Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Oh those lamentable Californians.....

rated by 0 users
This post has 23 Replies | 6 Followers

Not Ranked
Male
Posts 76
Points 1,465
Andius Posted: Wed, Nov 3 2010 1:20 AM

From this one State alone, it can be seen that Liberals still have much work to do in the United States.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/3/california-voters-reject-marijuana-legalization/

 

No amount of Cartel violence will ever learn this people methinks.

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,434
Points 29,210

Right now our Arizona medical marijuana proposition is losing by .5%. It really shows the problems with democracy.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,687
Points 48,995

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?

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 90
Points 1,480

because all marijuana supporters preferred legalization in exchange for taxes (prices would have still fallen and quality would have still increased, despite the tax).

 

Actually, quite a few growers and members of the community disliked the bill for a number of reasons.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,434
Points 29,210

Actually, quite a few growers and members of the community disliked the bill for a number of reasons.

And the reasons were...

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,899
Points 37,230

Profits will go down.  Greedy capitalist swine no

(jk wink)

In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!

~Peter Kropotkin

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 266
Points 4,040

Well...on a positive note it was close. The possibility of such a prop passing gets greater and greater each day...

 

I believe the percentages were 53% to 46%

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 69
Points 1,050
J.R.M. replied on Wed, Nov 3 2010 1:47 PM

And the reasons were...

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.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 247
Points 4,415

I'm in AZ too, voted for this prop, I hope it passes!

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 80
Points 1,530

It lost by 150 thousand votes, there's at least that many pot-heads who were probably to stoned to actually vote.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,434
Points 29,210

I'm in AZ too, voted for this prop, I hope it passes!

It lost by .5% in the end. ~7,000 votes. What a joke.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Wed, Nov 3 2010 11:01 PM

I guess you should have voted so that it could have been ~6999 votes and 1/7000 less of a joke.

Banned
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 266
Points 4,040

 

Brian:

I'm in AZ too, voted for this prop, I hope it passes!

It lost by .5% in the end. ~7,000 votes. What a joke.

 

Where did you find that out? Last I saw it was a 500,000 difference in the vote.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,434
Points 29,210

Where did you find that out? Last I saw it was a 500,000 difference in the vote.

Right heeeyur.

EDIT: Third from the bottom.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 247
Points 4,415

 

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.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 266
Points 4,040

Brian:

Where did you find that out? Last I saw it was a 500,000 difference in the vote.

Right heeeyur.

EDIT: Third from the bottom.

 

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. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 266
Points 4,040

 

Brian:

Where did you find that out? Last I saw it was a 500,000 difference in the vote.

Right heeeyur.

EDIT: Third from the bottom.

 

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. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 90
Points 1,480

And the reasons were...

 

Some were truly worried about rent-seeking in the cannabis industry.

 

Others were, as mentioned above, greedy capitalist swine.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,434
Points 29,210

Some were truly worried about rent-seeking in the cannabis industry.

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.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 90
Points 1,480

Both really.

 

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 :P

 

http://www.hempembassy.net/forums/Medical-Cannabis/Oakland-Approves-Factory-Farms-For-Medical-Marijuana/8,980,1520,0,0,0,0

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 247
Points 4,415

Brian according to this aricle (and others):

 

http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/11/13/2629616/nation-and-world-medical-marijuana.html

The medical marijuana bill PASSED in AZ. I guess I was confused to see it because I already saw other media articles stating it lost by the amount you also said it did. This is unheard of.. the media giving us incorrect information!

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,434
Points 29,210

Haha, yeah! It was losing by a lot, and then it got down to the decimal points, and finally it took ahead. I watched it go from -1,000 votes to +6,000 votes with the simple hit of the 'refresh' button last night. It was an amazing feeling.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 836
Points 15,370
abskebabs replied on Sun, Nov 14 2010 5:30 AM

Hmm.. If small growers and medical marjuana dispensers were worried about losing their quasi-monopoly and customers, then why wouldn't it make sense for some large companies to bankroll the legalisation campaign(admittedly, they'd have to sidestep the potential PR problem this could raise. I have no doubts "liberals" would reverse their drug stance immediately if they figured businesses could make money from legalisation).

"When the King is far the people are happy."  Chinese proverb

For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:

"Where there are problems there is life."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Sun, Nov 14 2010 9:18 AM

^the expected profit of large marijuana companies is zero :)

Banned
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (24 items) | RSS