Post removed by poster.

[~]

Post removed by poster.

[Juana]

I'm voting no. Not because I don't support legalization (I do), but because California schools will loose out on about $2b in federal funding. Drug free is a requirement for campuses and their employees, and that can't be guaranteed if weed is legalized. It has to do with the way the bill is written, apparently.

[bds]

I'm hoping this passes, and the influx of people smoking in public causes the ENTIRE STATE to get passively stoned.

[bds]

Epic!

[Juana]

I was told the money generated from the taxable income would help fund the schools and roads, and make back more than the loss, but I was told that by a massive advocate whom is probably biased. good reason for a negatory vote mind you.

The school program is far more important than most things imho.

although, drug free campuses? california? I'll just mutter something about my friendly chemistry student colleges being obviously unaware of this and put this icon here

2 billion is one hell of a lot, and I'd not want that of a heavy tax on the dope.

Keeping to the letter of the law regarding medical use / growth is one heck of a pain, and I was hoping that the 19 would open some proper legislation and decent standardized guidelines on product, storing, labeling, a real standard strength guide etc. Still, I'd not want the school systems to suffer, due to pretty much personal avarice.

Mind you, if it does go though, there is nothing stopping people who are making a decent profit from it, donating to their local schools, right?

BDS: its like that here, at this time of year the stink of the weed fields creates quite the stench all over the county. Last years fires burned up about 20 acres of it, and noshit, everyone in town had a contact high for a day or two till the air cleared. hillarious.

On paper, they're supposed to be drug free. God knows they aren't IRL. College doesn't have that, because you can drink on some campuses (not on mine, sadly, and that means I can't drink on debate trips out of town) and you can smoke tobacco all you like.

[Juana]

We're a community college.  That's mostly it, I think. I would say it's also because I live in a backwater place, but we're the drunkest city in the country. My coaches hate it, too, because they can't drink either.

[Jenne]

The thing I worry about, Liam, is that 1) the responsibility of who's driving the bus is really not set out in that bill, it was too loosely written 2) big Pharma will end up taking over operations like yours and 3) that the taxable monies will NOT go towards what CA needs them for, because again, it's too loosely written.

I'm pretty sure it'll get thrown out in court if it makes it, that's the other thing I worry about.

[Doktor Howl]

2) big Pharma will end up taking over operations like yours

Naw.  The reason Big Pharma lobbies so hard against this is that weed grows ANYWHERE. 

[Juana]

Where did the succession rumor come from? Because I live in the ass-backwards part of the state - the part that would think of it first, and I haven't heard a peep. And I'll check up on the buying-up-the-hills rumor and get back to you.

[Jenne]

I hear about the big pharma and tobacco farmers picking up land in CA too.  I'm serious--there's not enough tightened up in the way this is written.  I'm for legalization, but I'm not sure this is legalization FOR ALL, if you catch my drift.

[Requia ☣]

I'm voting no. Not because I don't support legalization (I do), but because California schools will loose out on about $2b in federal funding. Drug free is a requirement for campuses and their employees, and that can't be guaranteed if weed is legalized. It has to do with the way the bill is written, apparently.

This sounds strange, I can't imagine something in a bill that says schools have to allow drugs on campus, maybe something preventing piss testing.  Keep in mind that both sides of the bill are probably making shit up, it happens everywhere but California ballot measure talking points in particular contain enough bullshit to replace the nations fertilizer.

[Juana]

Has more to do with employees, I suspect. If it's legal, pee tests aren't required sfasik. Though teachers aren't piss tested after initial hiring, I think. Bus drivers, etc. might be more of a worry, though.

[Disco Pickle]

Has more to do with employees, I suspect. If it's legal, pee tests aren't required sfasik. Though teachers aren't piss tested after initial hiring, I think. Bus drivers, etc. might be more of a worry, though.

Is this true?  Even if it's legal, companies should still be able to hire based on use of any nonprescribes substance.

There are companies that will not hire you if you smoke cigarettes, so I can't see that this would be any different.

For obvious safety reasons, OSHA will probably have a hand in making sure companies are compliant with drug testing already in place.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I'm just going to leave this right here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/schmoyoho#p/a/736C3116AD309B58/1/jbc2NaLuv1A

[Tempest Virago]

I haven't decided what I'm voting on that one yet. I think I'll do some more research before I decide.