ballot_pot.jpgHow should I vote on Prop 19? Because I’m too stoned to figure it out.

Here’s a handy cheat sheet, with help from a source so involved in the marijuana industry that he had to remain anonymous in order to give me his uncensored opinions:

Vote NO on Prop 19 if you are: the owner of a mom-and-pop dispensary, part of a Mexican drug cartel, or Meg Whitman.

Some of the people who are most opposed to Proposition 19 — and who are driving a lot of the misinformation that’s currently out there, according to my source — are dispensary owners, particularly smaller ones.

Right now they’re making lots of money because marijuana is still illegal under federal law and difficult to obtain under local law, kind of like how bootleggers worked during the Prohibition Era. If marijuana becomes legalized, these people will lose the profits they’re making now.

“To be honest, I think their money is blood money,” my source told me. “It’s like war profiteering. If you have the opportunity to legalize marijuana and you vote no because you’re making money, that disgusts me.”

Mexican drug cartels also hate the idea, obviously, because if marijuana is taxed and regulated there will be no financial incentive for people to risk doing business with them.

I threw Meg Whitman in as a joke. But you know what I mean. If you’re into “family values,” you probably don’t want to legalize pot. But then you wouldn’t be stoned reading this, anyway.

Vote YES if you are, well, anyone else.

I was under the impression that recreational pot users were anti-Prop 19, because legalization equals taxes and taxes equal more expensive pot. But I was wrong!

“I would definitely say if you’re a recreational user you should 100% vote ‘yes,'” my source said. “There is absolutely no way it won’t be cheaper. Even if Prop 19 means a 20 percent tax, prices will go down, let’s say from $80 an eighth to $20 an eighth. That’s only $24 with tax.”

Venture capitalists are also eager for marijuana to be legalized, so they can start cutting serious deals with pot growers. Many CA politicians, both liberal and conservative, support the measure because our state is in BIG financial trouble and the taxes would help.

Tim Lincecum supports it, too, I’m sure.

There you have it! Hope we helped. Now go watch some funny YouTube videos or something.

Think of “Ask the Appeal” as your own personal genie: no Bay-related question is too big or too small. Whether you’re concerned with a municipal question, a consumer advocacy issue or simply with consuming alcohol, email us your questions at ask@sfappeal.com (or, find answers to past questions here). We’ll either do the dirty work and talk to the folks in charge, contact an expert in the field, or – if your question is particularly intriguing or juicy – develop it into a full-blown investigative article.

Please make sure your comment adheres to our comment policy. If it doesn't, it may be deleted. Repeat violations may cause us to revoke your commenting privileges. No one wants that!
  • ConservativeChristian

    Jesus said, Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. (Matthew 7:12).

    I know I would not want my child sent to jail with the sexual predators, or my aging parents to have their house confiscated and sold by the police, over a little marijuana.

    We can change the world when we vote.

  • ConservativeChristian

    Jesus said, Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. (Matthew 7:12).

    I know I would not want my child sent to jail with the sexual predators, or my aging parents to have their house confiscated and sold by the police, over a little marijuana.

    We can change the world when we vote.

  • Nessman
  • Nessman
  • Phree

    Map of public schools and marijuana dispensaries:

    http://www.schoolpotmap.com

  • Phree

    Map of public schools and marijuana dispensaries:

    http://www.schoolpotmap.com

  • Becca Klarin

    I’m very, very afraid that Prop. 19 will affect how people smoke pot in public. Honestly, I don’t like pot. I don’t want to get high or have to deal with the side affects of second-hand pot smoke. Cigarette smoke is bad enough of it is. So I’m not Meg or a medical marijuana dispensary, but I’m voting no.

  • Becca Klarin

    I’m very, very afraid that Prop. 19 will affect how people smoke pot in public. Honestly, I don’t like pot. I don’t want to get high or have to deal with the side affects of second-hand pot smoke. Cigarette smoke is bad enough of it is. So I’m not Meg or a medical marijuana dispensary, but I’m voting no.

