CA Prop 19: For Real Tokers?

We have some very exciting propositions this year in California, like Prop 19, which would make marijuana use legal. Surprising enough, this issue is backed by people you wouldn't expect, like moms and businessmen (and probably our state government that's very broke and wants to tax the hell out of marijuana). This proposition has some unlikely opponents as well, including some regular users. But generally speaking, this Proposition has also generated a lot of ads and sensation.

But, this proposition will not be a free for all for pot users (and those who just want to try it, and those who are "holding it for someone"). There will be regulations on the pot. First of all, only people 21 or over could legally buy and posses the marijuana (theoretically). You are only allowed to posses one ounce of marijuana for personal use, you can only smoke it on a private residence or a place licensed for on site marijuana consumption, and you can only grow it at home in a 25 square foot area for personal use. Also, the government will regulate it by taxes, where and when and how it can be sold, and how it can be transported.

Basically, the proposition will make marijuana a business, which goes against the history marijuana has played as going against "the man", taking a stand against government, and generally leading a bohemian or artistic lifestyle, which is why some "real" tokers (as opposed to posers who aren't anti-establishment) are angry with this bill. They, first of all, don't want marijuana to be a business and don't want it part of mainstream society. They are also angry because it will be taxed and the price will go drastically down, so they won't be able to make a profit. They are also afraid of loosing some exotic types of marijuana, since the business will be regulated. Now, there are also some people who think this is a good proposition in the mainstream. People think that if it's legalized we'll have less illegal gang activity and the government can control it. The government as well is thinking they can tax this and make some much needed revenue.

The effects of this prop could potentially be tremendous. First of all, if it becomes legal here it opens the door for other states to legalize it as well. And we cannot forget the tiny issue of the Supreme Court making it illegal to sell medical marijuana (let alone marijuana). One question we need to ask is, will, if this prop passes, the President enforce the Supreme Court's decision. Then we have the whole problem of more people will be smoking it if it's legal because the prices will drop (because it's readily available) and therefore it's cheaper to buy. Why do we want more people addicted to drugs? I don't get it. It seems like the government is profiting off people's pain and addictions. Sure cigarettes are legal, but the effects of cigarettes aren't as harmful as marijuana. Marijuana kills your brian cells and addiction to it can ruin your life. Another qualm I have with it is that there is no way the government can control every aspect of this. Marijuana use will be running rampant and people will be smoking while driving as well as in public (giving people contact highs). Sure, the police will try to control it, but they can't be everywhere at once. Do we really need more dead teens, mothers, children, and husbands because of high drivers? No. Also, this will bring even more drug dealers into our cities, and with it crime and fights. My last point, I think legalizing something that does so much harm to people's lives (as well as their bodies) should not be endorsed by the government.

`All in all, I very much disagree with Prop 19 and will definitely be voting NO on November 2. I believe Anya was pro prop 19, so she might have a rebuttal to this post

To check out a funny story of two journalists getting high because the city attorney (of LA) asked them to read here for part one and here for part two

Oh, and please vote, if you're able, on November 2. It's very important!

Prop 8 Has Been Ruled Unconstitutional

To the surprise of no one who's actually read the Constitution, a federal judge found California's Proposition 8, limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman, unconstitutional.  The 138 page opinion was the best court judgment I've ever read, and I read Supreme Court decisions for fun! This case has been dissected inside and out, both on this blog and on every other news site that exists, and I don't know that there's anything new I can say that hasn't been said by the incomparable Dahlia Lithwick (her article is here). So instead, I will show you a sample of tweets from my Twitter homepage on August 4.

@PauleyP: Prop 8 just overturned and ruled unconstitutional. For all my friends and their loved ones and those I don't know, Here's a hug. God Bless.
Actress Pauley Perrette, best known as Abby Sciuto on NCIS

@SpeakerPelosi: Very joyful court ruled against #prop8, it is a stain upon the CA Constitution. All families must be treated equally!
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

@GavinNewsom: The federal court has struck down Prop 8! A major victory for equal rights & for thousands of committed couples, families & friends in CA.
Mayor of San Francisco Gavin Newsom

@wilw: Congratulations to all my friends who can now get married again. It's disgraceful that there's even a question about your rights.
Actor Wil Wheton, best known as Wesley Crusher from Star Trek: The Next Generation

