PROP 19, YOU DECIDE: STEREOTYPICAL STONER NONSENSE?
Potheads perpetuate problems pertaining to Proposition 19, the California ballot initiative to legalize marijuana for adults over the age of 21 years old.

I have been hearing a lot of stereotypical stoner statements that simply make no sense when it comes to prop 19. Below I will examine some of the strangest arguments I have heard cannabis-consumers make against this ballot initiative and explain why these arguments fall short against critical analysis and facts.

This is a very tongue-in-cheek article that does not mean to offend those who identify as stoners or potheads or those who use cannabis. I do not mean to imply that those who consume cannabis on a regular basis (whether for medical or recreational reasons) are inherently stupid, lazy, illogical, inactive or in any way fitting of the archetypal stoner stereotype.

I am simply making fun of the arguments that make no sense to me.
I consume cannabis recurrently to comfort my chronic pain. And I do not believe my consumption of cannabis interferes with my ability to think critically or damage my intellect in any way. In fact, UCLA tested my IQ and found that I have superior intelligence while I was ??under the influence? of this herb.

I encourage all citizens (cannabis consumers and non-consumers) to just think critically about prop19 and the arguments made for and against it. And then vote on (or before) November 2, 1020. And have a little fun at the sake of the stoner stereotypes.

Prop 19 is TOO Prohibiting
NOTHING is more prohibiting than PROHIBITION, duh!

Anyone who argues against prop 19 because it is too prohibitive does not fully understand that anything is less prohibitive than full PROHIBITION.

The word prohibitive is derived from the same root word as prohibition which is a decree that prohibits something like cannabis. Right now, under California state law, we have a decree (or law) that prohibits cannabis in almost all circumstances that are not related to medical (and even some medical uses are still prohibited).

If prop 19 is passed, we will have a decree/law that lifts a lot of prohibitions from cannabis for not only medical use but also adult-responsible use. How is that too prohibitive?

I do not understand why a cannabis consumer would choose to keep a more prohibitive law in place when they could replace it with a less prohibitive law. Some think Prop 19 does not go far enough so they would rather keep current prohibitive laws. Where is the logic in that?

Please, someone explain to me this stoner logic.

Prop 19 hurts patients
The other argument I keep hearing is prop 19 will strip medical cannabis patients of their current rights.

I??ve read many arguments stating this but none of them make much sense after looking at the language of prop 19.

??Medical? is mentioned at least twice in the purposes and proposition also mentions current H&S Codes (twice) which gives medical cannabis patients their rights.

Prop 19 specifically states:
Purpose #6: "6. Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes."

How on earth is a judge going to believe taking away medical cannabis patients rights is going to fulfill the purpose of this law to ??provide easier, safer access? to medical cannabis?

and

Purpose #12: "Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes"

Wouldn??t any reduction in availability of cannabis for medical purposes go against the purpose of the proposition?

In addition to the text mention ??medical? it also mention the specific Health & Safety code of the current medical cannabis laws, at the end of Purpose #7 states: "...except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9."

Purpose #8 says the same thing.

Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9 EQUALS the current medical cannabis laws (prop 215, SB410, etc).

And

Do not forget that Prop 215 itself has a protection written into. One of its purposes is:
"(C) To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana."


I do NOT see how a judge could conclude a vote for Prop19 is a vote against Prop 215.

Prop 19 authors are greedy and want to hurt patients
The above argument is often associated with the implied argument that the authors of Prop 19 want to hurt patients for money.

This argument goes against everything I??ve come to know about the people involved with the initiative.

I do not really know Richard Lee and I've only met him once at a recent prop 19 meeting in LA. But I do know Jeff Jones and his new wife Dale Clare. Both of whom are very involved in Prop19.

Both of Jeff and Dale are patients themselves. I know them for the better part of 3 years. I met them because our MEDICAL cannabis activism had us cross paths here in LA.

Both of them were very helpful and supportive of me and my efforts to help Charles C. Lynch. They offered advice, hands-on help, and meeting space at the LA Patient ID Center. They came to rallies, posted information on the internet, showed up to court support and made announce during OU classes about Charlie and his case.

They also often played videos about Charlie during their breaks at OU, so students could learn more about him and his federal case. I've interacted with Jeff and Dale hundreds of times on other advocacy projects, meetings, and efforts.

NOTHING in my entire experience with Jeff or Dale makes me think that they are greedy or out to hurt patients.

