollywood Blvd already reeks of reefer smoke all day long from the people with "medical" needs. I'm sure some people have an actual medical need, but when doctors advertise for people to come get medical marijuana cards for $40, you already know there is a lot of BS out there. Plus, every high school kid already knows where to score weed if they want it.
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Doctor
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Francis on Thursday June 30 2016, @04:43AM
Get used to it. We legalized pot at the state level here a while back and it being legal wasn't enough. The potheads insist that they can stink up wherever they like.
It wasn't enough that their refusal to obey the law got the law changed, now they have to smoke in public where the rest of us have to be offended by the odor. I don't care if they're doing it at home, but the smell absolutely reeks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @04:49AM
We already have smoke free zones, which includes marijuana. The only problem is the enforcement is lax enough with cigarettes that you probably will smell it a lot of places. But indoors should be safe everywhere in the state, unless people are smoking right outside the door.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Francis on Thursday June 30 2016, @04:53AM
That's a large part of the problem, but marijuana smells far worse than cigarette smoke. I can smell it easily 20-30 feet further away than cigarette smoke, so even if they are smoking it in a legal place, that's still going to represent a stench that the rest of us have to deal with.
But, I'd be willing to tolerate that as the will of the people has spoken. Having people walking down the street smoking a joint is pretty offensive.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:34AM
Welcome to my world! I personally do not find the smell of many modern perfumes to be at all pleasant (and some induce tearing and running nose), but people insist on slathering them all over themselves before riding on the train. Some wouldn't be so bad if applied lightly, but commercials tend to show the stuff cascading over people in waves so people use way too much.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @06:44AM
You should ride the gay train where women aren't allowed.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday June 30 2016, @02:40PM
That bothers me as well and unlike smell pot smoke, that's a dangerous practice. People can and do have serious reactions to those perfume that can cause anything from minor headaches to permanent brain damage as a result.
I'm lucky in that it only irritates my nose, but some people get extremely sick as a result of coming into contact with those things. I personally think that Axe and the other companies should be held accountable when customers slather on way too much of it because the ad campaigns suggest that they do so.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday June 30 2016, @06:10PM
That's a large part of the problem, but marijuana smells far worse than cigarette smoke.
Just out of curiosity, do you smoke cigarettes?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @03:51PM
Like I told my neighbor... "If you don't like the smell of my pot, try holding your breath. Twenty minutes should be sufficient."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wisnoskij on Thursday June 30 2016, @12:37PM
Which really is immaterial. The pot itself is not cheap, people spend thousands of dollars on the habit; If they have to spend 1% of 1% of 1% of that on regulatory oversight, that is a steal.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Thursday June 30 2016, @04:43AM
I'm curious just how far this newfound interest in Federalism goes. So States can ignore U.S. law on dope, even a city can declare itself exempt from immigration law. So can everyone play too? Could Texas opt out of Federal Firearms laws and legalize full auto? Dynamite and grenades too? Why the Hell not! Could a State begin coining their own money? In gold, like God intended? Could Arizona just build a wall on their border, order their State Police to arrest and deport any illegals and just tell the FedGov to fuck itself? This could totally be worth it if it is going to work both ways, otherwise I think God Emperor Trump should drop the hammer on states next year for violating these laws so flagrantly, possibly put the Govs in orange.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Francis on Thursday June 30 2016, @04:51AM
The states changed the state law and are no longer enforcing that. The feds have chosen to largely leave the statute unenforced even though the FBI and DEA can at any time bust anybody that's within the legal use under state law, because it's still illegal.
The difference between pot and firearms is that pot doesn't kill anybody and so there's the ability to just ignore the law breaking without the same consequences.
Personally, I completely agree that it sets a terrible precedent that if there's a law you don't like, you can just ignore it and fund terrrorists in other countries until the authorities buckle under the pressure. Contrary to what the more crazed libertarians claim, there is no right to ingest random poisonous substances because you're bored. Marijuana should have been reclassified to allow for the substances to be properly studied. Then they'd know whether to fully legalize versus decriminalize, what the limits should be on driving and whether 18, 21 or some other number is appropriate for a legal smoking age. Not to mention whether all delivery methods should be legal or if there should be restrictions on how it's consumed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:00AM
My rights as a human being tell me that I can put whatever the fuck I want into my body.
Why do you feel the need to control other people's behaviors that don't affect another?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:42AM
Including bleach (which could also fall under "the right to die").
