digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at laist.com

California to Legalize Weed for Everyone

laist.com — With enough signatures, Californians could be voting to legalize marijuana in the upcoming November election. They need 694,354 signatures by September, 5, 2008. It's totally do-able. Its been over a decade since Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, was passed with over 5 million votes in favor.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ryanicus, on 06/30/2008, -27/+814W00t! I think I'm going to invest in some fast food chain stocks.
    • dafragsta, on 07/01/2008, -2/+41Just get Pepsico. That includes all pepsi, mountain dew, and frito lay products.
      • fyngyrz, on 07/01/2008, -1/+60Keep in mind that the federal government has twisted the constitution's commerce clause around so that they (ridiculously) claim it allows them to override virtually any state law. They have already used this sophist rationale to arrest people operating legitimately under California's present medical marijuana laws; there is no reason at this time to assume they won't do the same in a situation where marijuana is generally legal.

        The feds have no legitimate authority for this behavior, however, that no longer concerns them. They operate strictly under the aegis of power these days.
      • thcobbs, on 07/01/2008, -5/+36What about Funions?!?!?!?

        YEAH! Funions!
      • ChildeRoland420, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4If we can combine this law with some recent court rulings regarding county sheriffs, there could be some real progress towards liberty in this country.
      • diggduggDOOM, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4"Funyuns"
      • d3matt, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6^ Funions are a frito-lay product...
      • Spudster, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8Even John McCain has denounced the interference of the federal government into state marijuana laws, so it's looking like after Bush is out of power, no matter who becomes President, they will respect state marijuana laws.
      • shondell, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3the Funyuns with the hot Cheeto flavoring!
      • saisumimen, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Funyuns are the real deal, "Funions" are the cheap knockoff.
    • digitizit, on 07/01/2008, -1/+56Nah, just buy a bunch of Little Debbie cakes and open a stand on the side of the road. You'll make LOADS more money but without the overhead.
      • calcio0fan, on 07/02/2008, -2/+1One better way he could make lots of money without the overhead in this scenario is to BUY STOCK
    • 5urr3al5am, on 07/01/2008, -35/+6why are people so dumb?
      • revjustin2, on 07/01/2008, -1/+21I think you can answer your own question on that one, my friend.
      • 5urr3al5am, on 07/01/2008, -20/+1True.. It's easy.. I just take a look at all of these pot head comments and the answer is right there
      • Corinne716, on 07/01/2008, -0/+16Whoa. There's a huge difference between a pot head and someone who thinks pot should be legalized. I've only been high a handful of times and it's been years since the last time, but I think California has the right idea. People who are high off pot are not nearly as reckless or dangerous as people who drink. You'll be hard pressed to find a fight caused by too much pot.
      • starsarebent, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7Will this mean it'd be illegal to test for it and/or discriminate against it in the work place? Because if it does.. I'm a very happy man.

        @Corinne> I totally agree. However, there'd have to be a legal limit set for a DUI. I know my driving was much worse when I used to smoke.

        @ 5urr3al5am> You're very misinformed by mindless propaganda. Get your own opinion, not those of some commercial seen on TV. Even my mother, an extremely conservative christian woman who has been as sober as a nun since long before I was born, thinks pot should be legalized. She also believes that the drinking age should be 18.

        "If you're old enough to fight and die for your country, you should be able to sit and have a beer during a football game." says she.
      • humperdeath, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3My yard is full of weeds. Hope I dont get a summons for it.
    • yohnstoppable, on 07/01/2008, -1/+18I'm investing in Capri Sun and Funyons
      • volvinator, on 07/01/2008, -5/+3Dugg for first mention of Funyons on digg that I have ever seen.
      • Duggan360, on 07/01/2008, -4/+1They ain't yo' Funyons, They's Foxy's Funyons!
      • Loco801, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1no dude its all about the munchies chips
      • damntourists, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2oh my god dude, i forgot about those... thanks for reminding me! brb!
    • gn0stik, on 07/01/2008, -4/+3Not so fast. The governator vetoed legalizing the farming of industrial hemp. This is quite pointless, unless the goal is to show the will of the people. Beyond that, it will just get vetoed like the hemp bill did.
      • seeker11, on 07/01/2008, -0/+24this isn't a bill this is a proposition on the ballot. I don't think he can do anything about this.
      • gn0stik, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4Well then, as long as it covers industrial hemp, i'm all for it.
    • cheesehead, on 07/01/2008, -2/+10So the state with the most private prisons is going to legalize pot. I don't think so.
      • WiseWeasel, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4It's also the state with the highest population by far, so you're not saying much...
      • mouthbreether, on 07/01/2008, -6/+2there's plenty of mexican immigrants to fill the gap
    • poopoo, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Besides this one article there is ZERO information on this ballot initiative. As far as I can tell there isn't even an effort to get signatures. I wouldn't worry about the Governor vetoing this since it will never make it on the ballot without signatures. The ballot Proponent didn't even leave contact information.
      • alphasixtyone, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1ive run into these guys trying to collect signatures for years. I dont think this is a new story, i just assumed that they were never able to get enough.
      • madpie, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2I actually tried contacting the author -- Jack Herer, the "emperor of hemp" -- because I wanted to do an interview with him about the initiative. I got nowhere. It's frustrating, I think this initiative could easily succeed if there were better organizing. People are tired of the moronic policy of drug prohibition, especially when it comes to marijuana.
      • staplemaniac, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Dude...signatures? wait...wait....what?
    • Jo9100, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1MCD
    • nonfatmilk, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0I don't know about you guys, but I'm investing in Doritos and Skittles yafeel? Taste the rainbow
    • djasshat, on 07/01/2008, -6/+6nice, 420 diggs right now.
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/01/2008, -6/+2Lets see how long we can keep the diggs at 420.
    • CougarDavis, on 07/01/2008, -11/+4Am I the only person here who thinks that we should NOT legalize that crap?
      • ryanicus, on 07/01/2008, -0/+14Yes I think you're the only one.
      • damntourists, on 07/01/2008, -0/+8probably. i'd like to see some good reasons why not, supported by some sound evidence for your stance.
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4I'm sure you think you have a great reason why marijuana should be illegal, but in actuality it really doesn't cause any more harm than any of the other activities our freedoms allow.

        I'm sure you would not appreciate other people trying to make something you enjoyed eating, drinking, or doing in the privacy of your home illegal simply because they did not themselves happen to enjoy it.
    • sylvok, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Cheatos
    • damntourists, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3im afraid most stoners are too paranoid to go out on the road and drive to get fast food :(
      • marx2k, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2*shrug* I drive better when high.
      • damntourists, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1probably because you're paranoid of making a mistake
    • LightSpeed4, on 07/01/2008, -11/+4Apparently, there are no adults whatsoever who bother to post on Digg. Here's the thing: a bunch of morons starting a petition is hardly the same thing as "CALFORNA LEGIZZEZ TEH POT 4 EVERYWON!!!1111eleventy". Second of all, there's not a single person over the age (or I.Q.) of 26 that still smokes pot.
      • TH3W1R3D, on 07/01/2008, -3/+8I know a bunch of people over 26 that still smoke pot.
      • Skeith3294, on 07/01/2008, -4/+7You should try to get to know some people outside of your church group.

        Actually, I take that back, I guarantee there are people in your church group that smoke marijuana, they are just afraid to admit it.
      • oninbonin, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2Typical hater. I know tons of people who are over 26 who smoke pot. Hell ***** Willie Nelson is old as ***** and smokes pot what the ***** crawled up yer ass you *****? "First of all blah blah whine cry ." "Second of all Waaah boo hoo!" Shut your ***** piehole. I'm a successful person and I smoke. You must've had a bad experience with it or something who knows, who the ***** cares? Apparently I do enough to write back but you're more immature writing your *****. If they legalize it they can tax the ***** out of it and will generate billions of dollars..what, if you are in America then you must hate your country because you don't want to see revenue generated..
      • nonfatmilk, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1Research some statistics brotha! I believe you will find yourself to be mistaken
    • kevin044, on 07/02/2008, -3/+1what is wOOt?
  • jamesey, on 06/30/2008, -56/+755The most progressive state in the union steps it up a notch. Good job California
    • Jforsyth89, on 07/01/2008, -13/+52What about Massachusetts? We beat California in allowing gay marriages!

