Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
PatentGuy
ParticipantOnce of the measures we are voting on in Santa Clara County is a parcel tax for “medical care for the children”. Apparently, the billions of dollars we already pay in taxes is spent on something other than the children, so they need a new tax for said children. After all, who can say no to children? Only the meanest spirited of the rich would not pay more for children.
This is not a tax to guarantee funding (nice salaries, benefits and full early spiked retirement including partially tax free disability pensions) for government union workers finding themselves under attack because of no money from the state.
No, that is not it at all.
This is for the children.
ParticipantOnce of the measures we are voting on in Santa Clara County is a parcel tax for “medical care for the children”. Apparently, the billions of dollars we already pay in taxes is spent on something other than the children, so they need a new tax for said children. After all, who can say no to children? Only the meanest spirited of the rich would not pay more for children.
This is not a tax to guarantee funding (nice salaries, benefits and full early spiked retirement including partially tax free disability pensions) for government union workers finding themselves under attack because of no money from the state.
No, that is not it at all.
This is for the children.
ParticipantOnce of the measures we are voting on in Santa Clara County is a parcel tax for “medical care for the children”. Apparently, the billions of dollars we already pay in taxes is spent on something other than the children, so they need a new tax for said children. After all, who can say no to children? Only the meanest spirited of the rich would not pay more for children.
This is not a tax to guarantee funding (nice salaries, benefits and full early spiked retirement including partially tax free disability pensions) for government union workers finding themselves under attack because of no money from the state.
No, that is not it at all.
This is for the children.
ParticipantOnce of the measures we are voting on in Santa Clara County is a parcel tax for “medical care for the children”. Apparently, the billions of dollars we already pay in taxes is spent on something other than the children, so they need a new tax for said children. After all, who can say no to children? Only the meanest spirited of the rich would not pay more for children.
This is not a tax to guarantee funding (nice salaries, benefits and full early spiked retirement including partially tax free disability pensions) for government union workers finding themselves under attack because of no money from the state.
No, that is not it at all.
This is for the children.
ParticipantAecetia,
If pot were truly legal in California, it would grow everywhere, like a weed (so to speak). Seems unlikely to me to wield the kind of value that would result in increased home invasion robberies. These happen now for the very reason that pot price is high because it is illegal, and therefore an unreported crime.
I agree with you on the Feds v. State dilemma, but the feds learned how to quit enforcing alcohol prohibition after the 21st amendment passed, and they can learn to back off and allow the people of the state to determine whether a weed like pot can be grown in their yards without having their property confiscated by the government to be given to law enforcement agencies as a reward.
Regarding prior propositions being passed only to be struck down in Fed court, there is a difference when the matter involves a state voting to take away a right, versus voting to secure a right. I’m sure you get that difference. If California voted to make slavery legal based on skin color or gender or age or what have you, then I would expect the feds to act, since that would be contrary to the federal constitutional rights of the persons voted to become slaves.
Voting to decriminalize pot does not take away anyone’s federal constitutional right.
The Obama administration may claim that federal law allows the feds to criminalize pot in California based on a bull Shiite commerce clause case from the 1930s (something to the effect of the SCOTUS confirming that congress can regulate my growing wheat in my back yard). OK, and I would expect the current SCOTUS to back them up.
But, it remains to be seen whether Obama will have the political will to invade California over pot plants directly against the expressed wishes of the same voters who helped put him in office. The federal courts will become unable to handle any other matters except trivial pot cases, and will lose the respect of a majority of the CA people in the process, similar to the federal prosecution of the medical pot growers (too many plants or whatever). The feds backed off, not because they acknowledged they did not have the “constitutional authority” to arrest and prosecute people, but because they do not have popular support for doing so, and the fed AGs do not like to be put in such position.
The bottom line is that “society” around the world, not just in CA, is questioning whether to continue to wage this insanely destructive and inhumane war on some drugs, while simultaneous doping ourselves crazy on the “legal” ones.
“Because I said so” has been the policy for 50 years. It is a failed policy.
