As a farmer, I cannot stand to watch California effectively decriminalize Marijuana for pot smokers. I am a 50 year old Farmer in this state, and my father and Grandfather used to cultivate Agricultural Hemp   prior to  WW II. So my question is, how the hell are we in Agriculture supposed to compete with Industrial fiber producers in China, India, and Southeast Asia? Why can't we Farmers grow Hemp for fiber like my grandfather did?

Does California realize the huge profit potential in this fiber crop? Does California realize the huge windfall this could represent for Our State?
Why make pot smoking crap effectively a non criminal offense, yet we in Agriculture cannot grow a non drug source fiber that Anyone, Anywhere can purchase off the shelf to make clothing, yarn, potato sacks, canvas and the like. And, might I add, the stuff you can buy off the shelf, all of the commercially available Hemp fiber, every damn bit of it is Imported !!

Enough of our Representatives selling out the California Farmers, let us make a living, this country is starting to resemble the USSR, too many damn regulations on what we can do, and even now, what we say or even think !!!

Pissed off Farmer

And that's the kind of attitude that screws up the country. If every side thinks they're right all the time how the hell are we gonna get things done? Maybe both sides are wrong and a middle ground is needed. It's sad that the middle ground has been empty for a longg longg time. Even talking to other party runners seems beyond them. All of them. Thats why I appreciate this bill being passed. It's a compromise between total legalization and prohibition of marijuana. MIDDLE GROUND! I hope in time the epic nature of this bill, forgetting the actual bill itself for a second; that a politician compromised and did good for everyone. It's an attitude to follow.

And who gives a crap about the 60s, lots of people being super nice who mostly became productive members of society and blew up suburb growth.
Please please people stand by what you believe but leave some wiggle room to listen instead of instantly hating. Okay you don't like pot, so what? Millions of people function fine smoking or drinking casually. Acceptance seems beyond people, but this bill being passed is the American way of saying deal with it.  Thats exactly what people do in this country. And damnit you make it sound like America's foundation is as useful as a towel to cover up nakedness.  if you're not an american then that's fine you're entitled to your opinion and if you are, its still damn fine because you're entitled to your opinion. You should appreciate that. Freedom and love and american spirit might sound like liberal crap but it's a way that doesn't thrive on separation of americans within their own country.

And if none of that hits home try finding a pariotic American that doesn't get pissed off when you act like you use the bill of rights to wipe your ass.

Well its about time a state did the right thing.The decriminalisation of cannibis is a great thing.

Now we need to get this done on a national level,even here in the bible belt.Im hoping that prop 19 does go ahead and pass,it will give more states the needed push to get this done.

It is wrong to punish people for something that is less harmful then booze or tobacco,Ive been smoking for over 30 years,Ive  got college and a nice job that requires complex thinking,I have a good attendance record,we get a bonus for being at work,so it doesnt destroy the mind or anything else.Now Ive seen drunks lose their jobs not show up for work,and on and on.Ive also seen the ravages of tobacco, in lung cancer.

So any ways this is a start I sure hope PROP 19 does pass.

Keep up the good work California you are paving the way for the rest of the NATION.

So I haven't read every comment on here but one thing I did notice is taking a chance to hate on democrats for whatever reasons.  I love how these republicans and tea baggers say they wasn't smaller govt.  Blah Blah Blah.  Yet it seems to be only when it suits their desires.  Legalizing marijuana would be the very definition of smaller govt.  It's less govt intervention.  By having it illegal the govt needs to spend money  (oh no another tea bagger no no) to hire cops put people in prison etc etc.  All I'm saying is if your gonna stand for something then you should at least be consistent.

This still doesn't answer the Federal issues.  The supremacy issues and that Dope is still against the law.  I applaud California for being a leader in this cause, but who cares.  The next border fence we install starts at the Nevada state line.  Your state is imploding and your passing another high bill.  Be assured that when some dope headed stoner crosses the center line and hurts my family, your state budget will disappear.  (As if there was one that is)  Of course the stoned driver will cease to exist on this plain man, immediately.  What a total waste of electrons.

