6 ms·

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

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.
- cabalamat 16y ago
  > No law will ever be perfect - it's all about steps in the right direction. Absolutely. The best is the enemy of the good. A better response for pro-legalisation people who disliked aspects of prop 19 would be to campaign for it, then when it's passed (and the dire predictions of the no lobby proven to be unfounded), campaign to improve it. In Britain next year there will be a referendum on changing the voting system from FPTP to AV. Some people are opposing it saying it doesn't go far enough, and using pretty much the same arguments as aaronblohowiak. These people are IMO misguided; they are more likely to prevent the change they want from happening.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    I'm pro-legalization and found the arguments of the "no" lobby persuasive. I'm not a CA voter, but I believe I speak for at least one of them who shares my sentiments. How does your argument --- "wait for the dire predictions of the no lobby to prove unfounded" --- address people who in good faith oppose the proposition?
    - cabalamat 16y ago
      My point was that if prop 19 had passed, then if after a few years bad thi8ngs didn't happen as a result of it, then that fact would change the tone of the debate on cannabis legalisation, leading to a big majority being in favour of people being in favour of it. When that happened, it'd be time to tweak the law to change some of the bad parts of it (because no law is perfect).
      - tptacek 16y ago
        Why would someone vote for a law that seemed to them likely to create harmful side effects rather than waiting for a less ambitious, better-designed law that wouldn't? That's the conundrum I think many people fell into. You can say "the perfect is the enemy of the good", but that ignores the fact that the bad is also the enemy of the good.
dotBen 16y ago
I advised people to vote against Prop 19: It is bad law Given that any wikipedia article (should be) NPV, I was wondering if you could elaborate why you thought it was a bad law. You only really said: It went too far on protecting pot and it allowed too many varying tax situations Would you care to elaborate as these just raise more questions for me. Thanks!
- aaronblohowiak 16y ago
  From the San Jose "Mercury News": Proposition 19 fails on that front. Instead of statewide rules, regulation is left to individual cities and counties. That's right. Every one of California's 478 cities and 58 counties would be allowed, but not required, to establish its own laws on how marijuana can be grown, sold, taxed and used. On some issues, local control makes sense, but this isn't one of them. This article from the sacramento bee goes into more detail: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/09/19/3038161/endorsements-2010-prop-19-deserves.html http://www.sacbee.com/2010/09/19/3038161/endorsements-2010-p... A single statewide set of rules (like we have for alcohol,) and a clear tax proposal would go a long way. This explains why the California Cannabis Association ( a group that defends the medical dispensaries ) is against it -- but you may want to consider their possibly perverse profit motive, as well. One complicating factor is that there isn't a simple equivalent to the Blood Alcohol Content standard for inebriation -- this would help for things like driving and intoxication at work.
  - jamesaguilar 16y ago
    Do we actually have a single statewide set of rules for alcohol? I thought SF was trying to pass an initiative that raise alcohol distribution taxes within the city.

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.

cabalamat 16y ago
> No law will ever be perfect - it's all about steps in the right direction. Absolutely. The best is the enemy of the good. A better response for pro-legalisation people who disliked aspects of prop 19 would be to campaign for it, then when it's passed (and the dire predictions of the no lobby proven to be unfounded), campaign to improve it. In Britain next year there will be a referendum on changing the voting system from FPTP to AV. Some people are opposing it saying it doesn't go far enough, and using pretty much the same arguments as aaronblohowiak. These people are IMO misguided; they are more likely to prevent the change they want from happening.
- tptacek 16y ago
  I'm pro-legalization and found the arguments of the "no" lobby persuasive. I'm not a CA voter, but I believe I speak for at least one of them who shares my sentiments. How does your argument --- "wait for the dire predictions of the no lobby to prove unfounded" --- address people who in good faith oppose the proposition?
  - cabalamat 16y ago
    My point was that if prop 19 had passed, then if after a few years bad thi8ngs didn't happen as a result of it, then that fact would change the tone of the debate on cannabis legalisation, leading to a big majority being in favour of people being in favour of it. When that happened, it'd be time to tweak the law to change some of the bad parts of it (because no law is perfect).
    - tptacek 16y ago
      Why would someone vote for a law that seemed to them likely to create harmful side effects rather than waiting for a less ambitious, better-designed law that wouldn't? That's the conundrum I think many people fell into. You can say "the perfect is the enemy of the good", but that ignores the fact that the bad is also the enemy of the good.

dotBen 16y ago

I advised people to vote against Prop 19: It is bad law Given that any wikipedia article (should be) NPV, I was wondering if you could elaborate why you thought it was a bad law. You only really said: It went too far on protecting pot and it allowed too many varying tax situations Would you care to elaborate as these just raise more questions for me. Thanks!

aaronblohowiak 16y ago
From the San Jose "Mercury News": Proposition 19 fails on that front. Instead of statewide rules, regulation is left to individual cities and counties. That's right. Every one of California's 478 cities and 58 counties would be allowed, but not required, to establish its own laws on how marijuana can be grown, sold, taxed and used. On some issues, local control makes sense, but this isn't one of them. This article from the sacramento bee goes into more detail: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/09/19/3038161/endorsements-2010-prop-19-deserves.html http://www.sacbee.com/2010/09/19/3038161/endorsements-2010-p... A single statewide set of rules (like we have for alcohol,) and a clear tax proposal would go a long way. This explains why the California Cannabis Association ( a group that defends the medical dispensaries ) is against it -- but you may want to consider their possibly perverse profit motive, as well. One complicating factor is that there isn't a simple equivalent to the Blood Alcohol Content standard for inebriation -- this would help for things like driving and intoxication at work.
- jamesaguilar 16y ago
  Do we actually have a single statewide set of rules for alcohol? I thought SF was trying to pass an initiative that raise alcohol distribution taxes within the city.