Legalization of Marijuana Makes California Ballot

The petition signatures have been counted and certified in California. Voters in November will decide whether to legalize recreational use of marijuana.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen certified that the petitions seeking to place the question on the ballot had more than 433,971 valid voter signatures, the minimum number needed to qualify.

If approved, the initiative would allow those 21 years and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana, enough to roll several marijuana cigarettes. Residents also could cultivate the plant in limited quantities.

If passed, California will be the first state in the nation to legalize marijuana. Local governments would then decide whether to allow and tax marijuana sales.

< Wednesday Night Open Thread | Senate Still Voting on Reconciliation at 1:00 am >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    reefers (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by jharp on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 08:41:00 PM EST
    "to possess up to one ounce of marijuana, enough to roll several marijuana cigarettes"

    Good Lord they must roll fat ones in California.

    they do ;) (none / 0) (#11)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 11:59:06 PM EST
    Kdog... (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:10:41 PM EST
    You will love it in CA.... great poker rooms and good dope!

    See ya there!

    Getting harder and harder... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 07:30:11 AM EST
    not to seriously consider it my good man, especially if this passes.  Legally check-raising with a legal lid in your pocket...that's what I imagine heaven to be like:)

    Much prefer NY wise up and get civilized...now if they allowed smoking in the poker rooms out in Cali, all bets are off.


    Sorry no smoking at the table (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 02:11:11 PM EST
    it'll be time enough for smoking

    when the gambling's done..


    But they allow eating and drinking and the Commerce has a very good kitchen, full menu and a nice wine list...

    Food comped in the 15-30 and up games. Booze comping against state law....


    What this means, if it passes, (none / 0) (#3)
    by Peter G on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:16:41 PM EST
    is not that possession will be legal in California -- it won't, because of federal law -- but that local "law enforcement" folks will have no law against mj to enforce.  At least as far as I can figure out, that would be the significance.  TL, do you disagree?

    Does that make you as uncomfortable (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:26:01 PM EST
    as it makes me?

    I'm personally troubled by states purporting to "opt out" of federal law. Even if I disagree with the law.


    I don't see this as an opt-out (none / 0) (#9)
    by Peter G on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 11:38:27 PM EST
    There is no provision in the Initiative (although perhaps there should be) directing that the power of a California law enforcement officer to arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor committed in his/her presence -- or for a felony, even if not committed in his/her presence, upon probable cause -- shall not extend to any federal offense involving cannabis that is not also a public offense under California law.  In other words, contrary to what I suggested first, I don't even see that it stops the local constabulary from arresting for a federal offense of possession.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 11:43:06 PM EST
    Which is why state laws like this are (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 02:28:09 AM EST
    ineffective if the federal government continues to list as Schedule I.  

    the initiative states it will be legal (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 09:33:21 PM EST
    and makes no reference to federal law. You can read it here. As a practical matter, possession for personal use is still a federal misdemeanor. (But there is no federal law prohibiting use of marijuana. Arguably, if you walk into a room that's piping marijuana through vents, you might have an argument you're using but not possessing.)

    Since the feds don't bust for  possession of small amounts for personal use, I'd say the effect will be to make it legal. No arrests, no fines or jail, no posting bond, no criminal record.

    But the initiative does say it will be legal.

    By contrast, the medical marijuana law in Colorado doesn't legalize use or possession, it provides an affirmative defense to a criminal charge.


    Woo Hoo! (none / 0) (#6)
    by TomStewart on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 10:46:24 PM EST
    Fresh tax revenue!

    Really? (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 11:23:46 PM EST
    Up to one ounce possession...  Nothing about selling it, which would presumably require possessing more than the one ounce limit.

    Oh (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 11:27:53 PM EST
    just read the ballot referendum.. Allows for selling and taxation..

    Should pass, imo.


    I wonder (none / 0) (#12)
    by TomStewart on Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 12:12:34 AM EST
    how many will be hoping it'll reduce their taxes if they vote for taxing pot smokers.

    lol (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 01:00:08 AM EST

    How many joints does one have to smoke before one believes taxing MJ will reduce taxes in CA?

    I guess there are other ways to get to stupid besides smoking. For some it comes naturally.. I'll take stupid though, if it means pulling the lever for legal MJ.


    What About Federal Law (none / 0) (#22)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Mar 25, 2010 at 10:41:07 AM EST
    This is the exact wrong time to try this non-sense.  

    If it succeeds, how long before states pass laws ignoring parts of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  It's going to put the administration is a fairly precarious position, enforce some Fed laws and not others.

    I am all for reforming our drug laws, staring with legalizing many of them, but this is asking for trouble, either you think the Feds have authority or they don't.

    Off note question:  Does anyone else know if other countries have parts of them where certain drugs are legal, and other areas where they are not.  For that matter, do laws in other countries vary as much as they do here from state to state ?