      And there was also that bill that Barney Frank sponsored, which would decriminalize marijuana
      • cougar618, on 07/01/2008, -17/+5Hence the term 'Massachusetts Liberal'
      • altgeeky1, on 07/01/2008, -15/+4And Mass beat CA with wider health coverage!
        Not perfect, but it's a measured improvement...

        (although... I don't think that's possible to repeat the MA insurance experiment in CA, given millions of illegal aliens who don't pay income tax, state would go broke.. For a lot of states, this can only happen at the national level or not at all.)
      • kickasspodcast, on 07/01/2008, -11/+5Actually, Connecticut 'beat' you both. Instead of a judicial ruling, our civil union laws were legislated and signed into law by our Republican Gov. Go figure.

        WTF does this has to do with herb tho?
      • SHv2, on 07/01/2008, -6/+13It's termed Masshole, not Massachusetts Liberal.
      • DearSergio, on 07/01/2008, -2/+19Haha! I'm proud to be a Masshole! Mass represent on Digg!
      • RealHyperX, on 07/01/2008, -30/+3Gay marriages? ***** pedos
      • xenuxenuts, on 07/01/2008, -2/+20realhyperx, let's leave your childhood experiments out of it.
      • scimitar91, on 07/01/2008, -11/+2liberal != gay
      • banana234, on 07/01/2008, -2/+7Hey, Vermont had civil unions first. We win the gay marriage pissing competition
      • bunki8, on 07/01/2008, -1/+7Civil Union != Marraige. Separate but equal doesn't work.
      • springboks, on 07/01/2008, -1/+9Well Californians will smoke pot at their gay marriages. Beat that Massachusetts.
      • makenshin, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Decriminalization is far from legalization though. Decriminalization only solves a small portion of the problems caused by drug prohibition. Check out Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP [I've seen them mentioned on digg in the past]):
        http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php
    • phoenixshard, on 07/01/2008, -16/+9Doesn't really matter what state law any state passes on legalizing pot. Until the feds decide to do it, its still illegal, fed law trumps state law. Only thing that the state can really do is just not enforce the fed law. On pot, its a stupid law to have, but its still there, so no matter what California decides to do with it, its still illegal.
      • anothrnbdy, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1Wrong. The constitution provides no basis for regulating or restricting substances for the federal government, which then, by the 10th amendment, means it is a power reserved for the states themselves. The only thing the Constitution provides for the federal government is the ability to regulate interstate trade and the feds have taken a very wide interpretation of that. The Supreme Court could easily strike it down.
      • norm7, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1if California legalizes pot, it will force a big (and drawn-out) showdown on pot, one that will probably end with a relaxing of marijuana laws, especially if Obama wins. of course, the thing is... California probably won't legalize pot yet, at least not for another 10 years or so (unfortunately)
      • PeppermintPig, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Yeah, Abraham Lincoln proved that.

        If a federal agent acts against the interests of the state and arrests people for possession or use of marijuana while seizing their property, that's effectively kidnapping and theft.

        State police should support its residents.
    • kuantan97, on 07/01/2008, -8/+12A tad ironic that you would link "progressivism" with anti-prohibition:

      http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/prog ...
      • norm7, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2that was the moralist era of progressivism, obsessed with sexual purity, cleanliness, and just overall an attitude of middle-class meddling with the affairs of "the poor" (whoever they decided was poor)

        the modern equivalent of that can be found in things like prohibition (still... they just never learn, it seems) and anti-gay marriage laws (though it's certainly undergone a hell of a transformation since then)

      • kuantan97, on 07/01/2008, -4/+1Prohibition and progressivism are inseparable. If it is not alcohol or drugs of yesteryear, it is cigarettes and trans-fats of today.

        The one common thread of progressivism, from its early days to today, is the belief in using the state to create a more perfect man, a perfect society.

        It might be argued that progressivism has been the single most destructive--i.e. state aggrandizing--force in US history--US entry into WWI, the nanny state, the Federal Reserve, the income tax amendment. These are some of the more notable accomplishments of the "progressive" movement.

        All hail the progressives.
    • Ymeg, on 07/01/2008, -2/+15It's sad when it's considered so "progressive" and in the future.

      Every state should allow this much freedom.
      • tyboulder, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Even worse when pundits tie the word "progressive" to a "liberal agenda." The old guard will eventually die off and things will evolve. Just look at the social and environmental practices in place in Western Europe, esp. Northern Europe. A lot of that is 10 to 15 years off in America. A working universal health care, strict rules on packaging and waste that seem novel here but were in place long ago across the pond. I've read that you can take your BMW back to the factory at the end of its life and they must disassemble the car and recycle some large percentage of it.
    • Midtowner, on 07/01/2008, -2/+18"Progressive" judges are the ones who (at FDR's behest) expanded the reach of the commerce clause (and more importantly, its negative implications) to become the abomination it is today.
      • gn0stik, on 07/01/2008, -1/+24FDR was the first new deal democrat. He changed the democrat party from classic liberalism to social liberalism, causing the massive party switching that went on shortly thereafter. The next big switch was during and shortly after JFK's reign. This is what gave us all the "new" conservatives. Unfortunately, they didn't stick to classic liberalism after the switch, they were influenced by their old buddies on the other side of the Aisle. Some switched back, but many stayed. This is where the term "Neo-Con" came from, and why the parties are so similar aside from a few priorities these days. The Democrat and Republican parties are no more different from each-other than the differences held within a single party of the "good old days." Their core values are the same, That's why we no longer, have a real choice in America, and we frequently find ourselves choosing the "lesser of two evils." If we don't lose the myth that voting for a third party is throwing a vote away, we'll never be free of this downward spiral.
      • Midtowner, on 07/01/2008, -2/+7Not really. Remember -- a Rehnquist (an uber-Conservative Justice, Nixon appointee) opinion was the first to really rein in the applicability of the commerce clause. I forget the case, but the facts were that a federal law was passed which purported to make rape a federal crime pursuant to the federal government's powers under the commerce clause.

        The court held that the commerce clause was limited in application to channels and instrumentalities of commerce. Prior to that, it was thought that the commerce power had become limitless (as evidenced by the law which was invalidated by this case).

        So maybe your argument has some weight when we're talking about legislators. When it comes to the Supreme Court, however, if you think there's no difference in philosophy between Scalia/Roberts/Alito/Thomas and Stevens/Breyer/Ginsberg/Souter, (Kennedy not mentioned because no one knows what the hell his philosophy is), then you really don't know much about judicial philosophy.
      • tyho, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3gn0stik
        You make some good points.

        "Their core values are the same" If you are referring to the "value" of "I will do anything to get elected", then I agree, but if you can't see the differences between Liberals and Conservatives core values (i.e. abortion, government, taxes), you just aren't paying attention.
    • Biddypapa, on 07/01/2008, -12/+19By progressive you mean infringing heavily on the 2nd Amendment? Great, so now we face the prospect of Californians being able to smoke cannabis, but not be able to own an AK-47 type rifle, as an example.
      • Defiance711, on 07/01/2008, -15/+7It's best weed and AKs don't go together.
      • bdit1200, on 07/01/2008, -0/+17I smoked AK-47 once. ffwwwoooaohhhhhhh....
      • ericcire, on 07/01/2008, -1/+19AK-47 - the very best there is. When you absolutely, positively have to smoke out every ***** in the room, accept no substitutes.
      • kr3mliyn, on 07/01/2008, -3/+5Somehow, I think that as a good thing...
        *toke*
      • wonderbriefs, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4What the hell do you need an AK-47 for? Even in Wisconsin you can only own rifles for hunting and hand-guns for personal protection. I suppose I should be pissed that I can't drive my car around with an M240-B strapped to the top.
      • tyboulder, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Wait a second, assault rifles are banned and we're allowing people to smoke a little weed? Where's Faux News and Billy O! This is contemptuous!
      • enantiodromia, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3waaaaahhhh. you dont have to live here. there are many other places where men with small dicks enjoy their wanna-be military-style assault rifles.

        you people are soooooo into what is Constitutional, as long as it involves guns. when it comes to anything else, you move with the herd.
    • P373Y, on 07/01/2008, -8/+10what do you need an ak47 for?
    • snapcase, on 07/01/2008, -9/+6This isn't progressive. This is just an attempt at regression to a point before Congress enacted illegal laws banning substances in the first place. Cali is also one of the worst states for owning a gun... not very progressive.