Pot's not going to be legalized anytime soon.  People will still get arrested on dumb technicalities.  Think smart.  Are the tax revenues that could potentially come from weed enough to offset the, conservatively guessing, 25% drop in law enforcement spending. 

Try convincing ANYONE, let alone cops, to take a drastic budget cut because the 'war on drugs' is over and drugs won.  Good luck

OK - thanks Arnie - for whatever reason you signed it, it was a good "baby step" for many reasons.  I hope Jan in AZ follows.

Prop 19 will be an even better step.  Please get out and vote for it!  And yes I am VERY conservative, NOT progressive.  Smoke it responsibly, grow it, tax it, regulate it and let's get on to joining forces to keep government honest and out of our lives.  Turn back the "Nanny State".  California has so much to offer and I love it every day but the place needs a morals overhaul - like keep out of my business and stop taking my money to give to progressives that want to provide social welfare for everyone - including illegals!  No problem with immigrants - come on in - in a regulated fashion - none of this open border BS.  THAT is the next step - protecting our growers - here.  This waltzing and sailing across the border has to stop - THAT is what the Sheriff Joe's are great for.  Grow it legally here and protect the farmers. No reason a Sheriff Joe should be stopping anyone related to MJ - just Illegal Border crossings - and CRIME.

The idiots who think this is a good idea will continue to think so until they lose a loved one, lose a job because of a piss test, or lose a body part.

Then these liberal idiots will claim that the law allowed then the "right" to smoke, and will want restitution for damages.

This is a feel good move, that will have disastrous consequnces in the future.

What is next, derivatives of cocaine?

Black tar? Roofies, Ex?

Where does it stop?  The same argument IS used for every recreational drug.

Insanity

The 1937 Marihuana Tax Act Pub. 238, 75th Congress, 50 Stat. 551 (Aug. 2, 1937), was an United States Act that placed a tax on the sale of cannabis. The act was drafted by Harry Anslinger and introduced by Rep. Robert L. Doughton of North Carolina, on April 14, 1937. The Act is now commonly referred to using the modern spelling as the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.

• 1 Overview of the Act
• 2 Background
• 3 Operation of the Act
• 4 Etymology
• 5 See also
• 6 References
• 7 Further reading
• 8 External links

[edit] Overview of the Act

The Act levied a tax equaling roughly one dollar on anyone who dealt commercially in cannabis, hemp, or marijuana. The Act did not itself criminalize the possession or usage of hemp, marijuana, or cannabis. It did include penalty and enforcement provisions to which marijuana, cannabis, or hemp handlers were subject. Violation of these procedures could result in a fine of up to $2000 and five years' imprisonment.

[edit] Background

Some parties have argued that the aim of the Act was to reduce the size of the hemp industry [1][2][3] largely as an effort of businessmen Andrew Mellon, Randolph Hearst, and the Du Pont family.[1][3] With the invention of the decorticator, hemp became a very cheap substitute for the paper pulp that was used in the newspaper industry.[1][4] Hearst felt that this was a threat to his extensive timber holdings. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury and the wealthiest man in America, had invested heavily in the Du Pont families new synthetic fiber, nylon, which was also being outcompeted by hemp.[1]

The bill was passed over the last-minute objections of the American Medical Association. Dr. William Woodward, legislative counsel for the A.M.A. objected to the bill on the grounds that the bill had been prepared in secret without giving proper time to prepare their opposition to the bill.[5] He doubted their claims about marijuana addiction, violence, and overdosage; he further asserted that because the word Marijuana was largely unknown at the time, the medical profession did not realize they were losing cannabis. "Marijuana is not the correct term... Yet the burden of this bill is placed heavily on the doctors and pharmacists of this country." [5]

The bill was passed on the grounds of different reports[6] and hearings [7]. Anslinger also referred to the International Opium Convention that from 1928 included cannabis as a drug, and that all states had some kind of laws against improper use of cannabis. Today, it is generally accepted that the hearings included incorrect, excessive or unfounded arguments.[8] By 1951, however, new justifications had emerged, and the Boggs Act that superseded the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed.[citation needed] See History of United States drug prohibition.