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @07:33PM
If not for anal bleaching this world would be an ugly, ugly place.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 30 2016, @06:45AM
The prohibitionists usually argue that doing drugs affects other people in indirect ways (more crime, negatively affecting family members, healthcare costs, etc.), and therefore it's fine to infringe upon people's fundamental rights. The thing is, though, that stopping these indirect effects--even if they exist and are as bad as the prohibitionists claim--is less important than respecting people's freedoms, which is an idea that they don't seem to be able to fathom.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @08:03AM
I'd accept the legitimacy and justification for the drug war if the bankers also were jailed for helping the drug lords launder money:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213 [rollingstone.com]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs [theguardian.com]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-06-29/banks-financing-mexico-s-drug-cartels-admitted-in-wells-fargo-s-u-s-deal [bloomberg.com]
But since none of them have ended up in jail I can only conclude that it's mostly bullshit.
If helping drug lords laundering _billions_ of dollars is not serious enough to put you in jail then I don't see why someone selling mere thousands of dollars worth of cocaine or marijuana deserves jail time (assuming he did it peacefully without violence).
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Francis on Thursday June 30 2016, @02:45PM
Doing drugs has never been a fundamental right.
Arguing that it's OK to violate a fundamental right because of reasons is a stupid strategy to take. That requires an acknowledgment that your ridiculous notion of freedom is correct. We don't have rights to do absolutely everything and doing drugs is certainly not a fundamental right.
Fundamental rights are things like free speech, voting and access to some sort of court system. As in the rights that the other rights are based on. In no part of the world, free or otherwise, is there a recognized freedom to ingest whatever random substance you feel like ingesting in order to get high. It's not a freedom that I'm aware of anybody in an established state having and the failed states where people might do that it's not a freedom so much as a lack of general authority telling people not to hurt themselves.
The right to keep and bare arms is much more legitimate as a fundamental right than the ability to do drugs is. But, even that isn't a fundamental right if you're not involved with some sort of militia or paramilitary group these days. The days where having a firearm to protect your rights without being involved with some sort of armed group is long gone.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday June 30 2016, @03:19PM
Doing drugs has never been a fundamental right.
So having control over your own body is not a fundamental right? This is just one way to make use of that right.
In no part of the world, free or otherwise, is there a recognized freedom to ingest whatever random substance you feel like ingesting in order to get high.
All that means is that the world is wrong and not free at all.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday June 30 2016, @04:13PM
Doing drugs has never been a fundamental right.
Never have I seen a statement that so sorely needed a citation.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday June 30 2016, @04:26PM
My goodness! I've never realized that it's not ok to do something unless some authority gives permission! The Founding Fathers were wrong all this time! Wellp, let's get started enacting Sharia law. After all, the purpose of the state is to prevent people from hurting themselves, amirite?
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Thursday June 30 2016, @07:39PM
Last time I checked, drinking and smoking aren't rights either. Both have negative effects which go beyond the individual such as families loosing loved ones to cancer, drunk drivers, liver failure, or alcohol poisoning (alcohol kills 88k/yr, smoking around 480k/yr in the USA). One of those two things was outright banned using a constitutional amendment which was appealed via another amendment after the first amendment caused an explosion in crime which led to the 1934 federal firearms act. But do go on about fundamental rights mr. expert.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday June 30 2016, @07:51PM
—https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by deimtee on Thursday June 30 2016, @12:30PM
You have that completely arse-about. Why should anybody else have the right to stop you "ingesting random poisonous substances because you're bored"?
Do you own your body or not?
And if you are in the USA, which specific power, delegated to the federal government by the people, gives them the right to stop you?
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @03:59PM
Marijuana is poisonous? How much do you have to smoke to be a fatal dose? Alcohol deaths by overuse = 100%, Marijuana deaths by overuse = 0%.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday June 30 2016, @08:03PM
Ownership of your body does not mean that you can do whatever you like with it anymore than any other property you might have. You can't shoot guns in the city limits except for specific reasons and you can't use your body to hurt other people or trespass. You also can't authorize other people to conduct medical research on you just because there isn't already an effective treatment.
Same basic principle applies here. The things which are banned are mostly things that either have known consequences to other people or the user or haven't been demonstrated to be safe for human consumption. Considering how much misinformation is distributed by people trying to rationalize their use and abuse of drugs, I don't think anybody in their right mind would trust users anymore than they'd trust a random prohibitionist.
As for the constitution, the matter has been before the courts enough times and found to be unconstitutional, that this isn't an issue. If you don't like it, I suggest going state by state and get a constitutional convention to cover the topic. The amount of harm that would be done to the people of the US by deregulating every known substance that people might want to ingest is extreme and only a few nutjobs think it's a good idea.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday June 30 2016, @04:11PM
Contrary to what the more crazed libertarians claim, there is no right to ingest random poisonous substances because you're bored.
