California Ballot Propositions

[Nightingale 0]

This is what I'm thinking when I go vote this afternoon. If you see a flaw in my reasoning, please let me know.

Proposition 19: YES Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed

I just don't see a reason to tell other people what they can and can't put into their bodies. Existing DUI laws protect us from drivers who are under the influence, so as long as they don't put me in danger, this sounds fine to me.

Proposition 20: YES Redistricting of Congressional Districts

Letting elected officials draw districts seems an awful lot like asking a fox to design a henhouse to me. An independent committee sounds like a better idea.

Proposition 21: NO Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks and Wildlife Programs and Grants Free Admission to All State Parks to Surcharged Vehicles

I like our state parks. I really do. I use them myself. The thing is, I am hesitant to hand the state more money when they have been so fiscally irresponsible. I would like to see them spend what they have responsibly before I trust them with any more, and it's probably fair to fund the parks from admission fees so the cost is born by those that use them.

Proposition 22: YES Prohibits the State from Taking Funds Used for Transportation or Local Government Projects and Services

The state has been balancing its budget on the backs of tax money intended for cities and local agencies. I work for a city, and I've seen the impact it's had on our fire services, police services, and our ability to provide basic services to the people who live here. The state needs to spend responsibly within its budget, not write IOUs to local agencies when it can't meet its bottom line.

Proposition 23: YES Suspends Air Pollution Control Laws Requiring Major Polluters to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level for Full Year

California already has very strict environmental regulations compared with the rest of the nation. Cars here are different, gasoline is different, and Prop 23 wouldn't change that. It would prevent stricter regulations from going into effect until the economy is better, and that seems like a good idea, because making it more difficult for businesses to operate here means that it's more difficult to work and live here, which makes it harder on everyone. There has to be a balance, and with the economy the way it is right now, that needs to be taken into account.

Proposition 24: NO Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow Businesses to Carry Back Losses, Share Tax Credits, and Use a Sales-Based Income Calculation to Lower Taxable Income

Again, lets not make it more difficult to do business here.

Proposition 25: NO Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority. Retains Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Taxes

This makes it way too easy for one side to run away with its agenda. A 2/3 vote requires that the minority view be taken into account and makes some compromise mandatory.

Proposition 26: NO Increases Legislative Vote Requirement to Two-Thirds for State Levies and Charges. Imposes Additional Requirement for Voters to Approve Local Levies and Charges with Limited Exceptions

While I like the idea, I think this is badly written and the implementation would be entirely too messy.

Proposition 27: NO Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority for Redistricting with Elected Representatives

Again, letting elected officials draw districts seems problematic.

[wmw999 2,120]

Quote

Letting elected officials draw districts seems an awful lot like asking a fox to design a henhouse to me. An independent committee sounds like a better idea.

What could possibly go wrong?
Note: previous proposals have been worse.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

With the exception of your no vote the 2/3 requireement for fees, we are in accord.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[champu 1]

Exactly the same here.

Here's a link to the results by county as the polls start closing http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/ballot-measures/all/

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

With the exception of your no vote the 2/3 requireement for fees, we are in accord.

I like the idea, I just wasn't too sure about the phrasing of the proposition and it looks like it may have some unintended consequences for local governments, so I went with my standby of "when in doubt, vote no". I think tax procedures for local governments should be left more in control of the residents of those areas. If the measure just addressed state issues only, I probably would've voted for it.

[headoverheels 291]

I'm "no" on 25, but the early result look as if it will pass.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Exactly the same here.

Here's a link to the results by county as the polls start closing http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/ballot-measures/all/

Quote

Due to an extremely high volume of traffic, the page you have requested is temporarily unavailable.
We apologize for the inconvenience, please try your request again shortly.

A website that probably gets used twice a year and
it gets "high volume". Really? On a day when people vote?
Who'd a thunk it.

[LongWayToFall 0]

I voted exactly as you did.

I heard 19 was a no go, bummer. I haven't checked on the others.

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

I heard 19 was a no go, bummer.

As a former California resident, I am surprised that Prop 19 was defeated. It went down by a 9% margin.

