<p>Everyone is bummed out about prop 19.</p>
<p>I’m happy. We don’t need more idiots walking around in a daze.</p>
<p>I know plenty of people who voted for prop 19 even though they’ve never smoked weed before. I think they just realize that it’s not as bad as everyone thinks it is. The prop itself was flawed though, but that’s another story.</p>
<p>Hippo, I actually think that there would hardly be any difference in the number of people you saw ‘walking around in a daze’ if prop 19 was passed. If anyone wants weed, they can get it easily. It’s so easy that in fact it may as well be legal.</p>
<p>i was looking forward to seeing the Feds coming to Cal… :</p>
<p>New laws have made it such that illegal usage of marijuana only gets you the equivalent of a traffic citation</p>
<p>hippo sounds like you need to relieve some stress (not really…but there’s no real way to interject that from what you said :D)…maybe we can light it up sometime after January!</p>
<p>[California</a> Governor Signs Marijuana Decriminalization Bill | StoptheDrugWar.org](<a href=“http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2010/oct/01/california_governor_signs_mariju]California”>California Governor Signs Marijuana Decriminalization Bill | StoptheDrugWar.org)</p>
<p>I did vote no, but it was more for other reasons, not people walking around in a daze. Dopers are prevalent here at Cal and throughout California, so you’re right in that it wouldn’t have made much of a difference.</p>
<p>^except bring in a whole bunch of money through taxing an untapped market.</p>
<p>I don’t smoke pot but out of curiosity, would you vote “yes” on a measure that made alcohol illegal?</p>
<p>prohibition! **** YEAH!!!</p>
<p>Sigh, more precious police dollars wastefully expended on a pointless and futile activity.</p>
<p>lol as if our police are actually doing anything about it.</p>
<p>Batman17: Lol, I know, right?</p>
<p>@Batman - They must be on some level in some jurisdictions, given the number of marijuana-based convictions. At Schwarzenegger decided to do something good for once and signed it out of criminal illegality, though.</p>
<p>@insertname - I don’t smoke pot and probably not well, but I support its legalization and taxation for a number of reasons, not least of which is the total lack of any rational reason for it to be any less legal than alcohol.</p>
<p>@hippo - What other reasons? I’ve spent the last four months following this and I have yet to see an anti-19 argument that holds up to anything beyond the most cursory examination.</p>
<p>wats with those kids saying “yes on prop 19”? Even caliornia daily news says yes on prop 19. This is a joke man. I hate the damn school. Full of ■■■■■■■</p>
<p>jonnosferatu–it’s an issue of principle. I don’t really mind the dopers. They can do as they please. If partaking in drugs is their thing, so be it. </p>
<p>What I take issue with is how the initiative was constructed. Politicians saw this as an opportunity to tax something else and gain another stream of revenue. I’m not going to vote to give them more funds when they’ve shown time and time again that they’ll just mismanage then and institute another deficit building program that the state does not need. </p>
<p>Right now, more than anything, this state needs to learn fiscal discipline. Without it, we’re going bankrupt. Continually feeding the politicians money and, essentially, enabling them is killing the state. </p>
<p>If marijuana legalization were to come back up on the ballot without the tax provision, I’d likely vote yes because, as I said, I don’t care what the dopers do. If getting high makes them happy, good for them. It’s their life. What I will not do though is abandon my principles and give the state another taxable item and an additional stream of finds to **** away.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>rofl</p>
<p>(10 char)</p>
<p>123456789bc–Obviously you miss the point. Typical. </p>
<p>Big, bad conservative ooooooooooooooooooooooo! Crazy man!!</p>
<p>That was…actually quite coherent and not something that I can “debunk” in any way. <em>applause</em></p>
<p>My main point of disagreement is essentially just that I prioritized things differently; I’m not thrilled with the spending levels and haven’t done much research into the level of taxation associated with 19, but value setting the precedent for legalization more than denying Sacramento the revenue stream. Then again, it’s more likely to happen in 4 years of the state’s doing well, so either way…</p>
<p>Looks like more MExicans will be kiled in drug wars//</p>
<p>OP: everyone is a pothead</p>
<p>I’m from South Africa, tbh, I donno anyone who HASNT smoked pot</p>
<p>I smoked a pot once. It had a very metallic flavor.</p>