@marycmccormack: prop 8 overturned. It's about time California!
Actress Mary McCormack, best known as Mary Shannon on In Plain Sight

@JoseMolinaTV: Happy #GayDay, California! Way to fight H8 -- now let's keep fighting till the war is won.
Writer Jose Molina, who was worked on Firefly, Castle, Clone Wars, and Haven

@AllisonScag: RT @TheMichaelD1985:Equality has made a giant leap forward in the great state of California. Days when reason beats insanity are rare, soak it up people.
Actress Allison Scagliotti, best known as Claudia Donovan on Warehouse 13

I wonder if this says more about me and the people I follow than about the feelings of the population in general (most of these people are, after all, actors from rather liberal Hollywood, and the rest of the "people" are actually newspapers that wouldn't express an opinion). However, it was really nice to see such positive sentiments.

I'm also going to take this opportunity to beg you, no matter which side of the Prop 8 debate you fall on, to read the opinion. It takes 20 minutes and it's eloquent, moving, and above all, smart. Sooo well worth it!

My Primary Tuesday: Anya

While Ashley was off enjoying her newfound power to vote, I assigned myself a more difficult task: convincing our friend “Politics is the stupidest thing on the planet” Taya that she needed to register to vote -- preferably, to vote for the candidate I liked.  So I found her on AIM:



Anya: http://www.barbaraboxer.com/home
PLEASE CONSIDER VOTING FOR HER IN NOVEMBER
for me
consider it my vote
Taya:  I'm not voting...
Anya:  not even for me??????
Taya:  Sorry.
I don't want to register to vote if I don't know what I'm voting for.
Anya:  so read her website a little
or let me tell you
Taya:  I don't like politics...
Anya:  yeah but ........ she's your senator too!
Taya:  I know...
Anya:  don't you care about your LIFE?
Taya:  Of course I care about my life.
Anya:  well, who your senator is directly impacts your life
taxes, education, air quality, etc
Taya:  How?
Anya:  well without some of boxer's legislation the bush administration would’ve weakened the power the epa & groups like that would have to regulate the amount of arsenic in drinking water
don't you like not being poisoned?
Taya:  Jesus Christ, okay, I'll vote.
How do I register? >>
Anya:  I AM SO PROUD OF YOU
here you go : https://www.sos.ca.gov/nvrc/fedform/
Taya:  Yeah, yeah, whatever.

So, all right, maybe she just agreed to register because I’ve been hounding her about this since the 2008 election, way before she ever turned 18.  But now, I can say proudly that she is a registered Libertarian (well, once I cleared up the whole ‘yes, sweetie, Libertarians can vote for Democrats’ thing).  While I may not be old enough to vote, I convinced someone else to vote.  In my own small way, I helped further democracy . . . that is so cool to say! :)  Happy election night!

My Primary Tuesday: Ashley

I had a very eventful last Tuesday mainly because I was able to finally exercise my right to vote and wow did it feel good.

My voting experience was very simple on the actual day:

step 1: drive to polling place

step 2: check in and get ballot

step 3: mark ballot at correct table (CA has closed primaries so Republicans can only vote for Republicans and vice versa)

step 4: cast my vote and receive an "I Voted" sticker

step 5: walk out of the polling place proclaiming, "it was my first time" to the world with a giddy laugh and a smirk

A thing I found very funny about my particular voting experience was the amount of Republicans my district is lacking. Maybe it was just the time I went, but there weren't any Republicans voting when I was there. I walked in and there was a line for the Democratic tables and I just strolled over to the many open Republican tables and marked my ballot. I told this to Anya and she proudly pronounced (ohhhh...alliteration), "Sweetie, it's California, what did you expect?"

Although it seemed easy the day I went to cast my vote, there was some preparation for it. I had to register to vote which I did online. Once you do this, before an election it's smart to check to see if you really are registered. Sometimes they have problems with your registration and you just call them to clear it up. You should also receive a book in the mail with all the candidates running and on the back it has your polling place on it as well. It is wise to mark your book before you go to vote and then you can take some time and research the candidates, the measures, etc. so you make an informed decision (that's what I tried to do).