      That said I really hope this bill passes.
      • enantiodromia, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2i own many guns, and live in california. whats the problem exactly?
    • herschman321, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3fishing
    • quaxon, on 07/01/2008, -4/+6I live in SF and weed is pretty much legal here. I can call a minimum of three different people and have weed delivered to my doorstep for 40 an eighth of the best *****. I can smoke bowls and joints while walking down the sidewalk and the cops wont even wink. You can go to haight street/gg park and there are people selling weed all over. On some weekends in Dolores park (always heavily packed at any hint of sun) the 'truffle guy' will sell you 3 pot truffles for 10 bucks and your good for the day.
      • DreadPirate, on 07/01/2008, -5/+2Quaxon - Tell me, is it this prevalence of weed that prevents you from providing proof when you make wild claims in other threads? I note that I asked you for proof of one of these wild claims, and you ran away from the discussion entirely.

        http://digg.com/world_news/Iran_To_Ready_Thousands ...
      • quaxon, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6No, what prevented me from providing the requested proof was you inability to properly use the reply button, which would have shown a reply notification to the comment i made in my profile. I did not see any replies to that comment so i never checked back on it. I dont wanna use this thread for a discussion on that so i have answered you in the proper thread.
      • comptonstomp, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Yo im goin to college up near san fran and digg this ***** for speaking the truth. Weed is easier to get than a nintendo wii around here and nobody gives a ***** how much you smoke or how high you get. Props to california

        Vote Weed 08'
    • mashtdi, on 07/01/2008, -17/+4"Progressive" is code word for Hippy Liberal Douchebags that are totally out of touch with the rest of America. Im tired of reading this Left coast BS, and every day Digg gets worse and worse. So yeah, lets legalize pot and plunge Americas already failing education and social structure into the toilet and flush. Thats just what we need, another generation of mindless pot heads that think a drug "frees their minds" when in all actuality it makes them stupid and lazy. Instead of wasting your life and money on doobies maybe you could better spend your time learning something or feeding the homeless. Pick up a fuggin book and read to children, go join the peace corp. Don't waste your time on Bud and Cheeto's.
      • diggitydoc, on 07/01/2008, -3/+10I assume that due to the capitalization of "Bud" you mean the alcoholic beverage. I also assume that your lack of punctuation (see "lets" and "Americas") and blatant disregard for sentence structure shows that you are a result of this failed educational system?

        Just to let you know, I smoke every day. I also read all by myself.

        Moderation is key.
      • JaronDiggGuy, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Good post, diggitydoc. Noticed the capitalization of 'Bud', too. The poor idiot...
      • quaxon, on 07/01/2008, -2/+5You are right, California is out of touch with most of America and that is what makes it the only tolerable state in this country to live in. The rest of America is filled to the brim with religious freaks/uneducated dolts (that's not to say California isn't, but there are significantly less). California is the only state keeping this country afloat, without us the rest of America would be a third world hellhole (it pretty much already is in middle America) and i hope to see the day that California finally secedes and isnt carrying the rest of you ungrateful turds on its shoulders.
      • wonderbriefs, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Wow. Why are you even a digg user then? I guess you're completely unaware of the fact that Digg was started by liberal left-coast hippie douchebags.
      • NikoKun, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3You're out of touch with freedom... and a douchebag... -_-
      • letitbleed62, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5I believe it was Bill Hicks who said something along to lines of, "I can do everything on pot that i can do off of it, i just realize it's not worth the ***** effort."
      • Seafea, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4And Hippy Liberal Douchebag is a right-winger's code word for anyone who thinks differently from them.
      • marx2k, on 07/02/2008, -1/+0quaxon: Sounds like you haven't been out of Cali in a while. Things are ok here in the midwest ;)
      • quaxon, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2@marx i actually travel quite a lot. I was in Cincinnati in January and i seem to remember the creationist museum only a 15 minute drive away. Not to mention last year when i took a road trip through the midwest i was bombarded with religious billboards and DIY propaganda signs. Not to mention the fact that all there is to eat is fast food and everyone is fat. It sounds like you havent been out of the midwest in a while, things there are not 'ok.'
    • BetterOffEd, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Yeah--they must be *really* progressive in Pasadena.
    • norm7, on 07/01/2008, -5/+12I'LL BE DAMNED IF I ALLOW CALIFORNIA TO LEGALIZE ANOTHER PERSONAL FREEDOM!!!
      don't they know guns are the only things that should be legal????
      it's anti-american, i tell you!!!
      • alphasixtyone, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1i love you
      • JaronDiggGuy, on 07/01/2008, -3/+3I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and digg you up.

        Make sure your /s/ tag hasn't expired!
    • jabberwolf, on 07/01/2008, -5/+2Great, nice talke but you guys have never lived in Canada or New Zealand.
      The rest of us will have to subsidize the ***** in society baking...

      I agree with reducing the crime to be an expensive ticket or something, jail is ridiculous. That would save the jail system oodles of money and allow us to lock up real criminals.

      But legalizing it? Sorry been there, seen that, no thanks.
      And no NZ doesn't have it legal, they just pretend it is.
      • NikoKun, on 07/01/2008, -1/+7A good tax on Marijuana, would EASILY pay for any health problems or *****... -_-

        This is not a reason to deprive people of our rights and choices over our personal bodies.

        Plenty of us are perfectly capable of being responsible and productive members of society... We do NOT need you to pay for us. So ***** off, you selfish moron...
      • tyboulder, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Yeah the amount of ***** on pot compared to amount of ***** on alcohol is probably a ratio of 1:45 Plenty or areas in Europe (not just Amsterdam) allow people to smoke pot. You can abuse anything, including fast food. Would you rather have pot smokers doing 45 mph in the right lane on a Saturday night at 2am, or 50 of your typical drunk to wasted bar hoppers navigating their way home?
    • snowbeard, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0Most progressive state? Try Vermont.
    • cr250guy, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1*****...why does california have to be so far away from me???
    • FullmetalGinta, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Except for AHNOLD. He's kinda scary.
      • tyboulder, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Ahnold may want to take over the world and crush it in his hands, but I think he's doing a pretty good job as governor. He isn't bi-partisan but he's a lot closer than most politicians I hear of.
    • shagg187, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j279/shagg187/ar ...
      • oninbonin, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0Can't you order one of those shirts? That's my favourite picture ever.
    • damntourists, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1thanks
    • stockjones, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2Yeah Progressive because California is so broke trying to support its own current Budget. Arnold is trying everything he can to bring more revenue into the state and get these lugnuts (both Republicans and Democrats) to quit stalling and agree on approving a reasonable budget with some cuts in expenses. California is BROKE.

      I dont mind the idea of legalizing it. It would cut costs and bring far more revenue into the state, but at the same time it would probably increase healthcare costs and taxes because of all the dolts that will get hooked on the stuff or end up sleeping in the local parks.
      • enantiodromia, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2dude, the kind of person who would get "hooked" on pot and sleep in the park, are already sleeping in the park.

        healthcare costs will do down, because people will less drunk, less agro, and less... wait, what?
  • tincanorange, on 06/30/2008, -15/+233If this passes, what an exciting election season this will be with Obama/McCain, gay marriage, high speed rail, alternative energy, etc, etc.
    • fatal616, on 07/01/2008, -57/+9lmao, looks like you fell for that whole "change" act
      • ErikHarrison, on 07/01/2008, -7/+27Umm, he's quoting fact, and you are just non-sensical. These issues are present today and will be voted on in the near future. Learn how to comment or go jump off a cliff.
    • JDoorjam, on 07/01/2008, -1/+24And the George W. Bush Sewage Plant!

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/s ...