  • Josh

    Snark works as a way to do a write up, when the background research has been shown. Snark and deriding the points of contention probably is an op-ed piece, not a journalistic piece.
    Prop 19 does take away some of the protections provided under Prop 215, not just to small farmers, but to the smokers: One can’t smoke “near” children, one has to be 21 rather than 18.

    The research that’s being conducted by these smaller operations would have to be halted. Agrobusiness is not just given a green light, but the Proposition is set up to give them a distinct advantage over the original growers who’ve gotten us this far, the “mom and pop” shops.

    Rather than come in late with an article and stomp all over the issues with flippancy, since this is a local website, why not really dig in, since the experts are right here?

  • Josh

    Snark works as a way to do a write up, when the background research has been shown. Snark and deriding the points of contention probably is an op-ed piece, not a journalistic piece.
    Prop 19 does take away some of the protections provided under Prop 215, not just to small farmers, but to the smokers: One can’t smoke “near” children, one has to be 21 rather than 18.

    The research that’s being conducted by these smaller operations would have to be halted. Agrobusiness is not just given a green light, but the Proposition is set up to give them a distinct advantage over the original growers who’ve gotten us this far, the “mom and pop” shops.

    Rather than come in late with an article and stomp all over the issues with flippancy, since this is a local website, why not really dig in, since the experts are right here?

  • Katie Baker

    Hi Josh,

    I’m sorry if you feel that my piece was too flippant. I was trying to provide a quick cheat sheet for voters; if you’re looking for more info, here’s a good place to start.

    With that said, it’s not as if one is currently allowed to smoke near children, or after the age of 18, so I don’t think that changes anything in terms of this piece. Thanks for the POV on agribusinesses vs. smaller shops, though!

  • Katie Baker

    Hi Josh,

    I’m sorry if you feel that my piece was too flippant. I was trying to provide a quick cheat sheet for voters; if you’re looking for more info, here’s a good place to start.

    With that said, it’s not as if one is currently allowed to smoke near children, or after the age of 18, so I don’t think that changes anything in terms of this piece. Thanks for the POV on agribusinesses vs. smaller shops, though!

  • oddibe

    Becca,

    I understand you find it unpleasant…weed is not for everyone. But there’s a big difference between not liking it, and casting a vote to continue a counterproductive and deeply immoral drug policy. The same laws that apply to cigarette smoke will apply to this. You’re not going to be getting stoned from secondhand smoke everywhere you go.

    You also may be underestimating how commonly weed is smoked, and smoked publicly, in SF and other places already. I think that if Prop 19 passes, people will look back and find it silly that we thought this was going to be such a big deal. Even if there is an uptick in public use immediately after passage, there will probably be a bit of a backlash that follows, and then things will settle down as weed-related etiquette takes better shape. It’s not like stoners will want to be aggressively offending the citizenry all the time.

    The main difference will be the reallocation of law enforcement resources to better uses, and all the sales tax revenue that starts going to the state.

  • oddibe

    Becca,

    I understand you find it unpleasant…weed is not for everyone. But there’s a big difference between not liking it, and casting a vote to continue a counterproductive and deeply immoral drug policy. The same laws that apply to cigarette smoke will apply to this. You’re not going to be getting stoned from secondhand smoke everywhere you go.

    You also may be underestimating how commonly weed is smoked, and smoked publicly, in SF and other places already. I think that if Prop 19 passes, people will look back and find it silly that we thought this was going to be such a big deal. Even if there is an uptick in public use immediately after passage, there will probably be a bit of a backlash that follows, and then things will settle down as weed-related etiquette takes better shape. It’s not like stoners will want to be aggressively offending the citizenry all the time.

    The main difference will be the reallocation of law enforcement resources to better uses, and all the sales tax revenue that starts going to the state.

  • oddibe

    Becca,

    I understand you find it unpleasant…weed is not for everyone. But there’s a big difference between not liking it, and casting a vote to continue a counterproductive and deeply immoral drug policy. The same laws that apply to cigarette smoke will apply to this. You’re not going to be getting stoned from secondhand smoke everywhere you go.