The background also included a report about the commercialized hemp, reporting that from 1880 to 1933, the hemp grown in the United States had declined from 15,000 acres (61 km2), to 1,200 acres (5 km2), and that the price of line hemp had dropped from $12.50 per pound in 1914 to $9.00 per pound in 1933.[9]

[edit]

The 1937 Marihuana Tax Act Pub. 238, 75th Congress, 50 Stat. 551 (Aug. 2, 1937), was an United States Act that placed a tax on the sale of cannabis. The act was drafted by Harry Anslinger and introduced by Rep. Robert L. Doughton of North Carolina, on April 14, 1937. The Act is now commonly referred to using the modern spelling as the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act.

• 1 Overview of the Act
• 2 Background
• 3 Operation of the Act
• 4 Etymology
• 5 See also
• 6 References
• 7 Further reading
• 8 External links

[edit] Overview of the Act

The Act levied a tax equaling roughly one dollar on anyone who dealt commercially in cannabis, hemp, or marijuana. The Act did not itself criminalize the possession or usage of hemp, marijuana, or cannabis. It did include penalty and enforcement provisions to which marijuana, cannabis, or hemp handlers were subject. Violation of these procedures could result in a fine of up to $2000 and five years' imprisonment.

[edit] Background

Some parties have argued that the aim of the Act was to reduce the size of the hemp industry [1][2][3] largely as an effort of businessmen Andrew Mellon, Randolph Hearst, and the Du Pont family.[1][3] With the invention of the decorticator, hemp became a very cheap substitute for the paper pulp that was used in the newspaper industry.[1][4] Hearst felt that this was a threat to his extensive timber holdings. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury and the wealthiest man in America, had invested heavily in the Du Pont families new synthetic fiber, nylon, which was also being outcompeted by hemp.[1]

The bill was passed over the last-minute objections of the American Medical Association. Dr. William Woodward, legislative counsel for the A.M.A. objected to the bill on the grounds that the bill had been prepared in secret without giving proper time to prepare their opposition to the bill.[5] He doubted their claims about marijuana addiction, violence, and overdosage; he further asserted that because the word Marijuana was largely unknown at the time, the medical profession did not realize they were losing cannabis. "Marijuana is not the correct term... Yet the burden of this bill is placed heavily on the doctors and pharmacists of this country." [5]

The bill was passed on the grounds of different reports[6] and hearings [7]. Anslinger also referred to the International Opium Convention that from 1928 included cannabis as a drug, and that all states had some kind of laws against improper use of cannabis. Today, it is generally accepted that the hearings included incorrect, excessive or unfounded arguments.[8] By 1951, however, new justifications had emerged, and the Boggs Act that superseded the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed.[citation needed] See History of United States drug prohibition.

The background also included a report about the commercialized hemp, reporting that from 1880 to 1933, the hemp grown in the United States had declined from 15,000 acres (61 km2), to 1,200 acres (5 km2), and that the price of line hemp had dropped from $12.50 per pound in 1914 to $9.00 per pound in 1933.[9]

[edit]

What a start,now if this would just happen here in the south(sure,when pigs go airborne).

I'm a right-of-center conservative and I think the MJ laws are a waste of time and money. Legalize pot but vigorously prosecute the real killer narcotics like cocaine, heroin, and illegally obtained prescription drugs. I'm 44 years old and most everyone my age know that pot is not going to kill anyone and is harmless. Should kids have access to it? NO! But they do already. They can get it easier than I can.

Well the brute became stupid - dumbos everywhere now - California now the state of potheads - the car tag will follow state of potheads

You want to see a real change on this issue in Arizona then help elect a pro-freedom County Attorney in Maricopa County (which has about 2/3 of Arizona's population).

I make a simple pledge -- As Maricopa County Attorney, I will devote the resources of the office to the prosecution of those individuals who have committed crimes involving force or fraud against another, identifiable, victim -- with a focus on victim restitution. Until such time as these efforts no longer consume all resources of the office, no efforts will be expended on prosecution of victimless crimes (such as simple possession).

