This Leg is dangerous...2 new felonies...+ other new laws...This is not re-legalization...it is selling out...After 70 + years of human misery ...We can do this right...We must do this right...
The problem I see is, how will "being under the influence" be considered? How will blood or blow tests confirm what being under the influence is? Will one joint or one rip from a pipe be considered under? And then if not, what is stopping a cop from pulling someone that looks like a smoker over and giving them a blood test that will show positive?
Well, for a start, cannabis isn't toxic, so any talk of 'intoxication' has to be considered at face value, i.e. worthless. Yes, unfortunately, I would suspect California will have to suffer some assholitis from the police for some time, but they'll work it out in the end. There will be some tragedies and some victims, but however many there may be, there will be less under regulation than there ever have been under prohibition. Prohibition is simply an extension of slavery.
The problem I see is, how will "being under the influence" be considered? How will blood or blow tests confirm what being under the influence is? Will one joint or one rip from a pipe be considered under? And then if not, what is stopping a cop from pulling someone that looks like a smoker over and giving them a blood test that will show positive?
This is such common sense. We have limited space in prisons, Why are we wasting it on some poor kids who only ever smoked pot?
Police have limited time and resources, why are they wasting it on chasing college kids who are just doing somthing very similar to alcohol? Surely there are a lot of rapists and murders out there who need to be caught much more than people smoking weed.
I hope this initiative passes. The laws about Marijuana in this country are so dumb... prohibition doesn't work
If it was legal crime would plummet. Cannabis would cost as much as cheap tobacco. The contractors that supply low-grade prison food to the government get paid serious non-free market government money. They make so much money stuffing their pockets locking people up for non-violent drug use, they surely would be against this; they wouldn't be able to lock up half the current prisoners in some areas. If this passed then the government spending would decrease a lot and that lowers taxes.
@PlayfulRoyal actually... they spend a lot more than they make in fining "drug" offenders. the main reason we want cannabis taxed in california in our current situation is because itll generate about 1 billion annually in taxes. but ur also right, the gov. would spend even less money cuz we wouldnt be wasting all that money catching, prosecuting, and jailing "drug" offenders
Very interesting perspective. However for those who don't use if you live next to someone who does in an apartment complex you end up having to deal with the smell of their use. What can we do to make it fair for both sides? I'm all for live and let live but if they use it so much as to make it stink like a dispensary 24/7 what recourse do I have? They're stepping on my right of enjoyment.
Good point. I guess if someone living next to a person who does smoke could persuade them to get a vaporizer :D That way its better for their health and it'd cut down on the smell from burning it! Next step would be giving them an air tight jar hahah
@BadWolfMedia that's one of the oldest stories in the book. what about tobacco or anything else that "stinks"? tobacco smoke stinks more and it is much harder to get rid of the smell.
@BadWolfMedia I think you've got a good point there, and I also agree with what others are saying in response. Like noise, tobacco, or anything else, you'd complain / request for a change, which will very likely happen: Smokers can do many things to reduce or eliminate the smell: vaporizors, using filters, burning incest, and good ventilation (a fan pointing out the window works great) are all good examples. I don't think you should vote against such a major issue over this concern of comfort.
@DrinkElectrolytes Oh I wouldn't not vote for it. If people want to smoke that's their prerogative. However I do think it does affect ones ability to drive. I guess we'll have laws for DUI encompass being under the influence of (M) as well. My only fear is the unintended consequences that may come out of legalizing it.
I agree people should not drive high, that is already in the initiative.
I would say there have been a lot of unintended consequences from making it illeagal, we are already suffer a lot of unintended consequences, the main one being that the mexican mafia has unlimited money. We are better off legalizing it, that is doubtless.
@BadWolfMedia It's too bad we may not have your vote. While, I agree wholeheartedly with you. Folks should not drive when under the effects of marijuana, I truly believe the FACTUAL AND STATISTICAL benefits GREATLY outweigh the more uncommon POTENTIAL risks.
Section 2, C, 2 states: This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others: ... Vehicle Code section 23152 [relating to DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE] ... nor any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety.
The thing about cannabis, though, is that being 'under the influence' actually makes you a better driver, as most recent studies demonstrate. Yes, it will take some time for a critical mass of people to get their heads around the fact. People, however, may not be as stupid as it might sometimes seem. Sooner or later they'll figure out what's going on and everything will settle down.