In fact, Jeff Jones told me himself that Prop19 was designed to my MEDICAL cannabis patients the VIPs. It was designed to get the cops off our aching backs and to hopefully create more compassionate solutions for those of us living with life-altering medical conditions.

I don't buy the arguments against the authors of prop 19 because they do not make sense to me when compared to my own personal experience.

An Ounce is NOT enough
Really? I??ve been a cannabis patient for over 3 years now. I consume cannabis on a daily basis. Thus far, I have never had to carry around more than an ounce of cannabis with me anywhere. I do not understand why anyone would need to carry around more than an ounce of cannabis (outside their home) for personal recreational use.

I also hear medical cannabis patients worry that they will not be able to carry around as much as they medical need if prop 19 passes. Again, I am not buying the argument that prop 19 supersedes prop 215, so this should be a non-issue.

I assume many people who are worried about an ounce not being enough aren??t worried about their own personal use of cannabis but the sales of cannabis for personal gain from the sales of this controlled substance.
This is the underground mentality of prohibition. It??s going to take some people a long time to shake the restrictive chains of prohibition off their minds. People are so used to dealing with cannabis in the unregulated market, it??s shocking for them to consider dealing with it in the above-ground market Prop 19 aims to create.

Local governments will decide
Anyone who is afraid of "local" governments regulating cannabis doesn't understand that our governments are supposed to be "for the people by the people". Nor do they seem to take their civic duties and responsibilities seriously.

I, for one, look forward to local governments deciding how cannabis will be sold, taxed, controlled, and regulated.

Why?

Because I am a civically engaged citizen who has gone to city council meetings, county board of supervisor meetings, met with all three of my federal legislators and my state Assemblyman over the issue of MEDICAL cannabis.

I look forward to being a part of the process which will determine how my city and county will handle the sales of cannabis. And so should EVERY citizens.

The beauty of Prop19 is it allows YOU TO DECIDE what happens in your community when it comes to cannabis.

NO LONGER do the drug dealers, cartels or underground market get to decide.

We the people get to establish safe and affordable distribution of cannabis for the benefit of your community and her people.

I can understand why some would be worried of local governments, they must not vote regularly, participate in local governmental affairs, or take an active role in the important issues that face our communities regarding cannabis.

Of course it will turn out badly if we all stay home and do nothing. The answer is to DO SOMETHING! Get involved. Be heard.

Take the control out of the hands of drug dealers and put it back in the hands of our communities.

What about the 18-20 year olds?
Technically, Californians become adults when they turn 18 years old. They have most of the rights of other adults, except they cannot legally drink alcohol until they are at least 21 years old. And if Prop 19 passes, healthy people under the age of 21 would not be allow to legally consume cannabis.
That is the exact same way it is now.

The major difference is when prop 19 passes adults over the age of 21 years old will have additional freedoms they do not current have now. The authors of prop 19 wanted to include 18 year olds but were warned that such a bill was less likely to pass, so they made a compromise.

I hear some people worry about patients under the age of 21 years old but again, as far as I can tell, patients?? rights remain the same under prop 19. So a patient of ANY age who has a doctor??s recommendation is protected by ??medical? cannabis laws.

If there happens to be a minor under 21 years old using cannabis as medicine but who does not have a doctor??s recommendation, that is an issue for the medical cannabis community to address. Obviously that young does not have ??safe and affordable? access to medical cannabis that we have all be working so hard to provide. Do not blame that shortcoming on prop 19 but our own medical efforts.

I see NO reason why an age limit of 21 years old should stop anyone from voting to legalize cannabis in California. If it turns out to be such a problem, we can always go back and draft a ballot initiative to include 18-20 year olds in the future if we get enough public support after prop 19 passes.

Jack Herer was against Prop 19
Again this Jack-was-against-it argument is something that can never be proven with any certainty. The only things that can be stated on this topic are opinions. It seems a little silly to argue about what a deceased advocate would or would not say or do.

Jack's family came out in support of Prop19 and said they believe Jack would have also. So have some of Jack??s friends. However, some of Jack??s friends also said they believe he would not support prop 19 even after what other friends and his family has said.

I think each person making these claims about what Jack would or would not say or do are really just expressing their opinion about how they feel (and not so much on what Jack would do or say if he actually still was with us).

These are some of the silly arguments I have seen and heard people make against prop 19. Are they valid? You decide.