For those too lazy to look up the specifics of Prop 19
It's not just a simple matter of legalization, please get that straight.
Note also, that whether or no CA prop 19 passes, the question of legality only pertains to CA state law.
As per Federal law, it's technically still illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_19
Proposition 19, also known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, is a California ballot proposition which will be on the November 2, 2010 California statewide ballot. It legalizes various marijuana-related activities, allows local governments to regulate these activities, permits local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorizes various criminal and civil penalties.[1] In March 2010 it qualified to be on the November statewide ballot.[2] Yes on 19 is the official advocacy group for the initiative.
As of September 2010[update], even if the proposition is passed, the sale of marijuana will remain illegal under federal law via the Controlled Substances Act.[3][4][5]
Effects of the bill
According to the State of California analysis, the bill will have the following effects.[6]
[edit] Legalization of personal marijuana-related activities
Persons over the age of 21:
May possess up to one 1 ounce (28 g) 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.
[edit] Local government regulation of commercial production and sale
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.
[edit] Imposition and collection of taxes and fees
Allows the collection of taxes specifically to allow local governments to raise revenue or to offset any costs associated with marijuana regulation.
[edit] Authorization of criminal and civil penalties
Maintains existing laws against selling drugs to a minor and driving under the influence.
Maintains an employer's right to address consumption of marijuana that affects an employee's job performance.
Maintain existing laws against interstate or international transportation of marijuana.
Any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to sell marijuana, who knowingly sells or gives away marijuana to someone under the age of 21 results in them being banned from owning, operating, or being employed by a licensed marijuana establishment for one year.
Any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to sell marijuana, who knowingly sells or gives away marijuana to someone older the age of 18 but younger than 21, shall be imprisoned in county jail for up to six months and fined up to $1,000 per offense.
Any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to sell marijuana, who knowingly sells or gives away marijuana to someone age 14 to 17, shall be imprisoned in state prison for a period of three to five years.
Any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to sell marijuana, who knowingly sells or gives away marijuana to someone under the age of 14, shall be imprisoned in state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years
[edit] Fiscal impact
In the time leading to 2010, California's state government's budget deficit has grown to be the largest of all American states. The State Board of Equalization has estimated that imposing a $50 per ounce levy on marijuana sales could generate $1.4 billion a year in new tax revenue, thus generating a large amount of revenue at a time when the state is experiencing financial pressure.[7]
According to the States Legislative Analyst's office the following fiscal impact would result from the bill:[8]
Result in significant savings to state and local governments, potentially up to several tens of millions of dollars annually due to reduction of individuals incarcerated, on probation or on parole.
Cells currently being used to house marijuana offenders could be used for other criminals, many of whom are now being released early because of a lack of jail space.
Major reduction in state and local costs for enforcement of marijuana-related offenses and the handling of related criminal cases in the court system, providing the opportunity for funds to be used to enforce other existing criminal laws.
Potential increase in the costs of substance abuse programs due to speculated increase in usage of marijuana, possibly having the effect of reducing spending on mandatory treatment for some criminal offenders, or result in the redirection of these funds for other offenders.
The measure could potentially reduce both the costs and offsetting revenues of the state's medical marijuana program as some adults over 21 would be less likely to participate in the existing program as obtaining marijuana would be easier for those patients.
The measure would provide the opportunity for significant additional revenues as the result of the taxation of sales and businesses engaged in commerce relating to marijuana.
There would be a reduction in fines collected under current state law but a possible increase in local civil fines authorized by existing local laws.
The cumulative effect on fines is largely unknown.
[edit] History
The measure's originator is Richard Lee, a marijuana legalization activist and medical marijuana provider based in Oakland. Lee named political consultant Chris Lehane as the head of the campaign to pass the measure.[9]
In order to qualify for the ballot, the initiative needed 433,971 valid petition signatures. The initiative proponents submitted 694,248 signatures, and it qualified through the random sample signature check.[10]
In the 1972 California November elections, a similar initiative to legalize cannabis was on the ballot, and coincidentally it was also named Proposition 19.[11][12]