California Voters "Just Said No" to legalization of Pot. Why oh Why?

[What Exit?]

California apparently had a legalize pot question and it was voted down. I was wondering how and why it would be voted down. My brother's theory was "Oh man, election day was yesterday? Like wow? I should have voted or something."

Details are here.
No 3,826,487 53.8%
Yes 3,297,590 46.2%
Total votes 7,124,077 100.00%

Why was Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator one of the ones against it? I mean I know MADD is scum sucking do-gooders from hell but I would think Feinstein (Frisco right) would know better.


Some of the laughable reasons against it:
"Enactment of Proposition 19 will endanger school children because "A school bus driver would be forbidden to smoke marijuana on schools grounds or while actually behind the wheel, but could arrive for work with marijuana in his or her system." Think of the children was actually used.

"Problems exist from tobacco and alcohol being legal, why add another to the mix?" Sound thinking, like that would outweigh the problems enforcement.


They convinced people this is a bad idea: "Prop 19 would make it more difficult for police to perform warrantless searches" Argh!


Look, this might seem minor or laughable but I am really sick of this stupid "War" on Drugs. It has thousands in jail over nothing important, it has destabilized Mexico, especially the border regions. We have been at it forever and are as successful as Prohibition was. It is a stupid waste of money, time and most importantly young lives. Lots of young lives.

[Orual]

Well, from where I sit, pot is de facto legal anyways. People pretty much smoke up openly, and it's not like it's particularly difficult to get a prescription.

So I'm sure apathy about the current situation had an effect.

[Zuul]

Well, from where I sit, pot is de facto legal anyways. People pretty much smoke up openly, and it's not like it's particularly difficult to get a prescription.

So I'm sure apathy about the current situation had an effect.

Good point. Since it's de facto legal, adding specific legislation for it ends up making it less legal. It would go from being something that everybody ignores or else gets a prescription for to something the feds are finally going to start looking at again. I imagine for most people it was a "it ain't broke, don't fix it" situation.

[Inner Stickler]

And my understanding is that Prop 19 would have done nothing to fix that. According to what I've read it was a poorly written initiative that would have gained no money for California, created conflicts of interest between the state and the feds and cost time, effort, and money in the form of lawsuits to bang out exactly what actions employers would be able to take against smokers who partake on or just before the job. The ballot initiative has shown that there is a lot of interest in decriminalizing marijuana so the next step is to petition the legislature so that there's a possibility of a wellwritten measure that will address some of the issues with this one.

[Marsilia]

"Enactment of Proposition 19 will endanger school children because "A school bus driver would be forbidden to smoke marijuana on schools grounds or while actually behind the wheel, but could arrive for work with marijuana in his or her system." Think of the children was actually used.

While I'm all about a logical "Think of the children" argument, this one really isn't. If we're worried about bus drivers showing up to work high, why are we not worried about bus drivers showing up to work drunk? And, why do we think we won't often be able to smell the pot and send the driver's ass home?

[Inner Stickler]

Because the initiative contains a note that employers will not be able to discipline workers for coming to work high unless it actively impairs performance. And what actively impairs performance means is something that's going to have to be defined and the most likely way that will happen is through the courts but until it is a school may not be able to send a driver home for being high unless they want to risk a lawsuit for interfering in the driver's partaking of marijuana.

[Marsilia]

Because the initiative contains a note that employers will not be able to discipline workers for coming to work high unless it actively impairs performance. And what actively impairs performance means is something that's going to have to be defined and the most likely way that will happen is through the courts but until it is a school may not be able to send a driver home for being high unless they want to risk a lawsuit for interfering in the driver's partaking of marijuana.

What moron didn't think to write in consideration for jobs that include driving and use of heavy machinery?

[Zuul]

What moron didn't think to write in consideration for jobs that include driving and use of heavy machinery?

Pot's totally harmless, man. Why're you trying to harsh our buzz?

[Marsilia]

What moron didn't think to write in consideration for jobs that include driving and use of heavy machinery?

Pot's totally harmless, man. Why're you trying to harsh our buzz?

Dude. Dude, listen to me. I'm totally trying to get us some time off work here.

[Zuul]

What moron didn't think to write in consideration for jobs that include driving and use of heavy machinery?

Pot's totally harmless, man. Why're you trying to harsh our buzz?

Dude. Dude, listen to me. I'm totally trying to get us some time off work here.

:coughcough: Sweet.

[Marsilia]

What moron didn't think to write in consideration for jobs that include driving and use of heavy machinery?

Pot's totally harmless, man. Why're you trying to harsh our buzz?

Dude. Dude, listen to me. I'm totally trying to get us some time off work here.

:coughcough: Sweet.

I know, right? I've got skills, yo.