      It's gonna be a fun November!
    • audiomodder, on 07/01/2008, -7/+14if this passes, then it will be the end of democracy...

      because no one will want to get off the couch...

      unless it's for funions.
      • anothrnbdy, on 07/01/2008, -12/+3Do us all a favor, and walk into a knife.
      • Aequus, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Do us all a favor, and go smoke some weed.
    • MxM111, on 07/01/2008, -4/+1With this supreme court composition, it will be struck quite soon.
    • Dustmuffins, on 07/01/2008, -6/+1High speed rail would be such a waste of money in 95% of the US. It's more of a city government deal.
  • antidis, on 06/30/2008, -26/+461Where do i sign?!!?!?!
    • tincanorange, on 06/30/2008, -1/+28I think you have to sign in person with all the accompanying text present when you sign, even if you don't read it.
    • fLUx1337, on 07/01/2008, -50/+4Chuck Noris wouldn't ask permission to smoke weed....
    • Flashtone, on 07/01/2008, -19/+4http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/HPM/H ...
      • djbon2112, on 07/01/2008, -2/+13Marijuana isn't a drug. Meth is a drug. Marijuana is a plant and an herb.
      • Flashtone, on 07/01/2008, -5/+2some of you digg folks really have a hard time understanding sarcasm.
      • sdrawkcaB, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5weed is awesome, old jokes aren't. sorry for the confusion.
    • antiorblkflag9, on 07/01/2008, -1/+12GO GO GO!
    • SakisRakis, on 07/01/2008, -10/+5Not that it matters if you sign it; federal law still would classify it as a crime, so you would be able to be taken up on federal charges even if this were voted in (which it probably won't; there is a significant difference between 5 million people saying ti is ok for diseased people to use marijuana for treatment and giving the go ahead for pure recreation.)
      • SIRBERUS, on 07/01/2008, -0/+19The difference being that if this law passed, a recreational smoker's only enemy would be *federal* authorities, rather than *any* authority in California.

        So while it's not perfect and the DEA will still continue to violate California law... Californian authorities will no longer be able to abuse peoples' rights.
      • drakethegreat, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8Well then it starts to get sticky because local law enforcement can always arrest federal agents and then who knows what would happen in that situation because the feds are full of themselves and will probably react illegally.
      • BigManOnCampus, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8California law enforcement is not going to arrest a federal agent regardless of what they do.
        When you are an agent of the law, you don't get arrested unless you are grossly abusing your powers. You can get charged with violating laws, but you don't get arrested.
      • caramba420, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5Here in Cali, there is a county called Mendocino. Some years ago, they passed Measure G. This decriminalized marijuana for everyone (not just medical). Federal agents are not a problem. The Feds fly around in helicopters, and only ***** with you if you are growing thousands of plants. If this initiative passes in California, the Feds will not be an issue. They simply cannot afford what it would cost to have on-the-ground forces in every city stopping people from growing, selling, and smoking weed.
      • SIRBERUS, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4@Bigmanoncampus

        It depends how much our officers want to respect our laws. I think it was in Wyoming or somewhere back east where a Sheriff is currently arresting any Federal agents that don't follow the state's laws. It was ruled that a Sheriff has the highest amount of authority over any other person or group (even the president) in their area.
      • BigManOnCampus, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3@SIRBERUS, that is very interesting. I would like to read more about that. I find that unusual and though-provoking. Can you provide a link?
    • SIRBERUS, on 07/01/2008, -0/+24Seriously... has anyone figured out how/where one would go to put their signature on such a proposal?
      • dalnet22, on 07/01/2008, -2/+30That's where they get ya. They tell the potheads it will get legalized, but they never tell them where to sign! Bastards.
      • freeth1nker, on 07/01/2008, -6/+3Uhh...California, maybe?
      • alphasixtyone, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7go to any california university and kind of hang out for a while, they'll approach you eventually
      • SIRBERUS, on 07/01/2008, -0/+15This is one of the rare times I've ever been disappointed with digg. Digg... the community that can find nude pictures of a woman from a random article within moments of it hitting the front page, yet the only options I get for signing a petition are:

        a) "California" (gee thanks... let's see, I live in Anaheim and work in Hollywood... only several hundred thousand more square miles to explore before I find something to sign I guess).

        b) "go to any california university" and wait to be approached.


        lol
      • DemiRonin, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2Don't cha know? Weed makes you lazy. Only Mr. Towele can think of good ideas high
      • ackza, on 08/03/2008, -0/+2
        Signature page is here!!! http://www.gopetition.com/online/20497.html
        CA Residents sign up!
        I just made an entry with link for CA and federal signatures here--> http://www.bonghits4obama.com
    • kubedawg, on 07/01/2008, -2/+9Can I sign if I'm not a resident of California?
    • person425, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6If you live (and vote) in California, just try walking through a college campus. At least, that's how it works here in Oregon.
    • mediatedthought, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6Here's a link to the full text of the
      http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/ ...
      Marijuana Legalization. Individual Rights. Constitutional Amendment.
      Summary Date: 04/08/08 Circulation Deadline: 09/05/08 Signatures Required: 694,354

      Proponent: Christopher Springer

      Amends constitution to legalize marijuana and hemp within California and to provide for broad individual constitutional rights, including rights to food, shelter, medical care, and to be free from “unreasonable” taxation. Allows marijuana to be sold in any store that sells alcohol. Establishes local boards with expansive powers, including powers to regulate and tax marijuana. Requires marijuana tax revenues support specified programs. Exempts marijuana sales profits from income tax. Forbids most testing for marijuana used outside the workplace. Prohibits most marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco advertisements. Immunizes marijuana growers and sellers from liability. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potential savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments, which would no longer incur the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Potential costs of up to the tens of millions of dollars to state and local governments to fund the one-time start-up costs of the local boards. A potentially significant increase in state and local spending on substance abuse treatment services that could possibly be partially or fully offset by revenues from this measure. Potential increased revenues in the tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars annually from marijuana stamps and licenses to support specified programs and the local boards. Unknown but potentially significant increase in state and local revenues from collection of sales and use taxes on the sale of Marijuana. Unknown but potentially significant decrease in state and local revenues from taxes on tobacco and alcohol due to a prohibition of advertising for these goods that would likely result in a decline in sales. (Initiative 08-0009.)
      • NightRiderkami, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7There's only 2 types of people who are against legalization, Law enforcement, and drug dealers.
    • SIRBERUS, on 07/01/2008, -0/+15I just wrote to (and got a response from) the author that wrote the article for LAist.

      Aside from him being a jackass (he's a bit defensive about not having details on how to sign the petition... I think it's because so many people are asking him), he informed me that:

      ========
      ========
      "The proponent, Christopher Springer, has left no contact information with the State Secretary, and i am currently cold calling every chris springer in california i can find, with no luck so far."

      "I would also like to point out to you that any initiative has to be signed in person with a hard copy of the initiative present at the time of the signature. So there was never any option for a website that i could direct people to where they could sign their name."

      "My hopes are that i am either able to locate Mr. Christopher Springer, or that he hears about the article i wrote and finds me."
      ========
      ========

      It almost seems like anti-marijuana people are behind this bill... put out a petition, let no one sign it, then say "We tried to change the law... but no one signed the petition."
    • TheWorm, on 07/02/2008, -0/+4I was going to digg you up but then i saw you were at 420, so it was perfect.
    • ROFLance, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2I dugg you down, just so you'd have 420 diggs.
  • ssquared22, on 06/30/2008, -23/+174I love California. Wife and I should never have returned to NYC from honeymoon.
    • StuTheMeatMan, on 07/01/2008, -56/+8You should of splurged, what a stupid place for a honeymoon.
      • Sunnygurm, on 07/01/2008, -2/+20....how is California not a nice place for a honeymoon?
      • ventralnet, on 07/01/2008, -1/+20you don't even know where the ***** in California they went. you are a 'tard
    • Slade605, on 07/01/2008, -8/+72You don't have a wife, those are just digg urban legends.
    • Takfam, on 07/01/2008, -5/+61You are more than welcome back to Cali as long as you don't complain about our pizza. We don't give you ***** about your Mexican food, you don't give us ***** about the pizza. Deal?

      (Besides, after a few government approved smoke outs, the pizza is going to taste great no matter where it comes from)
      • P373Y, on 07/01/2008, -12/+5Chicago pizza is... better than California and New York
      • Cougnut415, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8Cali Mexican food... OM NOM NOM NOM NOM

        Ocean Taqueria, SF
      • groverblue, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Two words: Old Forge

        http://www.pizzamaking.com/forum/index.php/topic,1 ...
      • tallguyg, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4and your Chinese food...
      • KingGorilla, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Unfortunately Mexican food gives me the *****
      • diggit23, on 07/01/2008, -5/+2What about California Pizza Kitchen? That pizza is amazing!
      • Nereus90, on 07/01/2008, -7/+4God I hate it when people call it Cali.It's three more syllables and six more letters, just say the full thing. or even just CA would be fine. Can you imagine calling Hawaii "Hawa"?
      • caramba420, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Those are three more syllables worth of time that would be better spent stuffing a fat blunt in my mouth.
      • RexyRex, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Qdoba wins for the best mexican food. Seriously.
    • brundlefly76, on 07/01/2008, -8/+11lol I live in nyc relocated from norcal as well - how does NYC have this big a hispanic population and the mexican food still SUCKS? It makes no sense. I think a lot of it has to do with the availability of price of ingredients - nyc mexican joints are always cutting corners. I had a carnitas burrritto the other day - the carnitas was basically cubes of pure pork fat, i almost vomited.

      meanwhile, the upscale mexican joints get all fancy and move too far away from the basics.