    You also may be underestimating how commonly weed is smoked, and smoked publicly, in SF and other places already. I think that if Prop 19 passes, people will look back and find it silly that we thought this was going to be such a big deal. Even if there is an uptick in public use immediately after passage, there will probably be a bit of a backlash that follows, and then things will settle down as weed-related etiquette takes better shape. It’s not like stoners will want to be aggressively offending the citizenry all the time.

    The main difference will be the reallocation of law enforcement resources to better uses, and all the sales tax revenue that starts going to the state.

  • oddibe

    Becca,

    I understand you find it unpleasant…weed is not for everyone. But there’s a big difference between not liking it, and casting a vote to continue a counterproductive and deeply immoral drug policy. The same laws that apply to cigarette smoke will apply to this. You’re not going to be getting stoned from secondhand smoke everywhere you go.

    You also may be underestimating how commonly weed is smoked, and smoked publicly, in SF and other places already. I think that if Prop 19 passes, people will look back and find it silly that we thought this was going to be such a big deal. Even if there is an uptick in public use immediately after passage, there will probably be a bit of a backlash that follows, and then things will settle down as weed-related etiquette takes better shape. It’s not like stoners will want to be aggressively offending the citizenry all the time.

    The main difference will be the reallocation of law enforcement resources to better uses, and all the sales tax revenue that starts going to the state.

  • Becca Klarin

    I don’t just find it unpleasant, I get sick from it. Physically ill. Cigarette smoke brings on my asthma and sinus infections. From pot, I get very dizzy, have severe headaches, and feel nauseated, so much so that if there’s so much smoke, I throw up. And I know many people who have the same physical reactions as I do.

    I try not to put myself in situations where I’m exposed to second-hand smoke (either pot or cigarettes), like concerts and such, but hey, everyone seems to LOVE to smoke at the bus stop. Or outside the parking garage at work. Or outside of restaurants. Or on the floor of the Warfield. Or in section 129 at the Coliseum.

    People, whether it be children, adults, or senior citizens, shouldn’t have to live with their air and, more importantly, body being invaded by other people’s smoke just so the state can collect sales tax on pot. Because if that’s the case, well, it stinks.

  • Becca Klarin

    I don’t just find it unpleasant, I get sick from it. Physically ill. Cigarette smoke brings on my asthma and sinus infections. From pot, I get very dizzy, have severe headaches, and feel nauseated, so much so that if there’s so much smoke, I throw up. And I know many people who have the same physical reactions as I do.

    I try not to put myself in situations where I’m exposed to second-hand smoke (either pot or cigarettes), like concerts and such, but hey, everyone seems to LOVE to smoke at the bus stop. Or outside the parking garage at work. Or outside of restaurants. Or on the floor of the Warfield. Or in section 129 at the Coliseum.

    People, whether it be children, adults, or senior citizens, shouldn’t have to live with their air and, more importantly, body being invaded by other people’s smoke just so the state can collect sales tax on pot. Because if that’s the case, well, it stinks.

  • oddibe

    I have a close relative who is asthmatic, so I’m sympathetic to your argument. The number of public areas where cigarette smokers are allowed to smoke has been *drastically* reduced — just think of how most cities were even 15 years ago — and it’s still moving in that direction. And it’s a direction I personally agree with, even though I do smoke an occasional cigarette. I think it’s good public policy to ban smoking in restaurants and indoors generally, as well as many outdoor areas that non-smokers can’t avoid.

    May seem paradoxical but I think legalizing pot would actually improve the situation for people like you, because it will be more openly regulated than it is currently. Right now it’s in this legal gray area where it’s basically accepted, but not really, and no one does much of anything about it. But no one smokes cigarettes inside the Warfield, for example. If you legalized pot, I bet the Warfield and other concert venues would eventually get away with banning smoking it on the floor, because people who wanted to smoke would be free to do so outdoors in a designated area. That would probably make it more enjoyable inside for everyone, much like how restaurants are today for smokers and non-smokers alike.

