In all likelihood, California could be the very first state in the union to legalize the recreational use of marijuana this November. After legalization activists submitted nearly 700,000 signatures for a proposition to legalize marijuana, California's Secretary of State Debra Bowen certified a ballot initiative earlier this week to legalize the cultivation, possession, and sale of marijuana in the state of California for recreational purposes.
The initiative will go on the ballot this November, and it needs only a simple majority to pass and become law (just as if the legislature had passed it and the governor had signed it), which should be a breeze considering that state-wide polling shows that 56% of California's registered voters support legalizing and taxing marijuana.
I love California. They are certainly ahead of the curve on this one. I thought it would take years of our getting used to the medical marijuana situation before anything like this happened.
What do you think? Is this good for California and for the country at large?
It brings up another issue which we often talk about, States' Rights vs. the Fed.
Only time will tell if the new California ballot initiative to legalize marijuana will pass into law, but if it does, the controversy over drug legalization will merely give way to a much larger, much older, much more contentious controversy- that of the proper relation between the States and Federal government.
I sometimes get a little confused when we talk about this. In the gun debate for example, pro-gun folks say it's bad for cities like Chicago and Seattle to have their own gun restrictions. They say the States must outline the gun policies. But these same voices oppose uniform federal restrictions on guns.
What is the right way to view this power struggle between state and federal government? If the least possible power should sit with the fed, why then should the states have such power over the cities and municipalities?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"I sometimes get a little confused when we talk about this. In the gun debate for example, pro-gun folks say it's bad for cities like Chicago and Seattle to have their own gun restrictions. They say the States must outline the gun policies. But these same voices oppose uniform federal restrictions on guns.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the right way to view this power struggle between state and federal government? If the least possible power should sit with the fed, why then should the states have such power over the cities and municipalities?"
MikeB, it is not that confusing. It is not about which political subdivision we want to make gun laws. We want government at any level to not infringe.
I am for any law that restricts any government body from enacting any law restricting any gun.
You get a little confused pretty much all the time MikeB.
ReplyDeleteStates do not have the authority to wantonly ignore the Constitution.
There is a serious argument that having drugs - generally not just marijuana - illegal is disastrously counterproductive.
ReplyDeleteIllegality = criminals = violence = no quality control in an unregulated market.
Why not experiment to see if making heroin or cocaine addiction a medical problem as opposed to a criminality problem helps?
Don't youse get it, White Rabbit.
ReplyDeleteIf junkies were treated instead of criminalized it would eliminate one of the feeder groups to participate in DGU's.
The hypocrisy of CA. They progressively acknowledge one right while trampling on another.
ReplyDelete-TS
I applaud this move by California. Drug trafficking is a large source of much of the violent crime that we see in our country. This move will hopefully reduce the potential for this activity while freeing up police manpower to concentrate on other issues. In contrast to gun control laws, this will have a measurable impact on crime.
ReplyDeleteBloomberg is most often mentioned on this site for his anti-gunowner views. That's not that much of a contradiction to his views below -- both favor government prohibitions over individual rights or decisions.
ReplyDeleteNY Daily News 3/29/10:
Mayor Bloomberg isn't letting his stint as a hippie go to his head.
Two days after donning a long wig and performing with the cast of "Hair" in a psychedelic skit at the Inner Circle charity dinner, Bloomberg came out against legalizing recreational marijuana.
Marijuana users in California are pushing to make pot legal, noting cities and states could tax sales and raise $1.4 billion annually for their coffers
Asked by a magazine reporter during his 2001 campaign if he'd ever toked, Bloomberg replied, "You bet I did. And I enjoyed it."
Yesterday, Hizzoner was less enthusiastic about weed when asked about the California push: "I would vote against legalizing marijuana."
The mayor noted that modern marijuana "keeps getting stronger and stronger" and could lead to "greater use of drugs, which isn't good."
FWM, That's pretty clear.
ReplyDelete