      • villainousT, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2I think the same thing! Glad I'm not the only one. I guess you can't expect much from those mexican/chinese restaurants lol
      • gerbco, on 07/01/2008, -2/+15Because NY hispanics aren't mexican... so why the hell would they know how to cook it. However I can take you to a great Colombian place, the Dominican food is also better uptown than anywhere on the planet, and don't get me started on the Argentinian steak houses in queens.
      • Bedonder, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Try Taqueria y Fonda on Amsterdam between 107-108.

        It looks like a hole but they have great food.
      • brundlefly76, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4gerbco - "Because NY hispanics aren't mexican"

        W T F are you talking about.

        Um, Mexicans are second only to Puerto Rican in the NYC Hispanic population - over a 260,000, and they are also the city's fastest-growing ethnic population.

        I think the irrelevant point you wanted to make was that there are more Puerto Ricans than Mexicans in NYC, which is completely irrelevant as to whether there are any good Mexican restaurants in NYC.

      • gharding, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1There's a nice place somewhere on 116th st near 1st or 2nd ave I think in SpaHa and El Loco Burrito 2 in Williamsburg on Bedford and S 2nd St is pretty good.
      • gerbco, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Brudlefly..
        Mexicans here are only about 10% of the HISPANIC population

        http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/census/pop2000.sh ...

        that number may increase as nyc is considered immigrant friendly however the high cost of living, even for the outer boroughs keeps many in cheaper states closer to Mexico.
    • starsarebent, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Lived here all my life. I love this state. I don't always agree with politics here. But that's my right, and politics won't stop me from loving this state in the foreseeable future.
    • wonkavsn, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1Marrying cavemen is all the rage these days.
    • hiimcliff, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1hey hey hey... thats my state your talking about!
      • marx2k, on 07/02/2008, -1/+0Re-run? That you? Or is it Fat Albert?
  • padth, on 06/30/2008, -6/+61So does someone try to get one of these propositions on the ballot every election? How close does it get to the 700k signatures required? Also, where do I sign? I didn't see anything in the article indicating.
  • Puropahukay, on 06/30/2008, -30/+6Hmmm, does this mean I need to try this out some day?
    • ErikHarrison, on 07/01/2008, -4/+11Only if you like deep contemplation about absurd things! I do.... :)

      Oh, yeah, and video games....
    • BabaRamDass, on 07/01/2008, -7/+19So you're saying you do everything that's legal and nothing that's illegal? Man the government ***** loves you.
      • 5urr3al5am, on 07/01/2008, -17/+4so you do anything then?? what a morally decrepit individual
      • ventralnet, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3lol, words of a true stoner
      • Prayformojo777, on 07/01/2008, -3/+8Yeah, because smoking pot is sooooo edgy! Way to rail against your fascist oppressors!
      • goreyend, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3wow your a dumb ass and a prick what a catch
      • Darkone253, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Wow, every reply to this reply is ***** retarded. Yay for assuming WAY too much.
    • norm7, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7the beauty of it all is that you don't have to
      and whether you try it or choose to never try it
      it will still save you millions of law enforcement dollars and countless law enforcement lives, dramatically lower the crime rate, reduce the cost of the prison system, cut the legs out from under the major drug runners selling the truly bad drugs, earn the government millions in tax revenues....

      and best of all, no more weed articles on digg!
    • sbga420, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0there are way more things than television and movies that are enjoyable on weed. its the kind of ***** like you who stereotype potheads as lazy couch surfers. ***** you
  • WiseWeasel, on 06/30/2008, -8/+116The comments on the linked site complaining about the income tax exemptions are missing the fact that declaring marijuana income to the IRS would put you in a dangerous position from a federal prosecution perspective. It's probably not a good idea to declare federally-prohibited income to the IRS. It seems to me like the exemptions are in place to protect the privacy and freedom of those that would be participating in this new industry. Didn't feel like registering an account there to contest those people directly...

    All I have to say to this is "Where do I sign?"
    • antidis, on 06/30/2008, -0/+12You are a wise weasel indeed.
    • pyroboy4206, on 07/01/2008, -8/+4No $Hyt man, that is really a good point... lol, yea, Cali drug policy is a joke to the Feds... Maybe they are hoping and planning that people would do this in large numbers..... Lol I can see it now, The law does get passed and Here comes 420 (just for the irony, like 911,) and federal agents from all around the United States collectively take out 10,000 most profited Marijuana "criminals" in less than one day. Imagine a list of people generated like the terrorist playing cards. So funny.

      lol that would be so funny. Snitching themselves out.
      • KMartSheriff, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5I admit, I got confused for a minute after trying to look up "$Hyt" in the dictionary. Silly you though, turns out you just spelled ***** wrong.
      • thepretext, on 07/01/2008, -2/+15Never put 9/11 and 4/20 in the same sentence ever again.
      • ep53, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1PLEASE just go back to school! How the hell did they let you out?
    • TritonX, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4I don't know about the states, but I have once been told that in Canada you could, if you want, declare drug profits and the canadian "IRS" was bound to confidentiality about the subject. Though I don't know of anyone stupid enough to give away half from an invisible income.
      • MrWhite7, on 07/01/2008, -4/+2I don't know anyone stupid enough to give half from a visible income/
      • Digger1123, on 07/01/2008, -4/+4Well, the only way this whole thing will work is if Obama becomes president, and when that happens, it will be a hell of a lot more than half of your income.
      • Pstall, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Yeah... national health care isnt cheap. (well its cheap or free for the people that need it and extremely expensive for the people that do not)
    • mikephimikephi, on 07/01/2008, -1/+13As TritonX said, the IRS is bound to confidentiality. This includes exchanging information between Government agencies. I discovered this a few years ago when my US visa status was 'questionable', and I asked several tax experts who all told me the same thing. I could apply and get my tax returns each year, and the IRS was forbidden to disclose my address to ICE or INS or any of those evil people.
      p.s. I'm legal now :)
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/01/2008, -1/+18"the IRS is bound to confidentiality."
        http://www.instantrimshot.com/

        That was true before Bush. While the IRS can't "techincally" divulge info, other agencies have the go ahead to get the info from the IRS without its approval.

        Patriot act.
      • WhatInThe42o, on 07/01/2008, -0/+13Glad to hear that you were able to file anyways, and glad to hear you've become legal. Welcome!
      • MrWhite7, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Damn those immigration services, evilly making you obey the law.
    • MindStalker, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4Also it is subject to a very high sales tax, so no reason to add income tax on top of that.
    • toasterweasel, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2Not enough weasel.
    • Gutterpunk, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2You need to move up to Canada.

      Canada Revenue Agency publicly stated that they wouldn't turn anyone's tax information to the authorities, as they aren't cops and they expect even criminal to pay taxes on their ill gotten money (!!)

      Might be a trap though, and for some reasons this made a lot of Canadian angry (not me, I expect criminal to pay taxes too, even if I am not crazy enough to think that they do)
    • ericcire, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2That's what Timothy Leary said, when he got the SCOTUS to strike down the Tax Stamp Act. Applying for the stamp was self-incrimination.
    • bluekross, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2A database? My names in a ***** database?!
    • Filksinger, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1And what *you* are missing is that the State of California can only make you exempt from *California* income tax. This law has *no* effect on *Federal* income tax.
      • WiseWeasel, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1That would make sense, in which case, I don't see why the exemption is there. Maybe they foresee problems with people declaring different taxable incomes to the state and federal agencies? Maybe there is some privacy concern with accounting or tax prep organizations being liable for something? Good catch though, and I'm all out of ideas.
    • Abomonog, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3I agree with the sentiment that filing IRS taxes on Legal income can put you in hot water. Federal tax info has been used as a basis for the persecution of collectives with the DEA using federal tax info to claim that collectives were making a huge profit by selling marijuana.