I know I may seem like the voting police or something, but if you are able to vote I really encourage you to. Voting ensures we have a government that follows America's ideals. It is a fundamental process to keep up democracy. We are so lucky and privileged we can vote for people and have influence over who's in power. So use your power and go register!

Republicans Running Against Boxer: Brief Synopsis

I would like to briefly talk about the Republican candidates running against Barbra Boxer for the Senatorial election in California. I have decided to talk about their views on the economy as well as their history and will post the links to their campaign pages so you can learn more about these qualified candidates.

Tom Campbell: He was a Congressman, state budget director, law school professor, economist and the nominee in 2000. He believes in reducing our spending so we don’t cause inflation, which may hit after there are more jobs and people start spending more money. He was one of six Republicans to vote against the bill that reversed the Glass-Stengel act because he feared the merger of investment and commercial banks would create too-big-to-fail institutions that the government would have to bail out if there was failure (guess he was right).
Website: http://www.campbell.org/ideas.

Chuck DeVore: He is a state assemblyman and was an Irvine city commissioner and aerospace executive. He follows the basic platform of the Republican Party and believes the government should let businesses create jobs and not heavily tax them. He is a member of the Tea Party (who believes in small government and lower taxes) and seems the most “Republican” out of all the Republican candidates, which doesn’t seem to be helping him in the polls.
Website: http://chuckdevore.com/n/issues/.

Carly Fiorina: She was CEO of Hewlett Packard and the 2008 McCain Campaign adviser. She proposes focusing on small businesses and on cutting their taxes to help create jobs and fix the economy. She also wants to address the debt. She is endorsed by Sarah Palin which might be a plus to the more grassroots Republicans but a big minus to the more liberal Republicans (which seems to be a lot of the Republicans in California) and she seems to me, politically, the least qualified out of the three.
Website: http://www.carlyforcalifornia.com/

I think I would endorse DeVore because even though he is too conservative for my taste his economic ideals match up with mine, he’s experienced, and he seems like the best out of the three. I feel like he could be the next Reagan of California (or at least that’s what people are calling him. . .)

On a side note: I am encouraging all of the people of voting age to please register and get involved in picking the people who hold power and who change our lives. I know this sounds cheesy, but your votes really DO count. To make it really easy for you: http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_register.html?source=rtv.com-homegraphic. Please Vote!

AND . . . the other candidates for this election and others: http://www.politics1.com/ca.htm

"Only Loyal Love Can Bring You Happiness"

Translation: Why on Earth do we need a federal court to tell us that denying two mature, consenting adults who are in a committed, monogamous relationship a marriage license is unconstitutional?  Or, at the very least, against traditional American values such as liberty & justice for all (Pledge of Allegiance) and equality of opportunity.
Perry v. Schwarzeneggerbegan in federal court today, launching what is sure to be one of the most high-profile cases of the year, if not forever (okay, maybe that's an exaggeration.  But still).  No matter what, this is going to be a fascinating case, for several reasons.

First, neither of the defendants in the case actually wants to defend Proposition 8.  Attorney General Jerry Brown is a vocal opposer of Prop 8.  Even Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger supports the lawsuit!  Which leaves the plaintiffs fighting against . . . the original proponents of Prop 8, Dennis Hollingsworth et al.

Second, even pro-gay-marriage groups are uncertain if this case is the best way to proceed.  Many think it's too soon, that risking defeat now risks making defeat permanent.  I disagree.  I think there couldn't be a better time.  This is such a prevalent issue in society right now, and especially after the recent defeats in New Jersey and New York, we need this case more than ever.

But on to the issue itself.  Was prop 8 legal?  Welllllllll legal in the sense that its supporters went about putting it on the ballot properly.  Legal in the sense that it denies marriage to a segment of the population?  I say no.  Besides my own personal beliefs, I believe there's plenty of precedent to back me up here.

