Why did California vote down legal pot?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/03/miron.pot.vote/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

by edw519 • 16 years ago

8 22 16 years ago

cnn.com

qjz2• 16 years ago

"Miron advises advocates to argue pot prohibition interferes with individual liberty"

This is precisely why legalization will fail, as long as smoking marijuana continues to be the principal means of ingestion. The problem is that anyone in the vicinity of a pot smoker is also likely to get high from second-hand smoke. That's simply unacceptable, especially when children are involved, from an individual liberty standpoint.

lotusleaf19873• 16 years ago

There is absolutely no way that is true unless you're smoking inside of a 3'x 3' closet. Most of the cannabinoids and other intoxicating agents have been consumed by the first inhalation.

Can you cite any evidence for the claim you've made?

Will exposure to passive marijuana second hand smoke result in a positive marijuana test? The most common excuse for a positive marijuana test is, "I was around some people who were smoking pot." Research has shownthat casual exposure to marijuana smoke will not produce a positive test. A person really has to work at being exposed to "passive" smoke to create a positive test. Very close confinement, without ventilation, with several smokers, for a period of over an hour, may result in a low, but measurable amount of marijuana in urine and blood. This demonstrates that even though the person may not have directly inhaled the smoke from a marijuana cigarette, they inhaled enough second hand smoke to get high. In our opinion, if a person tests positive for marijuana, the issue of whether they smoked the marijuana directly, or whether from intense and prolonged exposure to second hand marijuana smoke is irrelevant. The reasonable choice should be clear!

From: http://www.drug-testing-kits.com/drug-test-faq.html which is probably not a good source but it's the best I could find through Google at the moment.

qjz2• 16 years ago

No, a site that sells drug testing kits is not a good source, and there's probably a good reason it is the best quote you could find. In any case, a car certainly qualifies as a space that's confined enough to get high from second hand pot smoke. But it doesn't even matter if it's enough to get high, it's the smoke that's objectionable, which is obvious from the trend to prohibit smoking indoors in public places. This fight can't be won with facts, it requires a change of behavior. People simply don't want to inhale other people's smoke anymore.

Personally, I'm not against legalizing pot, just smoking it. It's the end of the day, and I'm about to have a drink. I'd much rather have a hash brownie, but I won't go near an illicit drug as long as I have a family to support.

zmonkeyz• 16 years ago

When I was younger I stayed with a friend of mine at his house while his mom was away in Germany for 3 weeks. He would smoke weed in the bathroom with the door closed and the fan on. Eventually the dogs started sniffing under the door every time he went to the bathroom. Even when his mom came back if anyone went to use the bathroom they would run to the door and start sniffing. Now i'm not going to say that it's hard hitting science but it's enough to convince me.

chc2• 16 years ago

So give it all the prohibitions that both booze and tobacco have (despite the fact that proximity is actually more of a threat with cigarettes), plus make it illegal to do within nine feet of a child. Problem solved. This is a very trivial objection.

rick8884• 16 years ago

If I was in California, I wouldn't have voted for it. Prop 19 made it difficult for businesses to fire people that smoke pot under "discrimination" laws. I, as a business owner should be able to fire someone if I know they are a regular pot smoker. Discrimination should have nothing to do with choices you make, but only for things that you can't control (race, sex, etc).

Smokers sure want to be able to do what they want with their body, but they don't want to suffer any consequences as a result.

If we ever have government run health care, I also shouldn't have to pay for your choices.

When these issues are resolved, I would consider voting for it.

kls3• 16 years ago

If we ever have government run health care, I also shouldn't have to pay for your choices.

Which is exactly why we should not have government run healthcare. Where does it stop, should I have to pay for people that decide to take high risk carrer paths, how about high risk sports as a recreation. You open up a slippery sloop when, you don't agree with someone else's choice and decide you are going to enforce your view of the world on them.

Quite honestly as long as they don't smoke pot on the job or come to work after having just smoked it. You really should not have a say in what they do as a business owner. It is audacious and elitist to think otherwise. You are by no means their keeper and have no entitlement to decision making in their personal life.

rick8884• 16 years ago

"Which is exactly why we should not have government run healthcare. Where does it stop, should I have to pay for people that decide to take high risk carrer paths, how about high risk sports as a recreation. "

I actually agree with you here. I never want government run health care because of this. It also makes it so it's in the government's best interest to make sure you don't increase your health risks. Many other "risk" behaviors will be banned or taxed (such as fast food).

"You open up a slippery sloop when, you don't agree with someone else's choice and decide you are going to enforce your view of the world on them."

You can choose to smoke pot and do whatever you want with your life. But, you start encroaching on my freedoms when you force me to pay for any negative health problems or force me to hire specific types of people.

As a sysadmin or developer, there are times when you need to come in after hours or in an emergency situation. If the person that needs to come in is high, I can't count on them to do their job.

Unlike the government mandates that you support, you can choose not to work for my company.

metageek3• 16 years ago

>A final problem with Prop 19 is that it would only have legalized marijuana under state law, since federal law also bans marijuana.

That was always my problem with this (and with Prop 215, medical marijuana, in 1996): they completely ignore the fact that states can't nullify federal law. It's as if their backers never heard of the Civil War.

alphaBeta12344• 16 years ago

That was always my problem with the DEA (and the war on drugs, etc.): it completely ignores the fact that the basic building block of government is supposed to be the states, not the fed. It's as if their backers never heard of the tenth amendment.

metageek3• 16 years ago

Agreed. The whole war on drugs needs to be stopped. But nullification is not the right tactic--not least because it just doesn't work.

Why did California vote down legal pot?

Related Stories