ParticipantAecetia,
If pot were truly legal in California, it would grow everywhere, like a weed (so to speak). Seems unlikely to me to wield the kind of value that would result in increased home invasion robberies. These happen now for the very reason that pot price is high because it is illegal, and therefore an unreported crime.
I agree with you on the Feds v. State dilemma, but the feds learned how to quit enforcing alcohol prohibition after the 21st amendment passed, and they can learn to back off and allow the people of the state to determine whether a weed like pot can be grown in their yards without having their property confiscated by the government to be given to law enforcement agencies as a reward.
Regarding prior propositions being passed only to be struck down in Fed court, there is a difference when the matter involves a state voting to take away a right, versus voting to secure a right. I’m sure you get that difference. If California voted to make slavery legal based on skin color or gender or age or what have you, then I would expect the feds to act, since that would be contrary to the federal constitutional rights of the persons voted to become slaves.
Voting to decriminalize pot does not take away anyone’s federal constitutional right.
The Obama administration may claim that federal law allows the feds to criminalize pot in California based on a bull Shiite commerce clause case from the 1930s (something to the effect of the SCOTUS confirming that congress can regulate my growing wheat in my back yard). OK, and I would expect the current SCOTUS to back them up.
But, it remains to be seen whether Obama will have the political will to invade California over pot plants directly against the expressed wishes of the same voters who helped put him in office. The federal courts will become unable to handle any other matters except trivial pot cases, and will lose the respect of a majority of the CA people in the process, similar to the federal prosecution of the medical pot growers (too many plants or whatever). The feds backed off, not because they acknowledged they did not have the “constitutional authority” to arrest and prosecute people, but because they do not have popular support for doing so, and the fed AGs do not like to be put in such position.
The bottom line is that “society” around the world, not just in CA, is questioning whether to continue to wage this insanely destructive and inhumane war on some drugs, while simultaneous doping ourselves crazy on the “legal” ones.
“Because I said so” has been the policy for 50 years. It is a failed policy.
ParticipantAecetia,
If pot were truly legal in California, it would grow everywhere, like a weed (so to speak). Seems unlikely to me to wield the kind of value that would result in increased home invasion robberies. These happen now for the very reason that pot price is high because it is illegal, and therefore an unreported crime.
I agree with you on the Feds v. State dilemma, but the feds learned how to quit enforcing alcohol prohibition after the 21st amendment passed, and they can learn to back off and allow the people of the state to determine whether a weed like pot can be grown in their yards without having their property confiscated by the government to be given to law enforcement agencies as a reward.
Regarding prior propositions being passed only to be struck down in Fed court, there is a difference when the matter involves a state voting to take away a right, versus voting to secure a right. I’m sure you get that difference. If California voted to make slavery legal based on skin color or gender or age or what have you, then I would expect the feds to act, since that would be contrary to the federal constitutional rights of the persons voted to become slaves.
Voting to decriminalize pot does not take away anyone’s federal constitutional right.
The Obama administration may claim that federal law allows the feds to criminalize pot in California based on a bull Shiite commerce clause case from the 1930s (something to the effect of the SCOTUS confirming that congress can regulate my growing wheat in my back yard). OK, and I would expect the current SCOTUS to back them up.
But, it remains to be seen whether Obama will have the political will to invade California over pot plants directly against the expressed wishes of the same voters who helped put him in office. The federal courts will become unable to handle any other matters except trivial pot cases, and will lose the respect of a majority of the CA people in the process, similar to the federal prosecution of the medical pot growers (too many plants or whatever). The feds backed off, not because they acknowledged they did not have the “constitutional authority” to arrest and prosecute people, but because they do not have popular support for doing so, and the fed AGs do not like to be put in such position.
The bottom line is that “society” around the world, not just in CA, is questioning whether to continue to wage this insanely destructive and inhumane war on some drugs, while simultaneous doping ourselves crazy on the “legal” ones.
“Because I said so” has been the policy for 50 years. It is a failed policy.