Please explain the logic to back up that "doob"ious claim. Why should the government be allowed to stop you from doing any activity that harms no one but yourself?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:12AM
I assure you it is short-lived.
The ONLY reason the feds (or several states for that matter) are going this route this is that the prisons are overflowing and the country is flat broke.
There is a push for sentencing reform to try and reduce prisoner counts, but best case scenario is an 8% decrease.
The largest factor in reducing prisoner counts is to quit arresting so many people, and that starts with drug laws.
It's a rare instance where finances has induced a moment of enlightenment, not that the feds have seen fit to relinquish power.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:46AM
Here's a box of tissues and some Tiger Balm. Let us know when you're done.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday June 30 2016, @08:18AM
Weird. I was sure you'd up-vote any Dune \ Warhammer reference depicting Trump as a giant worm or a borderline corpse strapped to a life-support throne.
I guess you can never really know a person... :D
compiling...
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 30 2016, @04:46PM
To compare trump to the Atreides bloodline is borderline blasphemous. He's more like post-disease Vladimir Harkonnen except without the knowledge of statecraft.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday July 05 2016, @09:50AM
By Leto - the worm - is a descendant of the Harkonnen blood line...
compiling...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday June 30 2016, @02:06PM
I'm surprised at this post. Let's go through the list, completely ignoring any and all judicial precedence.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:02PM
This has always been the case as far as I know (which may not be as far as I think it is).
The original intent was for personal property rights to trump all others, states rights trump all but personal property rights, and federal government "rights" trump all but state and personal property.
What turned this on its head is the federal government directly taxing citizens when they specifically were prohibited from doing so. They have said in the past, "sure...you can set your speed limits to anything you want, but if they exceed 55 miles per hour we won't fund your road project with federal funds" which effectively flips the order mentioned above of what trumps what.
Manufacturers in Montana currently manufacture guns and stamp them with "Made in Montana" so they can challenge the federal laws against sales of guns by selling them in Montana. By doing this they can claim the are exempt from the federal laws because the basis of a lot of federal law is the broad, sweeping, general interpretation of "interstate commerce". If those guns never cross a state line from the time they are manufactured all the way through the sale to the end user...what right does the Federal Government have to step in? None except they can try to exert power in other ways like mentioned above related to the speed limits.
States used to send their own representative to the senate...and the house was there to represent the populace. THAT has been messed up as well...and it needs to be fixed.
If things functioned as intended we would have 50 unique states, each competing for population by making laws that are appealing to those types of people they want living there. Don't want to support social programs? Move to a state that doesn't force you to fund them from your tax money. Want to support them? Move to a state that has "welfare" laws and pay in! The choice would be up to the people and not the elites as it is now. People would be much more engaged in the political process because it would affect them directly and locally...and that could reverberate to all other states if the laws and precedents set are that good. Instead we have a "one-size-fits-all" approach, like the current healthcare laws, that must be obeyed by everyone no matter where you live in the country.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by lentilla on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:19AM
Would anybody be able to explain what "up to six plants" means in real terms? Perhaps by converting that into ounces of product per year?
Would that be sufficient to supply a recreational user? What about a committed pot-head and their stoner mates?
Or is this another one of those "more honoured in the breach" kind of laws that really means "as long as you're not running a grow operation in your backyard we'll look the other way"?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:40AM
I was just thinking about that. You know how a new plant will sometimes "bud" off in the same "pot" of soil? Or maybe a second seed will grow.
uhh ohhhh [growweedeasy.com]
The 6 plant limit probably doesn't matter much, unless police are fishing for a reason to put you away. States that legalize recreational are going to pay very little attention to all cannabis related "crimes". But it's a sham anyway since the DEA can put you down at any time. Maybe they'll "lose" some of the money and drugs they confiscate.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @06:48AM
I will say I do not use pot. That being said, I am for this change to let people grow their own if they want to.
For the same reason I can grow my own fruits and veggies if I have the space to do so.
Personally, I am very fed up with seeing unsavory characters getting funded via way way way overpriced pseudolegal weed.
It would sure gut a lot of incentive and funding from street gangs if they were economically forced to sell their wares at the cost of production.
I cannot see weed being priced much higher than grass clippings, seeing how fast a few people I know who are in that business churn it out.
I am simply fed up with trying to be a productive citizen, but economically losing out big-time to those who profit handsomely from riding the edge of the law. Why is it that I, who studied and paid for an engineering education, earns less than ten percent of what the kid down the street pulls in with his weed business?
Letting anyone who wants weed to grow their own if they want to will sure level the playing field, and cut the funding from these street gangs that are plaguing my neighborhood.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @07:05AM
Careful, they'll move in on your engineering racket and put you out of business.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @08:00AM
They already have.
(Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Thursday June 30 2016, @08:11AM
I cannot speak to how much "6 plants" are. But I do know that US brewing allocations are pretty high - 200 gallons of beer / year / person. Which is more than enough to make and share among your mates, although an individual could probably consume that much alone at a very unhealthy level. But nowhere near something to make a living on. I'd imagine that there is a similar midpoint number for the amount of homegrown weed.
Someone else can figure out what unit of measure makes sense, and what the quantity should be.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday June 30 2016, @10:47AM
Found this for Colorado:
Coloradans can grow marijuana in their homes for personal use.
Up to six plants are allowed per Colorado resident over age 21, with as many as three plants flowering at one time.
Don’t forget that counties and municipalities can pass stricter laws. For example, Denver limits a home grow to 12 plants, even if there are three or more adults over age 21 in the residence.
The laws are different for medical marijuana users.
Marijuana plants must be kept in an enclosed, locked area that can’t be viewed openly. This means the plants can’t be outside.
At homes with residents under 21, any marijuana grow area must be enclosed and locked in a separate space that minors can’t access.
At homes without residents under 21, extra precautions must be taken to make sure any visiting youth don’t have access to marijuana plants.
Homegrown marijuana or marijuana products can’t be sold to anyone.
http://www.harmonyandgreen.com/recreational-marijuana-faq/ [harmonyandgreen.com]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Thursday June 30 2016, @12:56PM
Looking around, it looks like it depends on a lot of factors.
Room: You can grow small plants, or if you have the room giant pot trees.
Quality: There is the whole bud vs leaf; and then there is even worse stuff that is only good for cooking with. The entire harvest will not be top quality, the entire plant simply does not yield the top quality stuff you get in the store. And I would not be surprised that a small plant would be of a higher quality than if you allowed it to grow huge and produce several times more (but I am not sure).
The one website I was just looking at showed a variation from 1 oz to 17.5 ozs per plant. Which, according to some other site, would turn into just over 3000 joints/plant. And you could probably extract much more of the active ingredient from the stem.
So you can produce like 7 pounds of pot. Most likely plus a few more pounds of edibles.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday June 30 2016, @01:34PM
According to my stoner friends, 6 plants is somewhere around 1-2 peoples' supply, so enough for your own personal use and occasionally toking with your friends, but not enough to establish a business.
Homegrow provisions are probably the best way for changes in pot laws to really screw with the finances of drug gangs.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday June 30 2016, @04:25PM
It's a reasonable limit set up to try to prevent unlicensed sales. You can time when they bud with lighting, so can make a good, harvestable plant in a couple of months, Only make one bud at a time (you need two rooms for this). When it's two or three feet tall. Harvest that, plant a clone (nobody uses seeds to grow pot any more) and by the time you've gone through six plants one by one, the oldest will be as big as a Christmas tree. Six fully grown plants is a LOT of pot. Anybody growing more is almost certainly either Cheech Marin or selling the stuff.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @05:12PM
It's a totally bogus limit that makes absolutely no sense. A "plant" can be six inches high and produce a quarter ounce or ten feet tall and produce 2-3 pounds. All the limit does is make it very difficult to keep multiple varieties around in a vegetative state so they can be selectively flowered later. That's what Cannabis growers do; when they find a special plant they keep it around and trade it with their friends. Any variety of Cannabis you have heard of is unstable and only available by clones that have been passed around, for decades in some instances. Mothers can be kept alive indefinitely in 500ml beer cups then years later a grower can clone it and produce the exact same buds. It is possible to graft multiple cuttings onto a single set set of roots but this is very uncommon and much more difficult.
A much better strategy is to limit gardens by area, then the grower can decide how many different plants they need. Even better would be to stop pretending that the plant is dangerous and give up on restrictions just for placating people that aren't even involved.
Fortunately, Californians already modified their constitution so medical growers have no plant limits and this proposition doesn't change that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30 2016, @07:56AM
That was a big part of reality show Wild Justice http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/wild-justice/ [nationalgeographic.com]
(Score: 1) by gnampff on Thursday June 30 2016, @11:05AM
1 ounce = 28 gram
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday June 30 2016, @04:27PM
I have a friend with a medical marijuana card. It's sold by mostly by the gram; a two gram hermetically sealed package cost fifteen dollars at his dispensary.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 01 2016, @01:40AM
I remember when a dime bag was two fingers, a paper grocery bag full could be bought for $100. It wasn't the best, but could keep you high for a year.