The surprise is that reducing cartel violence was the least of it. I’m not sure if there are people who live in denial (it seems that there are, given the vote turnout), but the fact is that marijuana is easy to acquire legal or illegal. So, proposition 19 doesn’t really have anything to do with the volume of abuse, given that those who currently want to smoke marijuana already do. Furthermore, I don’t think one can really make the case for a rise in the volume of usage in the case of legalization, because marijuana is already so proliferate that it is already well advertised and relatively risk-free in regards to use (you know, as long as you’re not smoking on the street).
The revenue the state would have gained from any tax on marijuana would have been marginal as compared to the revenue accessible by other means, but it was revenue that was comparably easy to access, because all marijuana supporters preferred legalization in exchange for taxes (prices would have still fallen and quality would have still increased, despite the tax).
Honestly, there was no reason to oppose the proposition. Turning it down is a lose-lose situation.
But, I mean, after the prop 8 fiasco, what were we really to expect?
The reason a lot of growers were against it was because they feared competition, plain and simple. they currently have a quasi-monopoly on the production and sale of marijuana and legalizing it would have allowed the “big corporations” to produce it more efficiently, thus driving them out of business. of course, let thousands of people rot in jail for a non-violent crime just so you can make a buck by limiting competition. not to mention the proliferation of gang violence related to prohibition.
Sieben wrote the following post at Wed, Nov 3 2010 10:01 PM:
I guess you should have voted so that it could have been ~6999 votes and 1/7000 less of a joke.
Having to vote for it was the joke. I tried to bait people on Facebook by talking about how this measure failed and that democracy sucks. Not even my most statist friends responded, well, either that or they already blocked me from their feeds hah.
Ty Brian. I see why I was confused now. I thought you guys were referring (in the latter part of the thread) to prop 19 in cali, but I see you meant the Med MJ bill in AZ.
Ty Brian. I see why I was confused now. I thought you guys were referring (in the latter part of the thread) to prop 19 in cali, but I see you meant the Med MJ bill in AZ.
Oh, do you mean the government rent-seeking or pharmaceutical companies and all? We were talking about Prop 19 in class last week, and how we hoped that pot doesn’t become like the current cigarettes with glass/etc. in them.
It’s already happening. A man in Oakland purchased some property 15 years ago, and he also was one of the key supporters of a new law in Oakland. It allowed for very large cannabis “factories.” He will probably be one of the only factories due to zoning laws and other ilk. This is how you know the cannabis industry is here to stay, there’s rent-seeking