Ok, this isn't necessarily a down-the-line Democratic/Progressive proposition guide, it's how I'm voting on the propositions. I'll do my best, however, to explain why I'm voting the way I am, so hopefully it'll end up being pretty transparent.
Prop 19: Legalize Marijuana. Yes.
I've never smoked marijuana, but seriously, come on. Being illegal isn't stopping anyone from getting it. Tax it, quit locking people up, and let's get on with the damn future.
Prop 20: Citizen Panel for Redistricting. Yes.
Previously, voters ok'd a citizen panel to handle redistricting for state offices. this approves a citizen panel for federal offices. Without a citizen panel, you have legislators gerrymandering the place for their individual and party benefit, at the expense of the people. I don't care what your party affiliation is, you gotta believe that everyone's voice should be heard.
Prop 21: $18 Surcharge for State Parks. No.
When the budget crunch came, folks got upset that the state would have to close parks. Thing is, parks hardly cost anything, and the legislators did it to try to get people's attention, which they did. But taking the parks out of the budget so citizens can bury their heads about the hard choices of budgeting? No thanks.
Prop 22: State Can't Borrow Local Funds. No.
It's hard enough as is to get a budget passed, this just makes everything more complicated. Also, there is powerful political pressure to minimize the state taking from local governments already.
Prop 23: Suspend Greenhouse Gas Law until Unemployment below 5.5%. No.
This effectively kills CA's attempts to turn away from fossil fuels and become a center for next-gen energy. Will some companies turn away from CA? They already have. Will new companies with great growth potential arrive? Perhaps not in gross numbers as large, but yes. Mostly, I'm just tired of people throwing up roadblocks for trying to deal with global warming.
Prop 24: Repeal Business Tax Breaks from Legislature. No.
On principle, I'm against propositions. Especially propositions to overturn things the legislature has done. It's not about whether I'm for the tax breaks, the fact is, I don't really know the impact of these tax breaks and I gotta trust my legislators to figure it out. If we would get rid of propositions entirely, I'd be perfectly happy.
Prop 25: Pass a budget with Simple Majority instead of Two-Thirds. Yes.
It's a democracy, folks. The most basic thing -- passing a budget -- and we can't just have a damn majority to take care of it. You may fear the tyrrany of the middle, but that's a lot less of a problem than the tyrrany of the minority.
Prop 26: Fees Require 2/3 approval. No.
This is an attempt to choke off spending. Do we have too much spending? Perhaps. Should we tie our hands to make it impossible to raise taxes? I'm for the process, and this throws a giant wrench in that process.
Prop 27: Put Legislators Back in Charge of Redistricting. No.
This one is the opposite of 20 -- it returns gerrymandering power to legislators. Screw that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'd be for 19 if it was making it legal, but it's basically keeping small growers illegal, and providing a haven for "licensed" growers.
Of the current offenders in jail, how many of them had less than an ounce on them or had less than a 5x5ft growing operation? Those are the people that would have had to get licenses to grow.
So, sure, just about all of it is illegal now, but with 19, just the little guy will be illegal.
Punk, I'm not sure I understand your point. According to the prop:
Legalization of personal marijuana-related activities:
Except as permitted under Proposition 215 and SB 420 laws, persons age 21 and older may :
possess up to 28.5 grams (1oz) of marijuana for personal consumption.
use marijuana in :
a non-public place such as a residence or
a public establishment licensed for on site marijuana consumption.
grow marijuana at a private residence in a space of up to 25 square feet (2.3 m2) for personal use.
I don't see anything that requires a licence to do those things. How will the little guy be illegal?
I don't see the problem as 'pushing the small growers out of business'. And I can't see anything in the prop that will do that. I think this prop simply makes it legal for people to light up, which is needed. MOst of the arguments against don't seem to hold water:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_19,_the_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative_(2010)
I think the biggest problem is that it'll still be illegal under federal law.
I think it was Oakland that already came out and said that if this passes, there will only be 4 places that will get major licenses to sell. Local ordinances and control will keep people from deciding to start their own mom-and-pop pot shops in some locations.
As for the personal growing, again, the local authorities had the power to step in and tax that as well.
The big complaint that I saw against this was that, while making smoking and posessing legal, it also made it *illegal* to do a bunch of stuff that was either nebulously defined right now, or that was simply not covered by legislation because of other overriding legislation.
EG: there's no law against a 14 year old smoking dope because it's illegal for anyone to posess dope in the first place. (example for illustrative purposes only, and may mot match the current situation)
Check this for some opposing arguments from the pro-dope crowd: http://votetaxcannabis2010.blogspot.com/2010/07/why-pro-pot-activists-oppose-2010-tax.html
I found some of the artical internally inconsistent, but would assume that they have some of their facts correct.
In the end, this winds up being like a lot of the proposition out there right now-- not perfect, but in theory, better than the current situation. Do you pass it now, amend it later, or hold off waiting for the "perfect" bill to come along?
Thanks for the link, Jim. I find the implicit association between current marijuana growers and the "buy local" movement interesting. I am sure marijuana will become a huge industry and it will be difficult for small growers to compete. But this is the nature of all agriculture, and indeed, much of business in general.
If small marijuana cultivators can create a superior product (as least one that people will want to buy despite being more expensive, whether or not it's arguably "better"), they'll be able to compete. If you're serious about making a go of the business, I hope you'll be able to get a license, though it won't be free.
In my opinion, the focus should be on the consumers rather than producers. As an analogy, I don't think California should outlaw Wal-Mart just because it drives local small-time stores out of business. If it's good for consumers (and prices will drop, despite the link's theoretical predictions), we should go for it.
Post a Comment