Darth--I think there's some misunderstanding somewhere. My point was just that how things actually play out and what police are actually told to do is often different from how we hope things read. I have some in-laws who are officers and sergeant in one of the local police forces. He said he's been told to tear down all gardens regardless. If they want to fight it in the courts later, they can.
215 should prevent that; it doesn't. I just don't believe that 19 would either and the difference between a ticket and not isn't much.
And how is my stance any more "religious" than your own? I actually am/was open. I just love a good argument. It makes me sad to say no to something that is similar to what we have all wanted for many years, but I think grown ups should look at all the sides and pick the best thing for the long run, not the bright shiny thing that kinda looks like what we want. And I'm not trying to call you a kid with that, just trying to explain my thinking.
Interesting point, Seamaiden.
And hbstoner, the differences with another prop would be, IMHO...
1 The actual support of the majority of growers who can be very vocal and garner more positive public opinion
2 More time for the average Californians to gain acceptance of not only medical mj, but recreational
3 The possibility of rescheduling of MJ at the federal level
4 And of course, a better written prop
Amstercal, I also love to argue (as long as it's not with the lunatic zeitgeist people, Jesus), so this is what my response would be if we were on opposing debate teams.
"He said he's been told to tear down all gardens regardless. If they want to fight it in the courts later, they can.
215 should prevent that; it doesn't. I just don't believe that 19 would either and the difference between a ticket and not isn't much."
Of course 19 would prevent this - whereas there's currently ambiguity and paperwork that needs to be sorted out to determine who is and isn't a legal grower, EVERYONE would be a legal grower under 19 - very, very, very quickly the police will get tired of taking people's shit only to be ordered by a judge to return it 100% of the time (as well as possibly facing disciplinary action by the state AG for violating state law).
Should the state AG choose not to respect prop 19, he WILL be sued be a coalition of deep-pocketed backers and will lose (100% given, although I'd love to hear from any of you about an AG not enforcing the state's constitution which he is duly sworn to uphold, even when the law in question goes against federal law).
"And hbstoner, the differences with another prop would be, IMHO...
1 The actual support of the majority of growers who can be very vocal and garner more positive public opinion
2 More time for the average Californians to gain acceptance of not only medical mj, but recreational
3 The possibility of rescheduling of MJ at the federal level
4 And of course, a better written prop"
1. Why? Is public opinion really that negative when polls have it at almost a dead heat, with the majority (anecdotal evidence gleened from weed forums, nothing else to support this claim) of established growers against the bill? What would the % be if they were for the bill and weren't convincing their friends that this bill is really a bad thing? 55%? 60%? Not sure how much more public support you'd really expect.
2. See above - seems like Californians are pretty damn accepting to me.
3. That and the passage of legalization for California are for all intents and purposes unrelated events - which do you think will happen first, a state legalizing weed or the government reclassifying it? Exactly.
It will be years (more likely decades) after the first state legalizes weed before it's "officially" reclassified at the federal level.
As stated before, California has the chance to cast a groundbreaking vote and get the snowball rolling towards ending prohibition nationwide (and perhaps worldwide) - that's some heavy shit, and all you Californians should be proud of yourselves.
4. Really couldn't be much more ambiguous with this one - unfortunately in politics, no one ever gets everything they want, but it sure seems to me like this bill is a step in the right direction and not a step in the wrong direction as a lot of the growers on here think - Amstercal, you've stated your particular reasons and I'll believe you, but I can not logically (and I have a very logical mind) fathom how it seems like every medium to large scale grower "thinks" that this bill is a bad thing.
The small growers and just smokers seem to like it (again, anecdotal evidence on forums as well as inferring who the 50% voting for it must be), but the medium to large-ish growers seem to be the most vehemently opposed - not drawing any conclusions, just stating the facts (as I understand them to be).
Again, just debating because I enjoy debating (and I actually have a stance now), so I hope none of this offends anyone.