@MkkDdd I don't agree with that. I personally think I'm a much better driver when I'm not high but that's because when I am and I'm driving, I do actually sometimes find it geniunely difficult to focus on the traffic ahead. Still doesn't mean I can't drive while I'm high, I drove around on shrooms before.
Section 11304, paragraph a) of the proposed initiative states: This Act shall not be construed to affect, limit or amend any statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous activities such as driving, or that penalizes bringing cannabis to a school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12, inclusive.
when your brainwashed it might be difficult to listen to reason. Still i urge you to try to listen to Mister Gray, because what he says makes sense and is in the best interest of the USA and the rest of the world.
Judge James Gray is a man who has witnessed first hand just how badly prohibition has failed in this country (and in other countries), just as it has with alcohol, a far more dangerous drug that happens to be legal.
Does this make sense to any of you?
Re-legalize cannabis. Tax it. Regulate it. For adult use only. Let's do this already.
Yes on PROP 19!!! Click our channel for YES on PROP 19 rap:
SMOKE SONG by Macarone feat PhishBone (VIDEO) - Yes on Prop 19 Video/Register-A-PotHead
DOPIncRecords 1 year ago
this is great i live in Utah and i cant wate till November cali all the way
ashash4tube 1 year ago
@ashash4tube my condolences... i heard weed is like the antichrist over there but meth and coke pretty much grow on trees
juffurey 1 year ago
This Leg is dangerous...2 new felonies...+ other new laws...This is not re-legalization...it is selling out...After 70 + years of human misery ...We can do this right...We must do this right...
lucrene1112 1 year ago
What the hell man? Just saw my sample ballot for Sacramento. Why is this initiotive not on the ballot? Everyone said it would be?
ciji916 1 year ago
Tax & Regulate!
POLITICAL HIP-HOP is on the come back check out:
The Pledge by Macarone & WOftGOP (VIDEO)
SEX WIT A DEMOCRAT (Dear Sarah Palin) by Macarone & WOftGOP
DOPIncRecords 1 year ago
The problem I see is, how will "being under the influence" be considered? How will blood or blow tests confirm what being under the influence is? Will one joint or one rip from a pipe be considered under? And then if not, what is stopping a cop from pulling someone that looks like a smoker over and giving them a blood test that will show positive?
lonemilkman 1 year ago
@lonemilkman
Well, for a start, cannabis isn't toxic, so any talk of 'intoxication' has to be considered at face value, i.e. worthless. Yes, unfortunately, I would suspect California will have to suffer some assholitis from the police for some time, but they'll work it out in the end. There will be some tragedies and some victims, but however many there may be, there will be less under regulation than there ever have been under prohibition. Prohibition is simply an extension of slavery.
MkkDdd 1 year ago
The problem I see is, how will "being under the influence" be considered? How will blood or blow tests confirm what being under the influence is? Will one joint or one rip from a pipe be considered under? And then if not, what is stopping a cop from pulling someone that looks like a smoker over and giving them a blood test that will show positive?
lonemilkman 1 year ago
This is such common sense. We have limited space in prisons, Why are we wasting it on some poor kids who only ever smoked pot?
Police have limited time and resources, why are they wasting it on chasing college kids who are just doing somthing very similar to alcohol? Surely there are a lot of rapists and murders out there who need to be caught much more than people smoking weed.
I hope this initiative passes. The laws about Marijuana in this country are so dumb... prohibition doesn't work
1Zenspace 1 year ago
rapers
illfaptothis 1 year ago
If it was legal crime would plummet. Cannabis would cost as much as cheap tobacco. The contractors that supply low-grade prison food to the government get paid serious non-free market government money. They make so much money stuffing their pockets locking people up for non-violent drug use, they surely would be against this; they wouldn't be able to lock up half the current prisoners in some areas. If this passed then the government spending would decrease a lot and that lowers taxes.
PlayfulRoyal 1 year ago
@PlayfulRoyal actually... they spend a lot more than they make in fining "drug" offenders. the main reason we want cannabis taxed in california in our current situation is because itll generate about 1 billion annually in taxes. but ur also right, the gov. would spend even less money cuz we wouldnt be wasting all that money catching, prosecuting, and jailing "drug" offenders
juffurey 1 year ago 5
"Kids take many risks when they're on the make, but when you take a risk just know the risk you take."