      However, it is a more serious crime to not report such income and you don't have to claim it was from marijuana if you do report it. In most cases the IRS won't even question a tax check with the notation "side income taxes" written on it. It will only go on your tax record as paid taxes from an unknown income source. They'll even be happier if this is paid on top of a known taxable income and paying such taxes honestly may reduce your chances of an audit in the future.

      Remember this. Despite all of his illegal practices, the only thing Al Capone was ever busted on was tax evasion.
  • generalmoses, on 06/30/2008, -65/+10can't wait to see the DEA come down on this on, rat bastards.
    • norm7, on 07/01/2008, -0/+8why would you care if people were smoking legal pot anyway?
      "i'll be DAMNED if those BASTARDS use a HARMLESS DRUG that they vote to make LEGAL!!! IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT!!!"
    • Tenetri, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Exactly General!

      We have to kill everyone that doesn't think like us! Then we can be truly free in this country

  • ATLien74, on 06/30/2008, -42/+12I'm goin' back to Cali, to Cali, to Cali, I'm going back to Cali...heh...to smoke some weed yo!

    Thank you California for leading the way!
    • ATLien74, on 07/01/2008, -6/+3Cartman: "God, I hate you guys."
    • thatsmyaibo, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4It's people like you we don't want here.
    • praisethelard, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4I believe the correct form is: I'm going going, back back, to Cali, Cali.
    • frisk415, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3Stop ***** on B.I.G.'s grave man.
  • johnm2154, on 06/30/2008, -12/+240Hopefully this will push state's rights to the forefront of the political consciousness of america. It is time for the feds to stop interfering with local democratic action. The states must be allowed to be the "laboratories of policy" that the founders envisioned and expected, and which the supreme court, especially the conservative justices, have long recognized is their role and constitutional right.

    Consenting adults engaging in behavior that is not violative of other's rights should not be interfered with.

    Marijuana is already decriminalized in cali, and for good reason. Hopefully we'll stop the hypocrisy- letting criminal elements control what should be a legal business and punishing otherwise decent people for providing a substance others use without criminal penalty.

    To keep the current system, where its okay for me to consume it but a crime to produce it, is ridiculous, and only creates injustice.
    • Pake, on 07/01/2008, -11/+19"Consenting adults engaging in behavior that is not violative of other's rights should not be interfered with."
      As long as it's only being used in certain places and not legal to use everywhere, otherwise the smoke will be interfering with other's rights. This means making it illegal at most concerts, in or around all public buildings, limiting it to specific cafes and homes only. Also, operation of motorized vehicles and machinery should carry the equivalent punishments as a DUI/DWI.
      • mu0p, on 07/01/2008, -4/+7whatttt...

        Nothing beats smoking a joint on the freeway with the windows down and listening to Return Of The Mac
      • gregfadein, on 07/01/2008, -6/+15Nope.

        Concerts are typically held in private establishments. It's your choice to attend or not. In a free society, just like you'd be able to smoke cigarettes in bars/clubs/etc., you'd be able to smoke pot, at the discretion of the property owner.

        Of course, California likes to pretend private property doesn't exist (we just have to protect you from the hardship of having to make your own decisions about your own health), but that's a different can of worms.
      • jonashwing, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8you must not be living in California. you can't smoke cigarettes in bars/clubs/etc.
      • InfamousAtheist, on 07/01/2008, -3/+6Wrong on so many counts...

        I agree that my smoke should not create a problem for you, but every other point you make is wrong.
        See above about concerts, etc.
        Driving while stoned is nowhere near as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol. Many studies indicate it is not dangerous at all... it's also nearly impossible to prove that someone was high at a certain time. Drug testing isn't accurate enough to say when someone smoked weed.

      • Pake, on 07/01/2008, -5/+2Infamous, driving while stoned IS dangerous and has been found to be almost as dangerous as alcohol. It takes away from your reaction time, which is essential to driving.
      • marx2k, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Pake..
        http://www.iowatelecom.net/~sharkhaus/driving_pot_ ...
        http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2063-alcohol ...
        http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_dri ...
    • Tenbatsu404, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Well said.
    • Screwy1138, on 07/01/2008, -2/+14The irony is that CA has very restrictive rights on smoking tobacco. I'm not in favor of legalized marijuana, but I'm in favor of states deciding for themselves.

      We all have to be more conscious of states rights, it's one of the best government power regulators we have (give more power to the states, less to fed, we have more direct oversight of state governments)
      • sodade, on 07/01/2008, -2/+9Why are you not in favor of legalizing cannabis? I have yet to hear one VALID argument in favor of prohibition. (if you have to rely on a stereotype, you FAIL)
    • altgeeky1, on 07/01/2008, -4/+8This is a good point.

      "States Right's" was given a bad name because it was (in the 60's and 70's) a cover for repression of black voter rights. I used to associate it that way also. Now I understand, such repression itself is a violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which _does_ trump state's rights. The movement was misused, that's all.

      Conclusion: neither liberals nor conservatives nor centrists have anything to fear from pure state's rights.

      Unfortunately, fear mongers and international jet-set neo-conservatives have tasted massive federal power and aren't likely to let it go. We're seeing more and more "laws" passed by un-elected federal committees and presidential fast track trade agreements.

      Except for the recently renewed GI Bill, which gives me hope... the federal government has been doing all it can to outsource good jobs, slash higher education grants, cut university aid, devalue the dollar, indebt the nation, squander our treasury and military might, fight against universal healthcare just when mass bioterrorism is becoming a possible war front, neutering the agencies that should be monitoring imported and domestic food supplies. Basically there's been a silent gradual coup d'etat by a body of international investors intent on destroying the American middle class.

      I'll get off my soapbox now. (Oh, and "Go Obama!" lest someone think there was some kind of Ron Paul fan here... hardly the case)
      • russ3, on 07/01/2008, -3/+13How can you promote states right and vote for Obama in the same post? Trash the federal government and then think, boy Id like for the next guy to raise taxes and further restrict my rights (see obamas voting record on gun rights and the PATRIOT act)
      • d3matt, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Neocons aren't the only ones who trash states rights...

        Look at the supreme court ruling last week on execution. That was the 4 liberals + Kennedy the kingmaker deciding against states rights.
      • utahnkid, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3altgeeky1: An example of the typical Obama supporter. Great ideals, smart, active in politics. Knows NOTHING about the candidate they support.
      • altgeeky1, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3I see I made the mistake of seeing two sides of an issue, or not confirming to one of two camps. This is a sin on Digg, and I have been modded down for it.

        When people try to pigeonhole everything like politics into black-and-white boxes, or dogma... discourse suffers.

        To clarify: You can believe in "state's rights" WITHOUT believing in "State's Rights". The former is a sound ideal, the latter is a distortion. Like religion (which I do not subscribe to): religion can be a way of living at peace with yourself and others (as it was originally intended), or it can be a way to enforce conformity and control popular culture.

        To me, a state's rights to itself is the FORMER not the latter! If Montana wants to allow a different drunk-driving limit than say New York City, it's their right.

        Rather than thinking "state's right's" is some right wing Ron Paul utopia, it can just as easily be painted as liberal heaven.

        1) California's RIGHT to have higher pollution standard's on automobiles?
        2) Massachusetts RIGHT to legalize same sex marriage?
        3) Nevada's RIGHT to gamble?
        4) A state's right to allow alcohol consumption, and Homebrewing? (For those that's don't know, making your own beer or wine was illegal under Federal Law even after the end of Prohibition... and didn't become legal until Jimmy Carter signed that restriction away. I'm a homebrewer).

        d3matt: your comment on the execution ruling is interesting, but I'm from the view that the government sponsored executions (or torture) violate the constitution. I'm not sure but I think you would at least agree we shouldn't let out child molesters from prison... which we do in order to meet "sentencing guidelines" for drug crimes. 1% of the country is behind bars and 50% of them are drug related... there's plenty of capacity to keep unreformed pedophiles and rapists off the streets... provided we become sane on the drug war.