ParticipantAecetia,
If pot were truly legal in California, it would grow everywhere, like a weed (so to speak). Seems unlikely to me to wield the kind of value that would result in increased home invasion robberies. These happen now for the very reason that pot price is high because it is illegal, and therefore an unreported crime.
I agree with you on the Feds v. State dilemma, but the feds learned how to quit enforcing alcohol prohibition after the 21st amendment passed, and they can learn to back off and allow the people of the state to determine whether a weed like pot can be grown in their yards without having their property confiscated by the government to be given to law enforcement agencies as a reward.
Regarding prior propositions being passed only to be struck down in Fed court, there is a difference when the matter involves a state voting to take away a right, versus voting to secure a right. I’m sure you get that difference. If California voted to make slavery legal based on skin color or gender or age or what have you, then I would expect the feds to act, since that would be contrary to the federal constitutional rights of the persons voted to become slaves.
Voting to decriminalize pot does not take away anyone’s federal constitutional right.
The Obama administration may claim that federal law allows the feds to criminalize pot in California based on a bull Shiite commerce clause case from the 1930s (something to the effect of the SCOTUS confirming that congress can regulate my growing wheat in my back yard). OK, and I would expect the current SCOTUS to back them up.
But, it remains to be seen whether Obama will have the political will to invade California over pot plants directly against the expressed wishes of the same voters who helped put him in office. The federal courts will become unable to handle any other matters except trivial pot cases, and will lose the respect of a majority of the CA people in the process, similar to the federal prosecution of the medical pot growers (too many plants or whatever). The feds backed off, not because they acknowledged they did not have the “constitutional authority” to arrest and prosecute people, but because they do not have popular support for doing so, and the fed AGs do not like to be put in such position.
The bottom line is that “society” around the world, not just in CA, is questioning whether to continue to wage this insanely destructive and inhumane war on some drugs, while simultaneous doping ourselves crazy on the “legal” ones.
“Because I said so” has been the policy for 50 years. It is a failed policy.
ParticipantAecetia,
If pot were truly legal in California, it would grow everywhere, like a weed (so to speak). Seems unlikely to me to wield the kind of value that would result in increased home invasion robberies. These happen now for the very reason that pot price is high because it is illegal, and therefore an unreported crime.
I agree with you on the Feds v. State dilemma, but the feds learned how to quit enforcing alcohol prohibition after the 21st amendment passed, and they can learn to back off and allow the people of the state to determine whether a weed like pot can be grown in their yards without having their property confiscated by the government to be given to law enforcement agencies as a reward.
Regarding prior propositions being passed only to be struck down in Fed court, there is a difference when the matter involves a state voting to take away a right, versus voting to secure a right. I’m sure you get that difference. If California voted to make slavery legal based on skin color or gender or age or what have you, then I would expect the feds to act, since that would be contrary to the federal constitutional rights of the persons voted to become slaves.
Voting to decriminalize pot does not take away anyone’s federal constitutional right.
The Obama administration may claim that federal law allows the feds to criminalize pot in California based on a bull Shiite commerce clause case from the 1930s (something to the effect of the SCOTUS confirming that congress can regulate my growing wheat in my back yard). OK, and I would expect the current SCOTUS to back them up.
But, it remains to be seen whether Obama will have the political will to invade California over pot plants directly against the expressed wishes of the same voters who helped put him in office. The federal courts will become unable to handle any other matters except trivial pot cases, and will lose the respect of a majority of the CA people in the process, similar to the federal prosecution of the medical pot growers (too many plants or whatever). The feds backed off, not because they acknowledged they did not have the “constitutional authority” to arrest and prosecute people, but because they do not have popular support for doing so, and the fed AGs do not like to be put in such position.
The bottom line is that “society” around the world, not just in CA, is questioning whether to continue to wage this insanely destructive and inhumane war on some drugs, while simultaneous doping ourselves crazy on the “legal” ones.
“Because I said so” has been the policy for 50 years. It is a failed policy.