1. The Constitution.  The Holy Grail of American politics, written by the founders to protect everyone from the tyranny of the majority.  Back then, "majority" meant "uneducated, rabble-rousing farmers", and "tyranny" was "acting like George III of England, or really just any dictator in general".  'Course, this is different.  But I see a majority (the people who voted 'yes' on Prop 8) and I see tyranny (denying couples the right to marry).  Am I missing something here?  Or is Prop 8 very contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution?
2. 14th Amendment, Part 1.  I know that only a ridiculously small percentage of Americans have even a passing knowledge of the Constitution, so let us help you out here.  The 14th Amendment states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".  There's more, but this is the part I want to talk about here.   Privileges and immunities is a very broad term. What these really are have not been specifically enumerated in the Constitution, however the Supreme Court can rule if a certain right or privilege falls under this clause. The Court has done this for the right to acquire and retain property, the right of assembly, and habeus corpus. So, why not marriage?  And if marriage, why not gay marriage?  The anti-Prop 8 lawyers might hesitate to use this clause to support their arguments, because they would first have to prove that it applied to marriage.  But in my view, anyone with a grain of sense understands that marriage -- in any form -- is a fundamental right.  Even if you want to get technical an say that a marriage licence, like, say, a driver's licence is a privilege and not a right . . . guess what!  Privileges are still protected by this clause!
3. 14th Amendment, Part 2.  Moving on through section 1 of the 14th amendment, we find that "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".  Well, the California Supreme Court has decided that Prop 8 had enough "due process" behind it to deny people liberty (freedom to marry).  But I believe that what they did not take into account is that Prop 8 is denying equal protection to gay couples . . . and equal protection cannot be taken away, even by due process.  Domestic partnerships are not the same as marriages, they are only "almost equivalent" to them (from wikipedia).  Yet they are the only option available to gay couples in some states; in others, they are denied even that.
4. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.  The historic Supreme Court ruling that contended that the "separate but equal" doctrine established by Plessy v. Ferguson was unconstitutional.  Civil unions give same-sex couples some (or all) of the benefits that opposite-sex couples have.  While that is progress . . . separate but equal is not equal.  Remember those restrooms that said "whites only" and "blacks only"?   Well, it's like marriage has a big sign hanging off it that says "opposite sex couples only" and civil unions have a big sign that says "same sex couples only".  While thats not technically true, because some civil unions are open to heterosexual couples, I think you get my point.
5. Separation of Church and State.  The supporters of Prop 8 have made no secret that their religion is one of the main reasons they oppose gay marriage.  News flash, guys: no one's trying to tell you you have to like gay marriage.  No one's trying to tell you that gay marriage "must" be taught in schools.  No one is trying to tell priests that they have to marry gay couples, if they don't want to.  Marriage is a civil institution, as well as a religious one.  Open your eyes, open your minds, stop spreading lies.
6. The Futility of the "Tradition" Argument.  Right, so this one isn't a strictly legal argument.  But let me tell you some other things that have been justified by their being "tradition".  Slavery.  Denying women the right to vote.  Heck, denying women any rights.  The ban on interracial marriages.  To some extent, the ban on abortions.  And now, the ban on gay marriages. Tradition has been used to justify denying so many people civil rights that it shouldn't really come as a surprise that gay couples are next on the list.  But look around you.  Slavery is gone, women have equal rights, no one is allowed to deny a mixed-race couple a marriage licence, and abortion is legal.  Precedent?  I think so.  I hope so.
7. And in the end, shouldn't the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution have made gay marriage legal everywhere after Massachusetts legalized it in 2004?  I admit that mine and Ashley's understanding of that particular clause is less than perfect, so if anyone has any better idea, please share!

Maybe I'm wishfully oversimplifying everything.  Maybe I still have those stars in my eyes that I thought the 2008 election and the healthcare debate had cured me of.  I vividly remember the day when I learned the California Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.  I was swimming in my neighbor's pool, my mom was reading the newspaper.  When she told me, my response was "well, duh."  But when I look at the history of our country, I just find it ridiculous, and totally counter to our most cherished ideals that something as fundamental as two people's right to get married is being put to a majority vote.

Ultimately, Jerry Brown has said it best: "Proposition 8 violates constitutionally protected liberties. There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights.  If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it's not a fundamental liberty."

Further reading:

• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122447805&ft=1&f=1001
• http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/us/12prop8.html?src=twt&twt=nytimes
• http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-prop-8-12-2010jan12,0,7701011.story
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._schwarzenegger

And yes, I have (rather) shamelessly cribbed the title quote from Sinead O'Connor's song "What Doesn't Belong to Me".  Credit where credit is due . . . it's a great song!