After all, Arizona's Constitution makes clear that the purpose of government is the protection of individual rights -- government should not become the primary agent of violating the rights of individuals, including the right just to be left alone.

California now recognizes this as a problem (which it is, both for budget and resource reasons, but also because of freedom and humanitarian reasons). Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice seems on the same page with me about certain prosecutions:

"Perhaps the biggest waste of resources in all of state government is the ... over-incarceration of nonviolent offenders and our mishandling of drug and alcohol offenders. It is costing us billions of dollars and it is not making a dent in crime."

That is the Chief Justice of a state supreme court saying this. Yes, that's what I'm talking about.

Let's see real change in Arizona, vote Michael Kielsky for Maricopa County Attorney. http://kielsky.com

Just more reason for the murdering cartels to give you losers your one ounce at a time.

It ok to legalize it.

Just make sure you charge the rich an extra 5% tax when they buy it.

The real importance of this has obviously gone over everyone's head.  I.e. if an "infraction" is NOT a crime. Then how do peace officers stop, detain, or arrest for NON-CRIMINAL offenses?

Peace officers have authority ONLY over CRIMINAL OFFENSES.

HEL-LO

This is the worst excuse for a governor I've ever seen.  Frankly, he makes Gray Davis look pretty good. Can't wait for this idiot to be retired permanently. Maybe he'll have a different view when some infractor smokes a doobie just before he gets into his car and then plows into a school bus, eh? And how much easier he's made it for those little twerps to share now with even younger kids.  Perfect.  What, is he planning on going into agricultural weed once he hits the private sector again?

We still have yet to make proper strides in doing this for all fifty states ...

And that it should be legal by now for recreation if not medical .... w/e I guess California can lead the way for now. Go Arnie!

it's like 1945 to some old fashioned folks. They think a hit of marijuana will kill you. I'll prove i've smoked for over 22+ years and it's been a miracle drug for me. to each his own. leave the natural herbs alone. wanna fight go fight drug company's pushing vicodins that kill if you take more than 200 miligrams. oops dead.

As a Libertarian, The government should decriminalize MJ tomorrow and make it completely legal to grow, cultivate and sell.  If there is to be any government involvement, it should be on the health and safety issues alone, just like or food source, keep it clean and organic.  Now that's an idea!  

Right On,

Chad.

Simple possession may not carry the potential for serious punishment, but the demand is what keeps the drug lords and their punks in business.  As you people sit smugly smoking your weed, know that thousands of people are being terrorized and murdered in northern Mexico for your social lubricant. 

Also, times are tough, raise money off the addicts so we can fix the roads! 

Simple math: 60,000 pot-heads x $500 fines = $30 million!

There are some really stupid people commenting in here.  Prop 19 will generate millions in tax revenues for the state.  Read the voter guide that came in the mail this week.  This will actually legal cultivating jobs.  I see no negatives about it.  Alcohol is 100 X worse for you.

I have been a Police officer for over seven years, I don't agree with smoking marijuana I do have to deal with it on almost a daily basis.  Another point most outside law enforcement wouldn't know, it takes an hour or more for an officer to contact, investigate, interview, weigh, test, photograph, enter into evidence and write the report for someone carrying just one joint.  I makes no sense the law in this case is working against itself.  Why I am not able to seize the marijuana and issues a citation I will never know.  The more you have the more you pay.  The cut off would be when there is a certain total weight, if you are in a school zone, or if it appears you are selling, or if there are juveniles present, it would become a misdemeanor after the third time.  It's not a perfect system but what is.  It would free up the courts, lessen the burden on probation officers.  If you want less of something tax it.

I think a lot of people are missing a simple point. Do you own your body or not? If you do, then smoking marijuana or any drug for that matter is your personal choice. If the government has the right to tell you what you can't put into your own body then it has a higher claim to your body than you do.

But when people are high or addicts then they are more likely to commit crimes? Doesn't there need to be a victim for there to be a crime? So then prosecute them for the crimes they commit! They stole something? Prosecute. They assaulted someone? Prosecute. They drank turpentine? Oh well, it's their body. See my point?

