• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can California Legalize Marijuana?

The Dane

Active member
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Messages
253
Reaction score
62
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
For those of you who don't know, Prop 19 is:


This is the first article I've come across which paints the proposition in a negative light. The rest of the articles I've found have been overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition. Usually, I don't take interest or issue in marijuana politics because usually its never close to being legalized and for some reason or another people think hemp has ENDLESS uses. This proposition is different. It has ALOT of support and has a very good chance of passing.


http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/07/can-california-legalize-marijuana

If this law passes, you are going to see marijuana's price drop 80% in California, while it still remains the same price in every other state. The question is then, will California become the nation's largest exporter of marijuana?
 
Last edited:
Seeing how it didn't drop when they made so called medicinal marijuana legal I seriously doubt that the price is going drop unless every pothead in the state starts growing their own. I can see more hydroponic shops opening up and the price of hydroponic solutions, air stones, grow rocks, air hoses, net baskets and other hydroponic related stuff going up. I do not have a problem with it being legalized. I can see the feds arresting someone with several plants in his yard and this going all the way to SC,which hopefully the Feds authority on this issue of marijuana gets struck down. All that said I never bought in the BS medical marijuana, I am sure there are some people who it helps but I think the majority are just phonies using very loose standards to get a prescription.
 
Last edited:
Yes, CA can repeal the laws that make pot illegal. There's never been any reason to question that.
It is still illegal under federal law, however.
 
This is just a dangerous issue. Lets say California legalizes marjiuana and an industry grows, it spreads out to other states and Obama decides to be laid back with their authority on this issue, the industry continues to grow. Then Obama is not reelected and a newly appointed conservative president say's marjiuana is illegal and its time to crack down. This would be like stopping deer hunting all together for 10 years, then opening it back up. STRAIGHT UP OPEN SEASON.
 
Can the executive branch pull enforcement in California? I.E. just order the DEA not to pursue marijuana enforcement in California. I imagine this would have to come all the way from the white house.
Or would this require a change to the federal law via congress?
I wonder how the GOP would go along with such a vote, an amendment that makes marijuana legal in a state if the state chooses to legalize it. On the one hand, they're conservatives and probably not thrilled with the idea of legalization, but on the other hand this would clearly be an expansion of state power over federal. I bet they could come up with 51 votes pretty readily (I don't think all the Democrats would go along with this) but the usual filibuster is possible. 60 votes might be a tough one.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Can the executive branch pull enforcement in California?
Click to expand...
Sure. But lets look at that a little differently.

-The Fed Gvmnt passes a ban on 'assault werapons'.
-A pro-gun President announces that the Fed Gvmnt will no longer enforce the ban in states that have no similar ban.
-Ohio has no such state ban.
-Thus, the federal ban on 'assault weapons' no longer exists in OH.

Oh. Wait. That's different.
 

You mean "let's look at a completely different situation."

Marijuana and "assault weapons" are not really equivalent for numerous reasons. Plus, I personally think the AWB is mostly insanity. It focuses on a lot of cosmetic nonsense or weapons that nobody really uses to commit crimes anyway. (you don't mug someone with an assault rifle. you use a pistol or knife)

[/gunderail]
 

Well...since the president isnt a king I dont think that really matters. The judicial can interpret...the legislative COULD overturn it by mandate but its unlikely. All the president can do is influence policy and sign legislation.
 
Deuce said:
You mean "let's look at a completely different situation."
Click to expand...
What did I saiy? Oh, yeah -

Oh. Wait. That's different.
Click to expand...

Thanks for being there for me

Only the specifics are different -- the 'selective enfocement argument' is the same between the two.
If the 'selective enforcement argument' is sound, then it sound across the board.
 
If this proposition is binding (I'm assuming it is), and it passes, then we'll see another lawsuit brought by the Federal government challenging the right of states to pass laws that supercede those of the Federal government.

This comes down to an issue of state's rights. I could see the Federal government having to **** or get off the pot. Are we going to spend tax dollars enforcing this Federal law? Or are we going to change the Federal law? When in doubt, just figure they'll throw money at the problem until it's decided by the Supreme Court, since none of the money is theirs.

It would be interesting to know where border states stand on the issue since they will likely be most effected.
 

Or a letter from the IRS...or pass state and federal sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol and pot...its all still a mugging...
 
Yes California and other states can make drugs legal within their borders. Article IV Section III Clause II states, "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State." The only thing federal law affects is the territories and possessions owned by the United States government. However, if said drugs are shipped across lines then Article I Section VIII Clause III, Article I Section IX Clause V-VI, and Article I Section X Clause II comes into effect.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
 
The Feds will trump the California law, no doubt. It will be confusing. But, what's really important is, “As California goes, so goes the nation.” It may take some time, but, the end of prohibition is nigh.
 
Chappy said:
The Feds will trump the California law, no doubt. It will be confusing. But, what's really important is, “As California goes, so goes the nation.” It may take some time, but, the end of prohibition is nigh.
Click to expand...

Soon come, mon. Soon come.

 
Last edited:
another development
Marijuana advocacy groups urge Obama to withdraw nomination of Michele Leonhart | Raw Story

Obama needs to avoid being seen as bush lite
 

The Executive does have discretion in how they carry out the laws but the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..." So, the President could decide that it is the policy of the DEA and FBI to only arrest those people in California who are trafficking in very large amounts of marijuana. However, he cannot really decide to just not prosecute any marijuana crimes in California.

For it to be truly lawful, the Congress would have to remove marijuana as a schedule I narcotic.
 

Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2 basically says that the Feds have police powers in the land it owns, e.g., national parks. Federal law affects all of the things listed in art. I, § 8 as those are the powers delegated to the Congress.
 

I wonder when Philip Morris with begin rolling out California Slims. :mrgreen:
 
Hmm, seems as this discussion is largely moot in reference to prop 19. It failed to pass.

And IMO it's a good thing it didn't pass.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Hmm, seems as this discussion is largely moot in reference to prop 19. It failed to pass.

And IMO it's a good thing it didn't pass.
Click to expand...

the entrepreneurs who operate the weed dispensaries and the doctors who write the scripts, enabling the legal consumption of pot, would agree with you
 
I voted in favor of Proposition 19 because of the stupid Mexican Mafia and Cartels that roam everywhere in California peddling Mexican death to Americans. The stupid Mexican criminals even financed part of the opposition to Prop. 19. I heard this from a couple of clients who are growers. Everybody needs estate planning.
 
Badfish420 said:
why? (ten characters)
Click to expand...

I cannot speak for him, but I am for the legalization of all drugs, because the state shouldn't interfere in the people's affairs and because it would end the useless drug war. But I was against prop 19 due to the massive restrictions and legal implications that came with it. I do not feel it should be treated like alcohol, or alcohol should be treated like it is. It should be legal for 18 and up or 16 and that is it. No other small print or other nonsense that prop 19 came riddled with.
 

ahh ok i wasnt aware of the details of prop 19. some guys i know were ranting about people coming to work stoned before the prop was killed, and that was the only compelling arguement against that i saw (not that i supported that view, people go to work stoned all the time.)
 
If Arizona can't enforce immigration laws because it "trumps" or mirrors federal law how come California should be able to legalize a federally illegal substance? I don't think California can legally legalize marijuana as it is illegal at the federal level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…