        Oh, utahnkid: I don't like the new McCain, and I think Obama's better for the country. The older McCain was better (but I'd still take Obama over him). I want America rebuilt. We're bleeding to death, and all these jobs are going to places that HAVE some form of universal education and healthcare.
    • fool13, on 07/01/2008, -3/+7Good point there, I really don't care if people want to smoke in their own homes but I have a problem with smoking in public simply because I hate the smell of smoke. The NYC smoking bans were a great step in the right direction, as long as weed is held to the same standard this is a law that has been needed for quite some time.
      • ChildeRoland420, on 07/01/2008, -8/+5If you don't like the smell then you always have the right to leave...
      • cklein121, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4I disagree about NYC... I don't smoke and it doesn't bother me besides that it makes me smell like smoke.
        Restuarants should make the rules themselves as they did. Many nice restuarants and even fast food places will not allow smoking. But, (until recently) you know people will be smoking in a bar and it's been that way for a long time. Even so, many people will go outside and get some fresh air and smoke. Either way learn to deal with it, it's a BAR not the Plaza.
      • iamondigghaha, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1You won't hate the smell of THIS smoke.
    • AutoXer, on 07/01/2008, -0/+18States set their own legal drinking age. All have an age set to 21. Does anyone know why?

      Hint: It has to do with federal money and highways.
      • Screwy1138, on 07/01/2008, -1/+9I strongly feel this is unconstitutional. I know what you're getting at. Along the same lines, the federal government has no power over education. But have you heard of 'No child left behind'? They can't enforce states to follow that law, but they can take your money away if you don't. This, imo, is unconstitutional. We need to be sending less money to our federal government and more to our states governments.
      • cklein121, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1hahha I learned that in health class
    • utahnkid, on 07/01/2008, -2/+11If so many people apparently support state rights and smaller localized government where is all this support for Obama coming from?? You all realize that's the exact opposite of what a democrat believes, right?
      • Screwy1138, on 07/01/2008, -1/+6You are very correct. I voted for Ron Paul, and I don't know who the hell I'm going to support in November. Right now from a freedom perspective, McCain is lesser of two huge evils. I'll probably go third party. We need more voters to go third party to break the two party system.
      • Memnochxx, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Social issues.
      • fantasyflamz, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5Exactly... that's why I was for ron paul. I was kinda in a struggle for a little b/c i didn't want to vote for mccain or obama, but I guess I'll vote for the libertarian candidate b/c he's for limited gov't and the states deciding more issues instead of federal.
      • altgeeky1, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3Yes, we got smaller governments under Reagan and both Bush's.
        *rolls eyes*

        Sure, that was the fault of Democrats too.
      • ashfish, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Well, considering the choices we're left with now in the race does it surprise you? And, I might vote for McCain if I wasn't horribly against just about everything he agrees with. I'm more half half with Obama. Tbh I have nfc who I'm going to vote for because I think both candidates suck, but I think I can live under Obama better than McCain. I really could care less what the name of the party was I just want someone who's going to stop ***** up our country and finally look out for the people instead of their back pockets.
      • joeanon, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1People voted for Bush too.

        Wanting something doesn't make it a good idea.

        When people get desperate they reject government... even if government isn't the main problem.

        Small government supports just don't realize the true scope of the problem or that state's can abuse your rights even easier, they will raise you taxes to what they need to operate without federal taxes and in the big picture.. it's not government.. it's corporations that led us down this path.

        Small government just means we are divided and easier to control through wealth, which is already the biggest problem in America.

        We used to have less federal government and we had child labor and 12 hour workdays and fire departments were privatized so if you didn't pay your house just burned.

        It doesn't work because the wealthy just abuse your smaller government that much more.

        Now with even wealthier corporations the effect would be that much worse.

        Look how the media just OWNS you, you think small government can change that ?

        NO..

        It's about a balance of power between states and federal and beyond that efficient management and moral integrity.

        We don't have efficient management at federal or state level. So the small government solution is to just CUT government to reduce waste.... but that's childish. The problem isn't government, it's how you allow you government to act without accountability. Small government badly managed is worse when you consider you'll get railroaded with corporate lobbying.
        People HAVE to pay attention to current events and take a greater interest in what's really going on before everything turns to ***** rather than after the fact.

        Put Bush in prison and we can start setting an example of why you don't abuse your power and manipulate the public with wealth.

    • spritom, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3If the feds would stop meddling in local democratic action, maybe the Legalizing New Machine Guns for Private Ownership vote could be done in Arizona! ;)
    • joeanon, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3What you want is a balance of power between state and federal.

      We tried state based government int he years before the Constitution was signs under the Confederacy of State and it was a horrible failure.

      States started printing their own money, having entirely different laws.

      In an age like today with travel and tourism and such you can't let state's vary their laws too much or creates impossible problems and ultimately divides the nation.

      Things like education and drug laws needs to be federal because the states have had their chances and done little beside screw it up.

      State's have always had the power to legalize drugs, but for it really work right it needs to be done at the federal level.

      You can't have a system where possessing a drug is legal in state and illegal in another. That will hurt trade, transport and tourism along with keeping the justice system overly complex to the point the average person simply cannot understand it.

      We need to start blow laws out that defy the constitution. Drug laws are good example of defying personal liberty and using propaganda to instill your opinion into the people.

      We have opium and marijuana and cocaine running throughout America for over a hundred years and it wasn't a problem until we started trying to make unenforceable and simple inhumane laws to control people.

      It's much more than a state issue it's about the fundamental freedoms of the citizens of ALL the states.

      We should legalize MJ and decriminalize and regulate the harder drugs.

      We could knock the profit right out of most organized crime just like that and turn into national profit instead of sending that money overseas and arming gangs.

      It has to be a federalize effort though or it's just pandering to drug users without the benefits of reduces crime and costs.

      Another problem is employer drug test.. for most jobs.. these should end.. period... along with credit checks. Our employers have no right to peer into our personal lives.

      How would the rich like it if we just made their personal finances public information so we know what kind of people we are really dealing with ?

      OH NO... that would be communism, but when you do it to the poor... that's capitalism.

    • JohnLawson, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1Amen, to personal freedoms.
  • pyroboy4206, on 07/01/2008, -28/+142Guess who is going to move to Cali?!?!?!!??!


    That is right folks, THIS GUY!!!
    • WiseWeasel, on 07/01/2008, -0/+85NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

      Unless you're a hot chick, in which case, may I be the first to extend you a warm welcome on behalf of all Californians... Your name indicates otherwise, though. The last thing we need right now is more pyros... : P
      • pyroboy4206, on 07/01/2008, -3/+13aww, I promise I will find a nice shack in the woods somewhere far north or something. Is that cool, lol..

        They gotta get some initiative in the Midwest already...
      • tincanorange, on 07/01/2008, -6/+1LOL
      • brawltimore, on 07/01/2008, -0/+6cause: cali makes weed legal
        effect: potheads move there

        you can't do that to us, you can't have an awesome club and then say No Homer's.

        You have a huge state and I don't want to live anywhere near LA.
      • Gill850, on 07/01/2008, -2/+0you and about enough people to sign that damn petition will move there
      • busybenj, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1classic
    • chuckDontSurf, on 07/01/2008, -1/+17I'm glad you answered your question. I would have been wondering the rest of the day.
    • SidiousX3, on 07/01/2008, -1/+0Yeah, there's too damn many of them since the achievements came out!
    • KipEvil, on 07/01/2008, -0/+25Do you have 2 thumbs?
    • jenel, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5No you're not.
    • Mesmorize, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4You probably couldn't afford it unless it was some place out in the desert. It's ridiculously expensive.
    • TucanSam836354, on 07/01/2008, -7/+2...wonder if "this guy" is a pot head.
    • ltethe, on 07/01/2008, -0/+16Guess who just took a look at the cost of living and found out he can't afford to live in Cali...

      That's right folks, THAT GUY!!!
    • Rileyluck, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1its all a scam!!!!! now they know who smokes pot!!!! score one for the war on drugs....

      damn you.... damn.. you....
    • iJessicaRabbit, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Guess I'm headed out Californee Way :)
  • Jazzillion, on 07/01/2008, -11/+176Here is the actual measure: http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/initiatives/pdfs/ ...
    Make some noise and support this. It's not about getting high, it's about protecting our civil liberties as human beings.
    • hansonc, on 07/01/2008, -4/+90don't lie, it's about getting high
      • Flashtone, on 07/01/2008, -2/+16hahaha
      • GassyTurd, on 07/01/2008, -3/+0I don't have time for your shoddy rhymes.
      • Mistaxe, on 07/01/2008, -0/+4Yeah, alright it's about getting high...*snicker*...
        EDIT: mmmm....snickers....
      • NikoKun, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3It is about getting high... but that is only a small part of it.