But drugs decay the moral fabric of society! First of all this claim is completely unfounded. Second, if you don't have the right to stop people from doing what they wish with their own bodies, then neither does a group of people (ie. gov't). If you saw your neighbor smoking a joint, would you force him into your cellar at gunpoint and keep him there for a few years? You don't have the right. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT YOURSELF, HOW CAN YOU DELEGATE THAT RIGHT TO A GOVERNMENT?

  - Freedom prevails.

I am always astonished at the lack of judgment and simple adult sympathy found in those who celebrate the drug war. It is as if one were finding the hurricane in Haiti or Chile a reason to have a party. The millions of lives blighted - and ended, usually horribly - in Mexico and elsewhere due to drug cartels is an obvious reason to legalize pot, and medically regulate cocaine and other stimulants such as methamphetamine.

Great, thanks a lot you bunch of self absorbed antisocial narcissistic asinine idiots.  This is an unbelievable retrograde step, after years of suffering other peoples cigarette smoke to only recently have had it "banned" from public places now comes this this government backed dope use which is a thousand times worse.

I don't want to breathe your pollution, your drugs, I don't want your secondary effects, the difference between how what I want and what you want affects each other is that what I want has no negative effect on your life and health, you can go elsewhere, I can't and what you do (for those of you with atrophied noses and taste buds thanks to being smokers) affects a massive radius around you, the whole sidewalk for just one person, the whole restaurant for one person, the yards on all sides of yours, for one selfish person, it's all unusable for anyone not wanting to breathe that, so it's not usable at all.  No it is not like drinking or anything other than perhaps going around carrying a burning dog turd in a tray, wafting it at others.

In an insane world where people are pushing for peanut butter which is bloody hard to get contact from secondarily and can't exactly be inhaled to be banned from schools to bring this sort of legislation on a psychoactive narcotic shows the ass backwards nature of our government, media and the people that support this.

So well done, you guys just screwed over a lot of other people over for your personal obsession and pleasure.  Well done to the tobacco lobbies too, it seems you're never too far away and still have 'em in your pockets, how gullible they are.

Free Market Hemp is what the economy needs, not just recreational or even medical hemp, the economic power of hemp is industrial hemp. The most efficient and versatile of all biofuels is hemp, it grows in all the states and the processing of this fine plant will be the foundation of a green, sustainable fuel supply and economy. All the government needs to do is get out of the way and we will create millions of jobs and guarantee our fuel and food supply. Our forefathers grew and processed hemp to obtain financial independence. Hemp production was the number one agricultural product of the colonies. We grew our economic freedom and then declared and demanded all the rest.  We out did tyrants in the past and can do it again. The Tea Party should join with me and George Washington who said concerning Hemp, "Plant It Everywhere", now that is something the young people can support....  

Everyone would be amazed to know that cops really would like MJ legalized only for three reasons.  1.) less paperwork 2,) more space in jail for people that deserve to be in jail and 3.) more local county funds that can be used to actually go and catch hard core criminals; not the stupid thugs that just have a baggie.  I would rather put a joker in jail for a bag of crack then pot any day.  But the law is the law.  I have seen so many lives change when they are caught with a blunt in their ashtray on a traffic stop that tested positive for pot. 
 

Smoking pot is an idiotic recreational activity, if people want to sit around all day wasting their time and damaging their lungs, that is their call.  That being said, what Arnold did is dangerous from a libertarians point of view.  He has effectively increased demand, which is going to raise the price, and make the drug cartels extremely happy.  The drug war has been a failure, you can't stop people who don't want to be stopped, their will always be a market for mind altering substances, end of story.  This needs to become legal and regulated so people can buy it from safer sources then murderous cartels.  The people fighting to keep it illegal, are fighting to "protect" an idiot stoner, but in the process are responsible for the murder and death of countless human beings.  A much worse crime in my opinion.

and I do not mean that in hippy language. This is a step by step process.  This uncharted territory, Eventually it will be sold at walmart.  keep up the pressure. And that is my real name

I don't smoke, but it should be legal. Completely legal.

A weed that grows in the dirt.  You want to start arguing over stuff that is bad for you, start arguing over the overall air quality in Southern California!  SMOG will kill you long before smoking a weed that grows in the dirt!