~Judge James Gray
maxxclarinet 1 year ago 8
Very interesting perspective. However for those who don't use if you live next to someone who does in an apartment complex you end up having to deal with the smell of their use. What can we do to make it fair for both sides? I'm all for live and let live but if they use it so much as to make it stink like a dispensary 24/7 what recourse do I have? They're stepping on my right of enjoyment.
BadWolfMedia 1 year ago
@BadWolfMedia
Good point. I guess if someone living next to a person who does smoke could persuade them to get a vaporizer :D That way its better for their health and it'd cut down on the smell from burning it! Next step would be giving them an air tight jar hahah
conan1845 1 year ago
@BadWolfMedia that's one of the oldest stories in the book. what about tobacco or anything else that "stinks"? tobacco smoke stinks more and it is much harder to get rid of the smell.
juffurey 1 year ago
@BadWolfMedia I think you've got a good point there, and I also agree with what others are saying in response. Like noise, tobacco, or anything else, you'd complain / request for a change, which will very likely happen: Smokers can do many things to reduce or eliminate the smell: vaporizors, using filters, burning incest, and good ventilation (a fan pointing out the window works great) are all good examples. I don't think you should vote against such a major issue over this concern of comfort.
DrinkElectrolytes 1 year ago
@DrinkElectrolytes Oh I wouldn't not vote for it. If people want to smoke that's their prerogative. However I do think it does affect ones ability to drive. I guess we'll have laws for DUI encompass being under the influence of (M) as well. My only fear is the unintended consequences that may come out of legalizing it.
BadWolfMedia 1 year ago
@BadWolfMedia
I agree people should not drive high, that is already in the initiative.
I would say there have been a lot of unintended consequences from making it illeagal, we are already suffer a lot of unintended consequences, the main one being that the mexican mafia has unlimited money. We are better off legalizing it, that is doubtless.
1Zenspace 1 year ago
@BadWolfMedia It's too bad we may not have your vote. While, I agree wholeheartedly with you. Folks should not drive when under the effects of marijuana, I truly believe the FACTUAL AND STATISTICAL benefits GREATLY outweigh the more uncommon POTENTIAL risks.
nelsonbig 1 year ago
@BadWolfMedia DUI laws should and will apply.
Section 2, C, 2 states: This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others: ... Vehicle Code section 23152 [relating to DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE] ... nor any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety.
nelsonbig 1 year ago
@nelsonbig
The thing about cannabis, though, is that being 'under the influence' actually makes you a better driver, as most recent studies demonstrate. Yes, it will take some time for a critical mass of people to get their heads around the fact. People, however, may not be as stupid as it might sometimes seem. Sooner or later they'll figure out what's going on and everything will settle down.
MkkDdd 1 year ago
@MkkDdd I don't agree with that. I personally think I'm a much better driver when I'm not high but that's because when I am and I'm driving, I do actually sometimes find it geniunely difficult to focus on the traffic ahead. Still doesn't mean I can't drive while I'm high, I drove around on shrooms before.
djskein 1 year ago
@BadWolfMedia Furthermore:
Section 11304, paragraph a) of the proposed initiative states: This Act shall not be construed to affect, limit or amend any statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous activities such as driving, or that penalizes bringing cannabis to a school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12, inclusive.
nelsonbig 1 year ago
@DrinkElectrolytes lol. It's burning incense, not incest.
nelsonbig 1 year ago
420squeeg,
when your brainwashed it might be difficult to listen to reason. Still i urge you to try to listen to Mister Gray, because what he says makes sense and is in the best interest of the USA and the rest of the world.
savedbytheShroom 1 year ago 2
Wow, some nice commercials... You guys are just churning them out... OVERGROW the opposition =D And not just "We want out weed, damnit!"
420squeeg 1 year ago
Judge James Gray is a man who has witnessed first hand just how badly prohibition has failed in this country (and in other countries), just as it has with alcohol, a far more dangerous drug that happens to be legal.
Does this make sense to any of you?
Re-legalize cannabis. Tax it. Regulate it. For adult use only. Let's do this already.
SolarEXtract 1 year ago