        Would you consider it selfish for blacks to want their rights? I see our right to get high, as no more selfish.
      • Resiroth, on 07/02/2008, -1/+2Nikokun, I'm fine with marijuana being legalized if it has the same restrictions as alcohol for ex. ( no driving while high ) but saying that you not being able to get high legally is on the same level as blacks not having rights is horrible.

        You can still get high, and it is not even a criminal offense in California. Black people couldn't vote. They couldn't go to the same schools. They had separate bathrooms. I'd give up any leisure activity to not experience what they did.
      • NikoKun, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1I wasn't comparing the level of hardship involved...-_-
        I was comparing the level of selfishness, in WANTING our rights to do so, or have freedoms.

        Many people who say "You just want to get high without being arrested." say that because they think us wanting to get high, is somehow selfish.
        I merely pointed out, that me wanting my rights and freedoms of choice and control over my OWN body, is no more selfish, than someone who wants ANY other right or freedom, which they deserve as individual living beings. Inalienable rights...
    • ATLien74, on 07/01/2008, -1/+33...AND getting high....

      ...without going to jail.
      • atticus8, on 07/02/2008, -0/+3You know that old cliche that goes "everything that's good isn't good for me"? This issue blows that statement to hell. Voting to approve this measure not only does something to guard against the ever-encroaching power of an ever-entitled State, but you might just get a good giggle of out it, too.

        This country should have learned something from the 18th Amendment - the only addition to the Constitution we found so disastrous and anti-productive we had to take it back. I hope we (as a country, not just California) are going to make this terrible ban right again.
    • Navicerts, on 07/01/2008, -0/+13It's about getting rid of the policy that is in place costing tax payers a fortune and getting police and citizens killed and/or arrested. It's about reducing the prison population in the US by like half (or at least in California).

      Sure, there will still be illegal drug trafficking, and there will still be enforcement but it will result in a HUGE decrease in numbers.
    • pacman122, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4On second thought, IT IS about getting high
    • yacks, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWe_IScqzeM
      ^replace asking for money to signing bill and drinking to smoking pot.. ;)
    • Jashro, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Plus it will finally allow scientists to really research the substance and discover any potential short and long term effects.
    • jabberwolf, on 07/01/2008, -5/+1Just make smoking a ticket offense, not a jail-able offense.

      That would solve most of the problems and actualy make the state money, rather then waste it jailing people for baking and being stupid.

      But legal? No thanks, just be retarded in your house, not outside.
      • NikoKun, on 07/01/2008, -0/+7Your half solution, fixes nothing.
        We should be freely allowed to use what we want, on our own bodies, WITHOUT getting ANY penalty for it, unless we ***** up and act irresponsibly, harming someone else.

        Anything short of legalization, will continue to allow the black market to sell it... And thus you solve no problem.
        Legalization will force the criminal element TOTALLY out of the Marijuana trade!

        And quite frankly... You're stereotype does not apply to 75% of Cannabis users... -_- We are not stupid, or lazy... Many of us do not act like stupid teenagers while high... We simple act like responsible adults, who are enjoying their time.
      • koft, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Why would you want to give the government more money?
      • ghinch, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1I believe, at least in California, possession of small amounts of weed (1/8 or 1/4 for sure) is simply a ticket offense already.
      • enantiodromia, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1so, you are saying it is better for people to stay home and eat tacos, fritos, smores, funyuns, pizza, pizza tacos, jalepeno poppers, peanut M&Ms, and tacos, than to go outside and experience life?

        thats not really good for anyone.
      • ChristianMagic, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1I disagree. It might be bad for you as a person, but I don't believe it's the government's job to protect you from your own choices even if they are bad in the government's opinion.
    • maxxstiles, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Hey thanx for the LINK to the PDF woot woot
    • browwiw, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Our civil liberties? What about all their fascist anti-gun laws in California?
      • D0m0kun, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Guns are for hippies. Real men defend their property and liberties with swords.
      • browwiw, on 07/02/2008, -0/+2Men with swords are shot by men with guns.
  • badwithcomputer, on 07/01/2008, -19/+455***** THE RIA-

    ...I mean THE DEA
    • fLUx1337, on 07/01/2008, -1/+64Nah you were on the right path:

      ***** THE RIAA & DEA
    • ATLien74, on 07/01/2008, -1/+32Don't forget the MPAA!
    • AverageJoe, on 07/01/2008, -6/+29AND THE IRA!
    • mxmj, on 07/01/2008, -0/+21The DOJ is really the one that needs to ***** off...
    • JDoorjam, on 07/01/2008, -2/+25but not the THC!
    • VegaObscura3, on 07/01/2008, -2/+25***** THE IRS!
    • freeth1nker, on 07/01/2008, -5/+19***** the Po-lice!
    • rjhomuth, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3AAIR EHT KCUF
    • geeshock, on 07/01/2008, -1/+10***** this thread
    • TheSexyGeek, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5FTW?
    • dudefather, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8***** THE RSPCA
      ***** THE RSPCC

      ***** dogs and kids think they own the place
    • frisk415, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2***** A2M!!

      ...I mean

      A2M *****!!
    • marx2k, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0***** THE *****
    • sublimemind, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1Well the RIAA always does it live.

      And yes I am fully aware of how outplayed connecting the word "*****" to Bill O'Reily's tirade is, especially on our fine Digg where it only took about 48 seconds for us to use it in every way imaginable that was still a form of disgruntled English, but just because were all shouting the same thing at once doesnt mean it ages any faster, just differently. Now proceed to move your mouse up and slightly to the right and click on that red button with a vengeance, oh mighty smiter of words.
      • ATLien74, on 07/02/2008, -0/+1What's the big deal? It doesn't hurt anybody. ***** ***** ***** ***** *****.
  • BananaTrolley, on 07/01/2008, -25/+14HELL YES!!!!!!!! now only if texas did that lulz
    • Anarchon, on 07/01/2008, -19/+20Texans are barely coherent enough to handle their own genitals with a semblance of responsibility. If anyone in the country needs their nanny state, it's them.
      • 8m4ck, on 07/01/2008, -10/+15Nice stereotype and collectivist thinking... how "progressive" of you.
      • ATLien74, on 07/01/2008, -4/+6Don't mess with Texas!
      • mtvkilledusall, on 07/01/2008, -2/+7***** YOU. I'm from AUSTIN.
      • one1082, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3You are an idiot.
    • AchaIemoipas, on 07/01/2008, -7/+14Texas is why weed is illegal.

      That's where the first anti-marijuana law was passed.
      • 8m4ck, on 07/01/2008, -2/+11Not true - the catalyst for its criminalization originated in Congress, a bill known as the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Though it didn't explicitly ban cannabis, it created a catch-22 situation requiring a tax stamp. In order to obtain the stamp, people incriminated themselves by admitting they had no stamp to begin with, ultimately leading to a black market (which is what typically happens when then government get involved).

        The sad aspect of this is it was entirely racially motivated, much in the same way cocaine and heroin were.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4The Marijuana tax act is the first federal anti-marijuana law.

        The first law criminalizing marijuana was passed in Texas in 1919.

        The first law making posession of marijuana a legal offense, but only punishable by a fine was passed in Utah in 1915, back then Utah turned church doctrine into law automatically.

        And nobody could incriminate themselves by asking for the stamp, they just never issued a single one of them.
      • 8m4ck, on 07/01/2008, -0/+3I wasn't disagreeing with you, in fact there was legislation even before Texas. I was pointing out the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was the primary catalyst for its illegality today, not Texas.

        The stamps were in fact issued to those who were permitted to have them - doctors, dentists, etc. Though few were issued because of the price - $100 in 1937 dollars, making it very difficult to obtain. This lead to the "leaking" of the stamps into the hands of common citizens and criminals, and ultimately lead to the creation of a black market.
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1"I wasn't disagreeing with you""Not true"

        The only people allowed to receive stamps were hemp farmers until that was made illegal too.

        And it cost 10 dollars in most states. $3.50 per gram in other states.

        Here's a picture of them:
        http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6668

        Why would a black market use government stamps?