Talk:California Proposition 19, the Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2010)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 10:39, 28 October 2010 by Hitman6999 (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Flag of California.png
This page is part of WikiProject California, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to California.

To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page or contribute to the project discussion.

BallotMeasureFinal badge.png

This page is part of WikiProject State Ballot Measures, a WikiProject including articles about:

To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page.

Ballotpedia's Ballot Measures project is managed by Brittany Clingen.

If you have any questions or comments please e-mail

Federal ramifications

Some links on that:

My reading of the first link is that the author is wrong. The local governments cannot make themselves fully "dry." They could prohibit commercial production and sale and use within businesses, but personal possession and cultivation would be legal throughout the state.
As for ramifications, the most likely would appear to be the withholding of federal funds, not massive enforcement, much like the age-21 law for drinking. That would take congressional action. Can anyone find a link or source showing any statements by Congressional or Executive officials threatening such action? If so, that would seem worthy of including in the article.--Jlange 13:00, 6 October 2010 (CDT)

references to other laws and editorials for..

This article is about this current prop 19. information about other laws in california, while they should be mentioned in the article.. should not be in the lead. For instance, prop 19 from 1970whatever was not the same bill as is being presented this election. Its confusing, people will assume this is the same law thats already been voted on when it is not. Medical marijuana could be mentioned in the article but not in the lead.. this bill is not about medical marijuana so its legal status is irrelevent to this specific bill as this article is not about the legalization history of the state of california but is specificallly about changes to the law as a result of this bill.

as for the editorials... listing a bunch of no editorials and 0 yes editorials does not cut it. I know there are editiorials out there in support of the bill.. as its listed now is non NPOV, as the endorsements were cherry picked. -Hitman6999 23:56, 8 October 2010 (CDT)

If you can find newspaper editorials in favor of a "yes" vote on Prop 19, which you say you know exist, you should include them. A section on newspaper editorials does not become NPOV simply by virtue of the fact, if it is a fact, that all the newspapers in a state line up one way on a ballot question. Polycal 07:13, 9 October 2010 (CDT)


I reverted Hitman6999's edit on the opponents section since all the citations provided establish that multiple such entities have come out in opposition and that some specific organizations were provided as examples. Polycal 07:06, 9 October 2010 (CDT)

Multiple orginization is not all orginizations. The initiative has support from people in those groups as well. The specific org's are fine. its the blanket statement which appears to present the non NPOV view that most are against it. Specificity is the key. If there are other groups you are leaving out. add them. -Hitman6999 07:28, 9 October 2010 (CDT)

I added some law enforcement and church supporters to show that your phrasing is biased.. and seperated all your grouped together orginizations so they stand on thier own.. instead of having them grouped together so generalizations can be made and you can list more opposers then supporters and still have it look like a similar amount of lines. Listing each group on its own in much more NPOV. -Hitman6999 10:45, 10 October 2010 (CDT)

btw.. you wouldn't be editing as Calgal too are you? funny how you have similar names, user pages are listed as same catagories (seem to be pretty much the only ones in project california and edit each other articles and are the sole editors on several...and started your talk pages and user pages two days after each other in march 2008.. girlfriend maybe?..or sockpuppet? -Hitman6999 13:31, 10 October 2010 (CDT)

Pro-Legalization People Against Prop 19 posts 2+3

The arguments are something to consider for the main wiki page.

Law professor listing

Law professors

Note: I originally put this on Yes390's talk page but decided to move it here. Polycal 08:02, 20 October 2010 (CDT)

On the new California Proposition 19, the Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2010)#Opinion of Law Professors section you added, I have a couple of thoughts:

