7 ms·

Well this is a rather discouraging result. I've never understood why people want to lose tax revenue and provide a massive source of revenue to criminals when

• BigZaphod 16y ago
  Fear of change.
• robryan 16y ago
  It makes sense in the context of other policy such as the body scanners at airports that were talked about here recently. It seems all about playing on the populations fears "you don't want another terrorist attack", "you don't want you children exposed to illegal drugs". I'd imagine there would be a large percentage of the population primed with the opinion that drugs are bad without any real informed opinions past that. Sure it's still being sold, but more in an out of sight out of mind type way for those opposed.
  • deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
• btmorex 16y ago
  I assume by people you mean people who regularly vote. The problem with Prop 19 and other similar measures is not that they don't have support, it's that their base of support by and large doesn't vote (at least until they grow up and realize you don't get anything through apathy).
  • bbuffone 16y ago
    Doesn't that in-of-itself say something about the legalization. I see that things like this fail not because people are against pot, but because everyone has the same feeling, "it's fine, just not in my back yard".
  • johnglasgow 16y ago
    Not only do the supporters not vote, but they have very little political power nor do they provide monetary support.
• davidmurphy 16y ago
  One reason is that people (like me) don't want to further legitimize something they want society to discourage. I am strongly against drug use, and believe it sends the wrong message to impressionable kids to make it (more) legal.
  • limedaring 16y ago
    No reason to downvote things you disagree with, folks. Thanks for sharing your contrary opinion, davidmurphy. :) Can you explain why you're against drug use, specifically marijuana (not the harder drugs)? And are you against alcohol as well? EDIT: lol, I write the post and he goes from -1 to 4. Ah well. :)
  • philk 16y ago
    I'm not a fan of drugs either[1]. I've never smoked or taken an illegal drug, and I drink comparatively rarely. The thing is, prohibiting things just makes them seem cooler. For example, 80% of new smokers start before the age of eighteen. Few people would sign up to an expensive habit that smells foul and gives you cancer if not for the lure of the forbidden. [1] Although to be fair, I'm even less of a fan of governments telling people what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own homes.
  • nostromo 16y ago
    Isn't that what parents are for? I also don't want kids to smoke cigarettes, but that doesn't mean I want anyone caught with tobacco thrown in jail. Extending the metaphor, tobacco smoking rates have fallen to new record lows in the US. Not via prohibition, but through taxation and education.
  • rottencupcakes 16y ago
    Having Government enforce what people can or cannot do in their private lives is a slippery slope, David. If I don't want homosexuality legitimized, let's keep sodomy illegal, okay?
    • brownleej 16y ago
      Slippery slope arguments are also a slippery slope.
• aaronblohowiak 16y ago
  As a believer in tax and regulate, I can tell you why I advised people to vote against Prop 19: It is bad law. Go ahead and read the wikipedia about it or any of the articles in the major california papers. Many say the same thing: legalization is inevitable, but this isn't the way to do it. It went too far on protecting pot (such as disallowing local ordnances from prohibiting outdoor grows.) Also, it allowed too many varying tax situations. Essentially, passing it would be empowering bad governance. Unfortunately, voting against prop 19 as a bad law isn't differentiable from voting against prop 19 as a proponent of prohibition. When legalization passes, it will have to satisfy people's NIMBY impulses while protecting considerate adult consumers.
  • scythe 16y ago
    The article on Wikipedia takes no position on the proposition. In fact, it makes it sound better than, say, the newspapers do.
    • aaronblohowiak 16y ago
      Wikipedia explains its composite parts in a thorough and neutral-ish way, the newspapers make an argument against it based on the probably outcomes of its policies. I expected that the reader of wikipedia would also use its details to conclude that it is untenable; I apologize for the implication that wikipedia also spelled out why it is bad law =/
  • andymorris 16y ago
    That's a horrible reason. No law will ever be perfect - it's all about steps in the right direction. If we wait for things to be perfect, nothing will ever change. I find it very disheartening that some of the very people who want this change the most refused to vote for a 90% solution in the hopes that someone will come along with a 100% solution tomorrow. With this setback, the issue won't come up again for many years, and even when it does it STILL won't be perfect. I just hope that in 10 years when it comes up again, people won't be going "I voted no because it's not perfect" and setting the process back ANOTHER 10 years.
• axod 16y ago
  Where do you draw the line? People are going to commit suicide anyway, so why not legalize it and tax it? I would have voted no if I was in CA, and am glad it's failed.
  • pstuart 16y ago
    I'm glad you don't live in CA.