Prop 19 passes

[NomadicSky]

Suppose in November of 2010 the numbers were reversed and 53% of Californians vote yes on the measure, California becomes the first state to legalize cannabis...

I'm not sure how selling it would go but I suppose by now it might be sold in head shops in the state. Some counties would be...brown while those that voted yes would be green. (going with the wet and dry that alcohol sales is).

There might be limits on the thc content in some counties but California would show the US that yes this is doable.

What of the federal government though, might it have intervened?

 

[NKVD]

Federal government would go apeshit.

The cartels would go apeshit.

Seriously though...I'm not sure about the cartels. But before the election last year, I was pretty sure Prop 19 would ignite some major constitutional legal battle, eventually resulting in the Supreme Court ruling Prop 19 unconstitutional because of the supremacy clause. Even though that's nonsense.

 

[Maniakes]

Prop 19 didn't attempt to nullify federal law, just to legalize pot under state law, so there's no supremecy clause issue. Indeed, under the anti-commandeering principle, a federal attempt to mandate that California pass and enforce a state-level ban on pot (if done directly and not through a back-door route like making it a condition of highway funding) would likely be found to be unconsitutional.

Instead, what we'd probably see would be a larger-scale version of the medical marijuana issue: businesses operating openly producing and selling pot with the full blessing of state and local governments, but still subject to prosecution under federal law as the DEA's resources permit.

 

[Constantinople]

It would be a fun legal nightmare to watch. Legal (and likely unconstitutional) challenges flying around, the DEA trying to enforce a law with out the 99% of help they usually get from state authorities..... So much fun.

 

[Twin City Lines]

This discussion reminds me of a weird, but opposite, situation with the issue of illegal immigration. The federal government doesn't do as much to enforce those laws as some of the states would like, due to perceived costs to those states, so they pass state laws in parallel with the federal ones to give them some teeth. Instead of being grateful for the support, the feds oppose these efforts, and even go to court to get them declared unconstitutional.

So why do the feds go apeshit over states wanting to get rid of parallel state laws against pot, but also go apeshit over states that want to help the feds with the illegal alien "problem".

(Note: Just observing a situation. My personal opinions are not as they might appear from this post.)