ParticipantI don’t see much revenue being generated out of Prop 19, unless and until the federal government agrees to not prosecute anyone under federal law.
Tax money is not the reason to vote yes. The reason to vote yes is because it is immoral to allow the state to conduct a war on your fellow citizens (and on the citizens of Mexico, and elsewhere) over pot. Pure and simple.
For the $$$ to come in, the feds need to do away with drug prohibition laws and leave it up to the states, just like prostitution (still legal in Nevada) or gambling or (more on point) alcohol.
For example, Utah could allow only 3.2% “thc concentration” pot in public restaurants. You’ll have to join a club (for $1) to smoke the harder stuff.
Once the feds back off, you’ll see other states jump on the bandwagon for the $$. I am surprised Oregon is not ahead of California on the curve, like they were on assisted suicide.
ParticipantI don’t see much revenue being generated out of Prop 19, unless and until the federal government agrees to not prosecute anyone under federal law.
Tax money is not the reason to vote yes. The reason to vote yes is because it is immoral to allow the state to conduct a war on your fellow citizens (and on the citizens of Mexico, and elsewhere) over pot. Pure and simple.
For the $$$ to come in, the feds need to do away with drug prohibition laws and leave it up to the states, just like prostitution (still legal in Nevada) or gambling or (more on point) alcohol.
For example, Utah could allow only 3.2% “thc concentration” pot in public restaurants. You’ll have to join a club (for $1) to smoke the harder stuff.
Once the feds back off, you’ll see other states jump on the bandwagon for the $$. I am surprised Oregon is not ahead of California on the curve, like they were on assisted suicide.
ParticipantI don’t see much revenue being generated out of Prop 19, unless and until the federal government agrees to not prosecute anyone under federal law.
Tax money is not the reason to vote yes. The reason to vote yes is because it is immoral to allow the state to conduct a war on your fellow citizens (and on the citizens of Mexico, and elsewhere) over pot. Pure and simple.
For the $$$ to come in, the feds need to do away with drug prohibition laws and leave it up to the states, just like prostitution (still legal in Nevada) or gambling or (more on point) alcohol.
For example, Utah could allow only 3.2% “thc concentration” pot in public restaurants. You’ll have to join a club (for $1) to smoke the harder stuff.
Once the feds back off, you’ll see other states jump on the bandwagon for the $$. I am surprised Oregon is not ahead of California on the curve, like they were on assisted suicide.
ParticipantI don’t see much revenue being generated out of Prop 19, unless and until the federal government agrees to not prosecute anyone under federal law.
Tax money is not the reason to vote yes. The reason to vote yes is because it is immoral to allow the state to conduct a war on your fellow citizens (and on the citizens of Mexico, and elsewhere) over pot. Pure and simple.
For the $$$ to come in, the feds need to do away with drug prohibition laws and leave it up to the states, just like prostitution (still legal in Nevada) or gambling or (more on point) alcohol.
For example, Utah could allow only 3.2% “thc concentration” pot in public restaurants. You’ll have to join a club (for $1) to smoke the harder stuff.
Once the feds back off, you’ll see other states jump on the bandwagon for the $$. I am surprised Oregon is not ahead of California on the curve, like they were on assisted suicide.
ParticipantI don’t see much revenue being generated out of Prop 19, unless and until the federal government agrees to not prosecute anyone under federal law.
Tax money is not the reason to vote yes. The reason to vote yes is because it is immoral to allow the state to conduct a war on your fellow citizens (and on the citizens of Mexico, and elsewhere) over pot. Pure and simple.
For the $$$ to come in, the feds need to do away with drug prohibition laws and leave it up to the states, just like prostitution (still legal in Nevada) or gambling or (more on point) alcohol.
For example, Utah could allow only 3.2% “thc concentration” pot in public restaurants. You’ll have to join a club (for $1) to smoke the harder stuff.
Once the feds back off, you’ll see other states jump on the bandwagon for the $$. I am surprised Oregon is not ahead of California on the curve, like they were on assisted suicide.
-
AuthorPosts