The first of the late night joke lines, I guess some of the supporters got a slow start to the polls and then stopped to get a pizza.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[popsjumper 2]

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[popsjumper 2]

More Jerry Brown?
WTF

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[davjohns 1]

I am almost is complete agreement with you. I am only hesitant about legalizing drugs. I have no problem with legalizing all drugs. I don't care what people put in their bodies. I just have issues with paying for welfare, Social Security, health insurance, etc. for someone to do so. If they screw themselves up on drugs, I have to pay the price. I don't like that. Make them responsible for themselves and I think they should do whatever they like so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. While marijuana is low risk, a huge number of users don't hold down jobs and drag the rest of us down. Clear that up and I think they should smoke their little hearts out when not at work.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[billvon 2,396]

I'm pretty close to your list. I'm glad Prop 25 went down, though. Industry has proven that they can adapt to new pollution restrictions - catalytic converters, fuel injection, smokestack scrubbers and CAFE requirements for example - as long as they are consistent and constant. They'll have a lot more trouble if they get suspended every time there's an economic problem, or some politician wants to promise people jobs.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I am almost is complete agreement with you. I am only hesitant about legalizing drugs. I have no problem with legalizing all drugs. I don't care what people put in their bodies. I just have issues with paying for welfare, Social Security, health insurance, etc. for someone to do so. If they screw themselves up on drugs, I have to pay the price. I don't like that. Make them responsible for themselves and I think they should do whatever they like so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. While marijuana is low risk, a huge number of users don't hold down jobs and drag the rest of us down. Clear that up and I think they should smoke their little hearts out when not at work.

BUT on the other hand I guess you are good with supporting the hundreds of thousands that cost us billions of dollars to house them in prisons for low level drug users who were never violent offenders before they were sent to prison to learn how to be violent thugs.

[skyrider 0]

Quote

Quote

I am almost is complete agreement with you. I am only hesitant about legalizing drugs. I have no problem with legalizing all drugs. I don't care what people put in their bodies. I just have issues with paying for welfare, Social Security, health insurance, etc. for someone to do so. If they screw themselves up on drugs, I have to pay the price. I don't like that. Make them responsible for themselves and I think they should do whatever they like so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. While marijuana is low risk, a huge number of users don't hold down jobs and drag the rest of us down. Clear that up and I think they should smoke their little hearts out when not at work.

BUT on the other hand I guess you are good with supporting the hundreds of thousands that cost us billions of dollars to house them in prisons for low level drug users who were never violent offenders before they were sent to prison to learn how to be violent thugs.

sems ya both went a little over the top...By the time someone gets a prison sentence, they were far from a recreational user...they were dealing big time!

legal or not, Welfare will be paying for dopers to keep their habit!

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Did Prop 23 include a provision that the state government also suspend all their holier than thou policies against Alberta? We have unemployment too.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I am almost is complete agreement with you. I am only hesitant about legalizing drugs. I have no problem with legalizing all drugs. I don't care what people put in their bodies. I just have issues with paying for welfare, Social Security, health insurance, etc. for someone to do so. If they screw themselves up on drugs, I have to pay the price. I don't like that. Make them responsible for themselves and I think they should do whatever they like so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. While marijuana is low risk, a huge number of users don't hold down jobs and drag the rest of us down. Clear that up and I think they should smoke their little hearts out when not at work.

BUT on the other hand I guess you are good with supporting the hundreds of thousands that cost us billions of dollars to house them in prisons for low level drug users who were never violent offenders before they were sent to prison to learn how to be violent thugs.

sems ya both went a little over the top...By the time someone gets a prison sentence, they were far from a recreational user...they were dealing big time!

legal or not, Welfare will be paying for dopers to keep their habit!

It all depends on the jurisdiction. There are a hell of a lot of people in our prisons all across the country based on laws pertaining to the "War on Drugs" and the absurd amounts of money handed out to law enforcement to stem all those evildoers.

[billvon 2,396]

>sems ya both went a little over the top...By the time someone gets a
>prison sentence, they were far from a recreational user..

Well, no, that's the problem - there _are_ a lot of recreational drug users in prison, because it's illegal, and things like the 'three strikes' law do not allow flexibility in sentencing. Get caught smoking pot three times, and you get put away for a long time. (In California, this was recently amended to allow for probation/drug treatment for these people, which is a good idea - but it would be an even better idea to decriminalize it to begin with.)

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

>sems ya both went a little over the top...By the time someone gets a
>prison sentence, they were far from a recreational user..

