- Persons over the age of 21 may possess up to one ounce of marijuana for personal consumption.
- May use marijuana in a non-public place such as a residence or a public establishment licensed for on site marijuana consumption.
- May grow marijuana at a private residence in a space of up to 25 square feet for personal use.
- Local government may authorize the retail sale of up to 1 ounce of marijuana per transaction, and regulate the hours and location of the business.
- Local government may authorize larger amounts of marijuana for personal possession and cultivation, or for commercial cultivation, transportation, and sale.
- Allows for the transportation of marijuana from a licensed premises in one city or county to a licensed premises in another city or county, without regard to local laws of intermediate localities to the contrary.
- Maintains existing laws against selling drugs to a minor and driving under the influence.
- Maintains an employers right to address on-the-job consumption of marijuana that affects an employee's job performance.
- Maintain existing laws against interstate or international transportation of marijuana.
Image: 1972 poster.
Yes, yes, and yes. Let consenting adults do what they want with their own bodies.
ReplyDeleteLogic tells me yes. Sheer gut reaction and family history (my oldest and her husbands) tell me no. Marijuana use caused more serious problems than I care to ennumerate.
ReplyDeleteLook at Portugal: http://bit.ly/Eo6bH
ReplyDeleteand the Netherlands and you see it can work. Educating what drugs can do to you and helping the people who are addicted is so much better than just putting all drug users in jail. The "war on drugs" is a war you cannot win. And what John said
@Barbwire the same could be said for alcohol, coffee, and McDonalds. Thank god this is finally coming to pass. Just think of how much money can and will be generated and saved. This is an idea whose time has come.
ReplyDeletePlease no.
ReplyDeleteWe've got enough stoned people in this state.
1.4 billion, what a crock, and if we tax lotto, we can have all the money the schools will ever need.
I would only vote yes if the law could be proven to reduce the number of pot smokers.
Although I support the law's passing, it should be noted that RAND researchers foresee consumption rising and the cost per ounce falling by 80%, severely decreasing the revenue that would go to the state.
ReplyDeletehttp://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/proposition-19-marijuana-costs.html