  • oddibe

    I have a close relative who is asthmatic, so I’m sympathetic to your argument. The number of public areas where cigarette smokers are allowed to smoke has been *drastically* reduced — just think of how most cities were even 15 years ago — and it’s still moving in that direction. And it’s a direction I personally agree with, even though I do smoke an occasional cigarette. I think it’s good public policy to ban smoking in restaurants and indoors generally, as well as many outdoor areas that non-smokers can’t avoid.

    May seem paradoxical but I think legalizing pot would actually improve the situation for people like you, because it will be more openly regulated than it is currently. Right now it’s in this legal gray area where it’s basically accepted, but not really, and no one does much of anything about it. But no one smokes cigarettes inside the Warfield, for example. If you legalized pot, I bet the Warfield and other concert venues would eventually get away with banning smoking it on the floor, because people who wanted to smoke would be free to do so outdoors in a designated area. That would probably make it more enjoyable inside for everyone, much like how restaurants are today for smokers and non-smokers alike.

  • Belulah

    you mention absolutely nothing about selling out to a high powered pot syndicate. prop 19 is the brainchild of richard lee who hopes to dominate the production side of the industry and run out the small time farmers. i’m sorry, but this is absolute bullshit. have you been to any of the debates, talked to any farmers or did you just chalk all the cannabiz success up to mexicans and criminals? there is such a thing as being pro legalization, yet being opposed to selling out to richard “the walmart of pot” lee.

    who is going to be doing the growing when this passes? no one will be doing much growing in a 5X5 box. the people who will get the grow contracts will be the one who can afford to pay for the right to do so. 19 takes the power from the meek and gives it to the big time profiteers. we are handing the industry over to the big money. congratulations.

  • Belulah

    you mention absolutely nothing about selling out to a high powered pot syndicate. prop 19 is the brainchild of richard lee who hopes to dominate the production side of the industry and run out the small time farmers. i’m sorry, but this is absolute bullshit. have you been to any of the debates, talked to any farmers or did you just chalk all the cannabiz success up to mexicans and criminals? there is such a thing as being pro legalization, yet being opposed to selling out to richard “the walmart of pot” lee.

    who is going to be doing the growing when this passes? no one will be doing much growing in a 5X5 box. the people who will get the grow contracts will be the one who can afford to pay for the right to do so. 19 takes the power from the meek and gives it to the big time profiteers. we are handing the industry over to the big money. congratulations.

  • oddibe

    You can try to demonize Richard Lee all you want, but “high powered pot syndicate” is a pretty accurate description of the system that’s in place now. Some form of “pot syndicate” is going to exist no matter what happens, and I’m sorry but it is much easier to monitor/oversee/regulate such a syndicate when it is legal and out in the open.

    For me legalization is a moral issue above all. I consider myself an otherwise upstanding, law-abiding, productive member of society who just so happens to prefer a joint instead of a beer when I get home at the end of a long day. And I know I’m not the only one. To me, that’s what this debate should be about.

    I understand why Humboldt folks would want to vote against this — it throws into jeopardy a highly profitable arrangement that is currently in place for them. But when I vote yes I’ll be looking at the bigger picture.

  • oddibe

    You can try to demonize Richard Lee all you want, but “high powered pot syndicate” is a pretty accurate description of the system that’s in place now. Some form of “pot syndicate” is going to exist no matter what happens, and I’m sorry but it is much easier to monitor/oversee/regulate such a syndicate when it is legal and out in the open.

    For me legalization is a moral issue above all. I consider myself an otherwise upstanding, law-abiding, productive member of society who just so happens to prefer a joint instead of a beer when I get home at the end of a long day. And I know I’m not the only one. To me, that’s what this debate should be about.

    I understand why Humboldt folks would want to vote against this — it throws into jeopardy a highly profitable arrangement that is currently in place for them. But when I vote yes I’ll be looking at the bigger picture.