  • You don't provide a citation for the assertion that no law professors are opposed to 19. It's hard to prove a negative.
---> I've added a citation (Yes390)
I've removed this section; a citation to the "no on 19" website establishes at best that as of a certain date, the "no on 19" people haven't bothered to specifically ask any law professors to endorse their position. The same could be said for the fact that they don't list any (name the occupation). The fact that the "No on 19" people don't have a section of endorsements from (name the occupation) doesn't merit a subsection in this article asserting that the "no on 19" people have no endorsements from (name the occupation). Polycal 08:02, 20 October 2010 (CDT)
If any law professors formally endorsed No on 19, it is reasonable to assume that the No on 19 website would list them as endorsers. We're not talking about any random profession. We're talking about law professors. Prop 19 proposes to change the law. There are issues of inconsistency with federal law. The opinion of law professors cannot be equated to the opinion of any random profession.
It might be a reasonable assumption, but you can't state as a fact something that is simply a reasonable assumption. Reasonable assumptions are not the same thing as facts. Polycal 08:45, 21 October 2010 (CDT)
I will reword it to address your concern.
  • The section is titled "Opinion of Law Professors" but it doesn't give any opinions. It's just a list.
---> The opinion is expressed in a letter signed by over 80 law professors across the country. The text of their letter appears in the citation. (Yes390)
If the section isn't going to include any information about what the opinion is, and instead just cites out to some material that actually does provide information on the details of the opinion, the section title should not misled readers into believing that they can find an opinion in it. Polycal 08:02, 20 October 2010 (CDT)
I have added the full text of the law professors' letter to this section to respond to Polycal's objection.
A couple of problems here. First, it would be much more considerate of the reader if you included a line or two describing what this is all about, rather than just launching without context into the text of a statement. Second, you've quoted so much of the statement that unless you have permission to quote that much from the originators of the statement, or there is a tag associated with its original publication saying that it can be copied freely elsewhere, putting this much of the statement here is a copyright violation, which exposes Ballotpedia to legal risk. See Ballotpedia:Copyright violations. I am removing it until this is resolved. Polycal 08:45, 21 October 2010 (CDT)
I will write a line or two describing what this is all about, as you suggest. The quote is of the law professors' open letter in its entirety. The material is not copyrighted.
  • Since it's just a list, does it really deserve an entire separate section? Isn't it just a subset of 19 supporters and as such should be added to the page about 19 supporters along with a few lines in the main supporters section noting that X number of law professors signed a statement endorsing 19? Polycal 08:27, 19 October 2010 (CDT)
---> No, it is not just a subset of 19 supporters. See previous response. (Yes390)
I don't see how the previous answer is relevant. So far, what this section is is a long list of the names of law professors. My recommendation is to condense all of this into a 2-3 paragraph section in the "support" part of the article that simply says that X number of laws professors signed a letter endorsing a yes vote on 19, giving their 2 or so main reasons for doing that as provided in their statement. Polycal 08:02, 20 October 2010 (CDT)
Sorry for my shorthand response. I will clarify: This is not just an arbitrary subset of Prop 19's endorsers. This group of law professors wrote a separate letter expressing their opinion. The text of their letter now appears in this section. Lawyers have some expertise to bring to the question because Prop 19 changes the law. Their opinion also has special relevance because of questions of inconsistency with the (federal) Controlled Substances Act. One objection raised against Prop 19 claims it is a "jumbled legal nightmare". Law professors' endorsement counterbalances this claim.
These are good points but it needs to be done differently because of copyright concerns. Please do some summarizing, excerpting, placing into context, etc. This will help readers understand why this matters because if you just stick it in the article without context, it just looks like a long and basically irrelevant copy-and-paste. If it matters in the way you say, please do more work to make it comprehensible to readers. Polycal 08:45, 21 October 2010 (CDT)
The quoted material is not under copyright. No copyright notice appears anywhere in cited source.

Its an OPEN letter.. its intention is to be distributed, to say its under copyright restriction does not make any sense. It can't be considered "irrelevant" its directly about the support of the measure from law professors. I found the article to be absolutly "comprehensible".. No confusion if you read the letter, it is pretty specific and detailed and provides its own context. Now.. you may have confusion as to the reasons or context if you DON'T include the letter, which is why I believe yes390 placed the letter in the article in the first place -Hitman6999 10:39, 28 October 2010 (CDT)

This discussion page has been protected from further postings.