Switch to boring english
64
Legaliza la marijuana
Resumen
Legaliza, para gente mayores de 21, la venta y uso de la marijuana recreacional con impuestos y regulación. Hay una gran cantidad de detalles.
Cultivación
  • Es legal cultivar hasta seis plantas en una casa privada. Es ilegal si están desbloqueados o visibles desde un espacio público.
  • Si está siendo vendido, el impuesto de cultivación es $9.25/oz de flores secas, o $2.75/oz de hojas secas.
Venta y Compra
  • Negocios y servicios de entrega (En serio, de entrega) tienen que estar licenciados por el estado, incluyendo cooperativas de marihuana que ya existen.
  • Negocios que venden marihuana no pueden vender tabaco ni alcohol y no pueden estar situados cerca de espacios relacionado a niños por ejemplo escuelas o guarderías infantiles.
  • Comestibles no pueden estar en formas confundibles con cosas que suelen comer niños, por ejemplo gomitas o brownies (por determinar).
  • Se puede consumir dentro del local pero no a la vista del público.
  • En el momento de venta, el consumidor paga un impuesto de 15% en cualquier producto (pero no se aplica al producto no medicinal).
  • Ciudades y provincias pueden imponer sus propios impuestos y restricciones (pero no prohibirlo por completo), por ejemplo crear sus propios licencias o dictar donde los negocios podrían abrir.
  • Varias agencias regulatorias distintas regularía distribución, uso de agua, pruebas de uso de pesticidas, impacto ambiental, etiquetación, envase y publicidad, para nombrar un par.
Using
  • Fumar está bien en una casa privada o en un negocio que está licenciado para consumo en el local.
  • Fumar no está permitido mientras uno está conduciendo, en cualquier espacio público, o en cualquier lugar donde fumar tabaco ya está prohibido (restaurantes, bares, aviones, etcétera).
An informed conversation
I feel morally conflicted.
What's wrong?
I'm voting for prop 56, the cigarette tax, but I want to vote for weed legalization.
Because you're stopping tobacco, but allowing marijuana? They're very different drugs.
I want to tell myself that, but Prop 64 is all about the business of marijuana. We're making another sin industry.
Unlike tobacco, it's not nicotine. Not addictive, and there's other ways to consume it.
Forget about adults for a second. I wouldn't want my kids smoking or eating weed until they're well past Stanford, just like I wouldn't want them smoking cigarettes.
There's a lot of studies that say that until the brain matures at 25, pot could affect brain development, structurally and functionally.
That's already a problem though. Kids in Marin can get pot easier than they can get alcohol. Prop 64 would regulate it. Colorado has not seen an increase in youth use.
But that might be because access is already so easy.
If we educate them right, though. It's estimated to bring in $1 billion dollars a year eventually. A portion of that will go to education.
Also, think about all the other negatives we'll be eliminating.
Drug crimes often disproportionately affect black and Latino men, and lower socioeconomic people.
That's great. But Prop 47 from a while ago already reduced the prison population for non-violent, non-serious drug offenses. Less than 0.3% of the prison population is in because of drugs, and that's probably drugs + something else.
Also, in Colorado, arrests have declined, but racial disparities has not been solved.
It's only been two years. Look at all these other decreases in bad things: http://www.ofm.wa.gov/reports/marijuana_impacts_2015.pdf
What about driving though? Have you ever driven high?
Yea, I'm a pro. With traffic the way it is right now, you can't go over 30mph on the highway anyways.
In Washington, car crash fatalities have increased after legalization. This includes THC + alcohol, and THC only.
No FDA-approved breathalyzer yet too, and everybody knows it. The taboo for high driving isn't as strong as drunk driving.
Legalizing it will speed up breathalyzer development and educate people about driving high. Like Colorado, we already have a high usage and access. Legalization will cut the black-market, and impose the laws we want to see.
Until we do that, we can't do anything about current usage.
I still don't think we're ready for it. UCSF says this will just lead to Big Weed, not unlike Big Tobacco.
Más cosas para leer
Última actualización: 19 Oct 2016

Información mas o menos imparcial
[1] Full text of the proposition
[2] Ballotpedia details
[3] Legislative Analyst's Office summary
[4] KQED Podcast, discussion on health effects
[4.5] KQED Podcast, live debate
[5] Official report of effects of legalization in Washington
[6] UCSF says public health will be affected
Argumentos a favor de la Propuesta 64
[7] LA Times
[8] Modesto Bee
[9] SF Chronicle
[10] Washington Post on youth use
[11] US News: Colorado kids say no to pot
Argumentos en contra de la Propuesta 64
[12] Sac Bee
[13] Fresno Bee
[14] Marijuana on the developing brain


Nota: se omite intencionadamente los argumentos oficiales que se encuentran en la guía oficial de votantes. Creemos que exageran las reclamaciones, engañan con las emociones, y utilizan MAYUSCULAS irresponsablemente.