Having read through a few of these threads, I now understand the new threat to our once glorious nation.  Stupidity. 

Why? You may ask...because I have never encountered more horrible grammar and/or bastardization of the English language than in the few posts found herein.

I don't need the government to tell me what's right and what's wrong.  Killing someone = BAD.  Smoking a joint = GOOD.    Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
 

some of these overly angry posts here are drug dealers realizing that the smart folks are waking up and are going to cut you off and out smart your little drug operations. 

Don't worry guys, it seems like there is still plenty of ignorance out there reading some of these comments.  You can continue to beat them at every turn while they sleep soundly with the fiction in their head's that "the war on Marijuana is protecting me" and it's not costing you billions and accomplishing very little..  While you count your tax free dollars before sending it off to cartels in other countries to be spent.

I mean prohibition worked so great for alcohol didn't it?  Just think at one time you were put in jail if you drank a beer.  History will look upon the same people of this time as similar resource wasters.

....if you're gonna legalize it, fine, but lets not pretend pot is harmless. I've seen pot destroy a few really good people in the past few years, and much like alcohol and other drugs, it has the same potential for harm and abuse. A really good friend has been smoking since I met him years ago. He works a 9-5 job, supports his fiance, and is a musician on the side. Overt the past two years, he's become increasingly forgetful, blanks out in the middle of conversations, and his motor functions are beginning to decline. He smokes so much, and so often now, that its probably only a matter of another year before he can no longer function on his own. He'll be a 26 yr old vegetable. Another great friend from high school was recently at a party. He did not drink, but smoked a considerable amount of weed, then decided to drive someone home that was drunk. His argument was that with weed, you can drive just fine, but since the other guy was drunk he needed to stay out from behind the wheel. He was reported by several cars as swerving and appearing to be a drunk driver, before he jerked the car to the left at high-speed, slamming into ongoing traffic on the other side of the road, causing a four car accident that result in his death, the death of someone else, and the severe injury of two other people. All this "just as bad as" or "safer than" talk is misleading. At the end of the day, intoxication through whatever form is bad, even in little doses. Alcohol is legal in this country, so like I said... if you're going to legalize it, fine, just please don't pretend its harmless.

Aside from the normal banter regarding this whole issue (legalization, Prop 19, misdemeanor vs. infraction)......

Does anyone here really want people that get high out in their cars driving?

How about when you go to the store, the mall or the movies... do you want to be surrounded by people that smell like rank stinkweed?

Now that it's 'okay' to possess a fat bag of ganja, do you have to frisk your 17 year old daughter's new date to make sure he's not some stoner?

Can you now trust that new beau of hers to drive her around? Or even just trust that he's not going to get super high and get stupid with her?

Will you have to wonder if the person at the drive up window taking your order really is high, or just stupid as you previously thought?

Is my copier repair guy blazed and possibly just fixed one thing but forgot about that wire he disconnected?

These are the types of topics that bother me. I really don't want to even be in the room with someone that has no respect for themselves, much less my property or the people that I love or care about. 

If people are so tired of their existence that they have to toke in order to feel better about themselves, or just 'forget' about things for a while, then those are not the people I want handling my credit card numbers at the pizza delivery store, watching my kids at daycare, taking my Social Security number information on the phone when you call the utility company...the list goes on and on.

There is a reason pot, cocaine, heroin, meth etc. are illegal. It is a hallucinogenic mind altering drug, that impairs your ability to make sound and reasonable decisions, operate machinery or just be a normal person.

Most people that this gives a free pass to are already criminals with criminal histories other than simple possession charges. Now it just signals that it might actually be okay if otherwise law abiding citizens that might be on the social teeter-totter like little Beaver Cleaver down the road wants to make that one wrong turn he has otherwise been avoiding.

People need to stop looking at things as though they have a right to do it legally, that they are then morally right to do so.

So everyone that just got a free pass to become Cheech & Chong, you can now walk among us with your heads held 'high' with no regard for anyone else.

The Democrat in San Fran that brought this up sickens me