Well, no, that's the problem - there _are_ a lot of recreational drug users in prison, because it's illegal, and things like the 'three strikes' law do not allow flexibility in sentencing. Get caught smoking pot three times, and you get put away for a long time. (In California, this was recently amended to allow for probation/drug treatment for these people, which is a good idea - but it would be an even better idea to decriminalize it to begin with.)

Here's a thought.

After you know something is illegal, and you have been caught doing that illegal thing twice and warned that you would go to JAIL FOR A LONG TIME, how about you don't do that thing anymore.

Seems pretty simple.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,396]

>After you know something is illegal, and you have been caught doing
>that illegal thing twice and warned that you would go to JAIL FOR A LONG
>TIME, how about you don't do that thing anymore.

Or -

continue doing what you want with your own body, legally.

Imagine, for example, that we replaced "drug possession" with "assault weapon possession" - and you owned a shotgun that was now classified as an assault weapon. Is it wiser to simply heed the law, or is it better to work to change it? Would you immediately turn your weapon over to police, and face the music, or might you simply hide your possession of it until the law was changed?

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I am almost is complete agreement with you. I am only hesitant about legalizing drugs. I have no problem with legalizing all drugs. I don't care what people put in their bodies. I just have issues with paying for welfare, Social Security, health insurance, etc. for someone to do so. If they screw themselves up on drugs, I have to pay the price. I don't like that. Make them responsible for themselves and I think they should do whatever they like so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. While marijuana is low risk, a huge number of users don't hold down jobs and drag the rest of us down. Clear that up and I think they should smoke their little hearts out when not at work.

BUT on the other hand I guess you are good with supporting the hundreds of thousands that cost us billions of dollars to house them in prisons for low level drug users who were never violent offenders before they were sent to prison to learn how to be violent thugs.

sems ya both went a little over the top...By the time someone gets a prison sentence, they were far from a recreational user...they were dealing big time!

legal or not, Welfare will be paying for dopers to keep their habit!

It all depends on the jurisdiction. There are a hell of a lot of people in our prisons all across the country based on laws pertaining to the "War on Drugs" and the absurd amounts of money handed out to law enforcement to stem all those evildoers.

For what it's worth, we need to either really amp-up the 'war on drugs', I mean get serious about it or just legalize all the illegal drugs. The way our government is going about it now, comes across more like the Keystone Cops. It's a sad joke!


Chuck

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

I am almost is complete agreement with you. I am only hesitant about legalizing drugs. I have no problem with legalizing all drugs. I don't care what people put in their bodies. I just have issues with paying for welfare, Social Security, health insurance, etc. for someone to do so. If they screw themselves up on drugs, I have to pay the price. I don't like that. Make them responsible for themselves and I think they should do whatever they like so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. While marijuana is low risk, a huge number of users don't hold down jobs and drag the rest of us down. Clear that up and I think they should smoke their little hearts out when not at work.

BUT on the other hand I guess you are good with supporting the hundreds of thousands that cost us billions of dollars to house them in prisons for low level drug users who were never violent offenders before they were sent to prison to learn how to be violent thugs.

That was a completely illogical leap of inference. If I am OK with legalizing drugs, why would I want to pay to house drug offenders?

And, having defended them in court, I can tell you that most jurisdictions have extensive programs and work very hard to keep from locking up users. I have had the DA offer probation to a six time felon with no negotiation at all. On possession charges, I have never seen anyone get locked up. Now, if the drugs are combined with firearms, burglary, etc.; sure.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

>After you know something is illegal, and you have been caught doing
>that illegal thing twice and warned that you would go to JAIL FOR A LONG
>TIME, how about you don't do that thing anymore.

Or -

continue doing what you want with your own body, legally.

Imagine, for example, that we replaced "drug possession" with "assault weapon possession" - and you owned a shotgun that was now classified as an assault weapon. Is it wiser to simply heed the law, or is it better to work to change it? Would you immediately turn your weapon over to police, and face the music, or might you simply hide your possession of it until the law was changed?

You mean, besides the obvious Apples and Oranges argument?

I offer a more relevant scenario.

Speed limit posted is 15mph in a school zone. You decide that it is better for you if you go 80mph through this area.

You get arrested, and it is explained to you in no uncertain terms that you will be charged with a felony.

Do you continue driving 80MPH until the law is changed, or do you follow the law?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wmw999 2,120]

How is your scenario more relevant?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

See, I would have thought Jerry Brown and dope smoking would have gone hand in hand........

californians are an interesting species

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants