So Prop. 19 didnt go through (the one about Legalizing Marijuana)

[TheRightToArmBears]

I wonder what the result would have been if everyone voted..? They really should make it mandatory to vote for you guys. I can't understand why people would just sit at home rather then take an interest in who's running the FUCKING country?!?

I agree actually. If you don't like any options spoil the bloody ballot paper (there were many, many spoilt papers at our last election, because all three big parties are retarded.)

Personally I would have voted for. But in any case I can't imagine it makes a lot of difference to smokers; at least in the UK, weed is incredibly easy to get ahold of. I can't imagine it's much different over there.

I think at some point within the next 15 years we'll see weed legalised in the UK, don't know about Cali or the rest of the US.

 

[Treblaine]

Sorry fellow Californians, Marijuana is STILL illegal
Proposition 19
No 3,826,487 53.8%
Yes 3,297,590 46.2%

Total votes 7124077

i guess California is still as ass-backwards as ever, especially since it was SHOWN that this would generate tax revenue for the government that they could have given to schools or to fixing roads.

EDIT: Removed some stuff to force people to discuss the ACTUAL ISSUE and not troll on me.

Referendums are a bad idea anyway, it only leads to a "tyranny of the Majority" and subjugation of minority groups and opinions.

America is a republic first, democracy second. Democracy is the means through which the it is a practising republic, but based around the both the principal of by-the-people AND for-the-people. The details of the democratic expression does must factor how merely because a majority opinion is held it may be bad for society as a whole due to how a minority is persecuted, democratic structure must be "holistic" for the good of all the people.

Consider this:

"Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote. Those rights are spelled out in the Bill of Rights and in our California Constitution. Voters and politicians alike would do well to take a look at the rights we each hold, which must never be chipped away by the whim of the majority."

James Bovard is sometimes credited for the phrase, and he did use it in the Washington Times, August 29, 1992 (though also erroneously attributed to Ben Franklin)

Remember, GI Joe (and all those other American heroes) fought for 'Freedom AND Democracy', they are not the same thing, but both essential for a society I think we all want.

Ideally a republic is governed by consensus, like how most jury trials only deliver a unanimous verdict. But that would be impossible, with larger and larger populations you'll be lucky to get more than 80% to vote one way or another.

So, if freedom is defined and protected by a constitution, laws defined on the very state's founding, what do they say on legalised drugs? Not much really.

Well I personally think that weed is less harmful than alcohol. Though in an ideal world booze should be banned or at least heavily restricted, and just because we as a society cannot agree on banning booze that doesn't mean every other drug could or should be legal. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[capin Rob]

i guess California is still as ass-backwards as ever, especially since it was SHOWN that this would generate tax revenue for the government that they could have given to schools or to fixing roads.

so by this logic we should also vote yes on all propositions that make revenue. If they put prop P up for vote which allowed you to whore out children and the people voted it down would you have the same response. "come on you retards it will generate money!" No you wouldn't unless your a pedophile. You're only responding this way because people didn't vote the way you think they 'should'. Sorry a majority of people who actually did vote didn't share the same dream with you about being able to one day smoke weed legally outside and giggle like a school child while doing it.

Did you just compare Smoking Pot to being a pedophile? Because by that logic, drinking Hard liquor would be equal to being hitler

On to the topic at hand... Instead of yelling at the op for not voteing:

well, I guess this is bad, it could be a very good thing. Profit, helping people with illnesses. All that good stuff. oh well, It'll happen in 2012 anyway...

 

[Anchupom]

Meh. Wouldn't use it either way.

 

[Blitzkreg]

"Sorry fellow Californians, Marijuana is STILL illegal" Good for California. Its good to see that state still has some sense of right and wrong.

 

[Crazy_Dude]

All these problems trying to get it legal. Just buy a med card for 40 bucks of some random guy around the corner.

Or move to Holland (where I live)

 

[gbemery]

i guess California is still as ass-backwards as ever, especially since it was SHOWN that this would generate tax revenue for the government that they could have given to schools or to fixing roads.

so by this logic we should also vote yes on all propositions that make revenue. If they put prop P up for vote which allowed you to whore out children and the people voted it down would you have the same response. "come on you retards it will generate money!" No you wouldn't unless your a pedophile. You're only responding this way because people didn't vote the way you think they 'should'. Sorry a majority of people who actually did vote didn't share the same dream with you about being able to one day smoke weed legally outside and giggle like a school child while doing it.

Did you just compare Smoking Pot to being a pedophile? Because by that logic, drinking Hard liquor would be equal to being hitler

lol so is that why mel gibson got drunk and said he hated the jews? besides didn't compare the act of smoking pot to being a pedophile. Compared voting on two things that would be sources of income that not everyone would agree with. I did how ever compare smoking pot legally outside to that of a small school child giggling.

 

[Treblaine]

So you didn't vote, but you're complaining about the outcome? You realize if you DID vote you could have made a difference, and I can guarantee the people who fall into the "I don't vote" category is huge. People who don't vote shouldn't complain about the outcome. You didn't do your part to make a difference, or even attempt to, so why should you be bothered about how it went?

if i voted that would mean my vote still didn't matter by..... 528896 votes against me

yeah, i TOTALLY would have made a difference

Yes, but if you AND all of the other fucktards that whine about politics, but don't vote, had turned out, you could have made a difference. My oppiniont, you don't show up to fill out a ballot, keep your mouth shut.

I'm beginning to see how the majority of eligable voters in California may have wanted this bill passed... just they were too lazy to actually vote for it, or foolish enough to think someone else would do it. OK, that's playing on quite a cruel stereotype that pot smokers are lazy, disorganised and procrastinate (I'm actually really bad at that to spite abstaining from the stuff) but is it deeper than that, is it that the majority pot smokers don't WANT it legalised as much.

Maybe... this IS a form of democratic expression to counter majority-tyranny.

Think about it. Say 70% of a population was group A, HATED group B and wants a law banning them from public transport, in theory group-b is screwed. But if almost every single eligible member of group B voted against it and there was a low turn-out from group A (who would only vote for this out of racist spite) wouldn't be motivated to go to the polls.

Lets say the population is 100'000 people) 29'000 vote against (95% of Group B) but group A as typical low turnout, only 40% then 28'000. Referendum stopped.

So is this a form of "expression of the people"?

MORE people may want to ostracise this minority, but they want to stay on the bus

I think that's what could have happened here, the minority were more opposed to this Proposition than the majority was.

Does bring into perspective laws like in certain parts of Australia (I think) that mandate that people MUST vote, isn't the very fact of not being bothered an integral part of the democratic process?

OPINION is not merely enough, you must really CARE for their cause, enough to go on a small quest to the voting booth. It certainly puts the case forward that voting should be made harder (assault courses?), to protect minority positions from being carelessly crushed by an uncertain majority.

 

[ThePeaceFrog]

good show! I hate hippies...

 

[Danish rage]

Democracy triumphs again.

That wasn't sarcasm, btw. People made a decision. It may or may not be the right one, but it's A decision

Democracy is a fancy word for mass dictatorship.

 

[Just_A_Glitch]

You didn't vote and you're complaining? Pretty hypocritical.

I hate marijuana, so I'm honestly glad it didn't pass. I would have voted no.

My guess is that he/she, was too high to leave the house...

That was my assumption.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

*****, you have no idea why I hate the stuff.

I don't need to know. I'm asking for a little thought rather than hate.

Arguments like yours are exactly the type of arguments those damn addicts use in their sad attempts to avoid responsibility for their own actions.

Arguments like "Let's study drugs responsibly so people don't kill themselves?" I really doubt it.

I don't hate games and rock, btw. I just hate humanity and it's stupid overdependence on shit like drugs. I'm all up for painkillers and such if the situation really calls for it, but you know just as damn well as I do that this is hardly ever the case and that most people abuse subscription drugs.

Some people abuse any substance.

If it's substance abuse you're against, then fair enough.
If you're classifying everything that can be abused as wrong, then I have to stand against you.

Just because an addict uses an argument doesn't mean it's wrong. Or that it's right.

Just remember that the guys suffering from third-degree burns, cancer, leukemia would LOVE to have some marijuana to clear their pain, but they can't because Governments won't even let their own scientists study it.

And hate like yours is what's stopping them.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

I'm not really surprised they didn't pass it. Given the fact that California is really far in debt by themselves.

 

[SFR]

Democracy triumphs again.

That wasn't sarcasm, btw. People made a decision. It may or may not be the right one, but it's A decision

Democracy is a fancy word for mass dictatorship.

So... we're all dictators? FUCK YES! I demand you go get me a sammich.

 

[Treblaine]

i guess California is still as ass-backwards as ever, especially since it was SHOWN that this would generate tax revenue for the government that they could have given to schools or to fixing roads.

so by this logic we should also vote yes on all propositions that make revenue. If they put prop P up for vote which allowed you to whore out children and the people voted it down would you have the same response. "come on you retards it will generate money!" No you wouldn't unless your a pedophile. You're only responding this way because people didn't vote the way you think they 'should'. Sorry a majority of people who actually did vote didn't share the same dream with you about being able to one day smoke weed legally outside and giggle like a school child while doing it.

Did you just compare Smoking Pot to being a pedophile? Because by that logic, drinking Hard liquor would be equal to being hitler

Yes, but OBVIOUSLY it was only as an analogy limited to the terms of countering the argument that "it should have gone through just for bringing in more tax money"

I suppose a more politically-correct answer (if you are really going to be so fussy about this) is comparing this to a hypothetical Proposition of Doubling the Taxation rate.

That's right, everything double.
Sales tax: double
Income tax: twice what everyone pays for each band
Fines: double (they're effectively a tax)

Now do you see the flaw in your initial statement? That increased tax income isn't necessarily great. Where else would tax be poached from.

I'd also point out your fallacious implication that gbemery stated child abuse and substance abuse were anyway similar in their heinousness. It should be obvious to everyone that the child prostitution was brought up because there is ABSOLUTELY NO ambiguities that it is both illegal and immoral to be the basis of the analogy.

But you seemed to choose the route of "scoring points" in this argument by negative insinuation.

 

[Declaro]

I'm so glad that this Prop didn't pass. Marijuana would overtake the United States in my opinion, and it would become the new Stoner Paradise.

What's the current Stoner Paradise?