Up until yesterday or the day before that I was an ardent supporter of the ballot initiative to legalize weed in CA. The first mark I made on my ballot was to tick a yes on Prop 19. But I might ask for a new ballot soon. There are a few reasons Prop 19 might not be better, and might even be worse, than the laws as they presently are.
First things first, Prop 19 can make it harder for medical marijuana users to get all the weed they need. It sets a limit of one ounce per person, and makes no exception for medical marijuana users, who would need more. And though it allows up to 25 sq. ft. of cultivation space for personal use, it also allows local governments to tax and restrict (or flat-out ban) it. This could be the end of marijuana collectives in some areas. Since 19 does not exempt medical marijuana from being taxed, weed might get too expensive for some medical marijuana users to afford, and since the limitation on cultivation space might forbid users from growing enough for themselves, some (or many) medical marijuana users would simply not have access to weed - despite the nominal "legalization" of it.
Though weed may be legal, the symptoms of prohibition may remain. If the taxes are high enough, and the restrictions draconian enough, there may still be a black market in weed. Earlier I was hoping that weed legalization could make it possible for us to get old-school weed - weed that isn't potent as fuck. Hopefully the one ounce per person limit and the 25 sq. ft. limit won't make it impossible to get it; but these resitrictions along with the restrictions of local governments may likely allow the high-potency strains that originated in prohibition to remain the dominant products in the market.
Of course, what's keeping me from getting a new ballot right now is that I haven't yet decided whether the nominal legality ofweed woud be better than weed being unavailable to some medical marijuana patients. I guess it comes down to how many people would be getting thrown in jail for weed use or possession now than after 19 passes. And I don't have any numbers on that.
Anyone who does have numbers on that is more than welcome to share them with me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Isaiah
- I am a part-time philosopher and a former immigration paralegal with a BA in philosophy and a paralegal certificate from UC San Diego.
I hope what these lawyers are saying about medical patients is not true, because as I understood it, there is no change in the rights of medical patients to grow and/or possess as much as is "reasonably necessary for their condition" (the language that is used in medical marijuana law).
ReplyDeleteThere are a few things I do know that it seems you may not understand. First, the one ounce limit is only on marijuana that one does NOT grow oneself--one may possess and transport as much as the 5x5 grow area produces, whatever its weight. Secondly, these limits are "floors", not "ceilings", as the guy from SSDP who is coordinating the Berkeley campaign puts it. In other words, local governments can set their own limit for the grow area as long as it exceeds or equals the 5x5 set by prop. 19, but cannot make that limit lower.
Also, why is reduced potency an important goal?
I hope they're right too. Thanks for telling me about them being floors and not ceilings.
ReplyDeleteAbout lower potency, I just think some weed is too damn strong, and it's just not pleasant when someone takes a few hits of something that turns out to have been a one hit wonder. Hopefully with legalization some kind of reliable labeling would be possible.