i think we can all agree that MARIJUANA MUST BE LEGALIZED. we all know that the antiquated propaganda about the "evils of marijuana" have no basis in reality.
the question is whether prop. 19 is an appropriate initiative for the historic task of legalization, and whether prop. 19 will set the sort of precedent we want other states to follow (because they will).
as a politically-active, socially-conscious activist and consumer, i want my economic autonomy to be respected. when i want to shop, I CHOOSE NOT to go to wal-mart. when i want a coffee, I CHOOSE NOT to go to starbucks. when i'm riding in my friends' cars and i offer to chip in for gas, WE CHOOSE NOT to go to BP--for example. i take pride in supporting the businesses I CHOOSE TO, based on their policies, practices, and impact on local communities. i find prop. 19's insistence that IF WE BUY CANNABIS, WE MUST BUY FROM A LICENSED DISPENSARY disturbing: it forces us to support monopolies that aim to corporatize cannabis. i'd rather vote for an initiative that doesn't have such a clause, because a clause like that will turn weed into wal-mart, marijuana into mcdonald's! but i digress...
of prop. 19’s two objectives, california has already independently achieved one--allowing possession of 1 oz with no criminal record, no arrest, no jail time, and no loss of student financial aid--and there’s no restriction on who we buy it from. (this is thanks to the governator signing SB 1449, which downgraded possession of 1 oz to an INFRACTION, a la driving above the speed limit.)
the only other thing prop. 19 proposes to do is give us the right to grow in a 5x5 space--while simultaneously giving local governments the power to impose such exorbitant taxes you can't afford to grow legally. (the city of rancho cordova has already proposed a $15,000 annual tax on your 5x5 home-grow for personal use if prop. 19 passes. wanna grow in a 10x10 space? that'll cost you a whopping $90,000 per year if you live in rancho cordova. other conservative cities are following suit.)
and since prop. 19 would otherwise just create more prohibitions--and more reasons for police to be out enforcing those prohibitions--such as the ban on smoking in public (currently legal under prop. 215), the ban on parents, patients, and all adults smoking when anyone under 21 is on the property or at the party; the ban on possession of cannabis that was bought anywhere other than a licensed dispensary, and the ban on lighting up with other adults age 18-20--if you still want to vote for prop. 19, i'd sincerely like to know what you're smoking.
a conscious stoner
this blog takes an intelligent approach to evaluating the 2010 tax cannabis initiative proposed for california's november ballot. STONER BEWARE: this initiative is NOT what you think it is. if you are passionate about marijuana and legalization, read this blog and see what the initiative really says. then just vote KNOW.
- WHY PRO-POT ACTIVISTS OPPOSE PROP. 19
- MARIJUANA MARTYR EDDY LEPP OPPOSES PROP. 19
- THE MONSANTO CONNECTION: GEORGE SOROS DONATES $1M TO PROP. 19 CAMPAIGN: WHY GEORGE SOROS WANTS MARIJUANA LEGALIZED
- LEGALIZE IT, DON’T CORPORATIZE IT!
- STUDENTS AND PROP. 19: JAIL TIME AND LOSS OF FINANCIAL AID
- ATTORNEY SAYS Dragonfly Is Correct About Prop. 19’s Impact on Patients
- An Alternative to Prop 19: CCHHI (A Comparison)
- READ THIS BEFORE YOU VOTE: PROP. 19, A PANDORA’S BOX OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
LEGALIZE IT, DON’T CORPORATIZE IT!
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)