Awkward. I voted for it, hoping the bugs would be worked out if it passed. But I had friends very much pro-legalization who didn't. One big problem was in the Proposition's lack of clarity.

There will be a critical mass of states where MJ is legal and the Supreme Court will have to take up the issue.

What I'd like to see happen is for Jerry Brown to order the CA National Guard be posted outside of MJ shops. If the feds try to bust a store the National Guard should be ordered to defend the MJ shops, which are there because of the will of the people of the state of California, against the over-reaching federal agencies. I'd like to see the National Guard holding the DEA and ATF at gunpoint, ordering the feds not to come any closer to the shops for fear of consequences.

It doesn't necessarily have to be Jerry Brown; any Governor can do this. After all, each state's National Guard is under the command of their state's Governor. It's time for some politicians to make a stand and put their money where their mouth is. Stand up for we the people and don't allow the federal government to usurp local authority that was explicitly granted to the states in our US Constitution. I'm sure they'll claim the "Commerce Clause" covers everything. In my opinion, the Commerce Clause does no such thing. It (partially) states:

Section. 8.Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes[b/];

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#New_Deal

The "New Deal Court" drastically changed the focus of the Court's inquiry in determining whether legislation fell within the scope of the Commerce Clause, and in some sense returned to the concept articulated in Gibbons. Central to this theory was the belief that the democratic process was sufficient to confine the legislative power. Thus one of the central issues was whether the judiciary or the elected representatives of the people should decide what commerce is. The Court began to defer to the Congress on the theory that determining whether legislation impacted commerce appropriately was a legislative, not a judicial decision. The debate over Commerce Clause jurisprudence thus includes philosophic differences over whether Congressional abuse of the Commerce Clause is best redressed at the ballot box or in the Federal courts.

When examining whether some activity was considered "Commerce" under the Constitution, the Court would aggregate the total effect the activity would have on actual economic commerce. Intrastate activities could fall within the scope of the Commerce Clause, if those activities would have any rational effect on Interstate Commerce. Finally, the Court said the 10th Amendment "is but a truism" and was not considered to be an independent limitation on Congressional power.

In 1941 the Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated the production of goods shipped across state lines. In 1942, in Wickard v. Filburn, the Court upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which sought to stabilize wide fluctuations in the market price for wheat by stabilizing supply through quotas. The Court's decision rejected former decisions that seemed to focus on "Whether the subject of the regulation in question was production, consumption, or marketing. Those formalistic characterizations were not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'

In 1942, in Wickard v. Filburn, the Court upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which sought to stabilize wide fluctuations in the market price for wheat by stabilizing supply through quotas. The Court's decision rejected former decisions that seemed to focus on "Whether the subject of the regulation in question was production, consumption, or marketing. Those formalistic characterizations were...not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity: is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'

Congress could apply national quotas to wheat grown on one's own land, for one's own consumption, because the total of such local production and consumption was sufficiently large as to impact the overall goal of stabilizing prices.

This change in the Court's decisions is often referred to as the Constitutional Revolution of 1937, in which the Court shifted from engaging in judicial activism to protect property rights, to a paradigm which focused most strongly on protecting civil libertiesIt did so by destroying the civil liberty to grow whatever crops one chose on ones own land for personal use. [11] Some commentators view the Court's decision in United States v. Lopez (1995), as an important swing in the pendulum away from an expansive view of Congressional power.Congress could apply national quotas to wheat grown on one's own land, for one's own consumption, because the total of such local production and consumption was sufficiently large as to impact the overall goal of stabilizing prices.

Get that? By electing not to plant crops on your land[/] you are impacting the national goal to sell crops at a given price by virtue of taking your own production offline.

In Ca. But still make it hard to get a job or lose a job with random drug tests. So we still have to cheat, where as the "wine drinker" is just fine. I have a prescription, and this shit has got to change. If they want to treat it like wine, they have to go ALL the way. As long as you're not stoned or drunk at work, it shouldn't matter what you do on your own time. People who don't use MJ don't know the worry some of us have when we could lose our job through no fault of our own. If your at work, and there is an accident but it wasn't your fault, they still may test you. Or they have a random test out of the blue. What are people who have a legal prescriptions supposed to do?

My solution is either they exempt prescription holders, or the state should pay us state disability. And when half the population of Ca have prescriptions, maybe they will get tired of paying "stoners" to sit at home and let us work without fear of losing or getting a job.

And I just read about banning non medical MJ commercials. LOL! But the Super Bowl is able to spew their shit (Bud Bowl) to everyone, including young children. My brother is an alcoholic and trying to give up the booze. And while watching the Super Bowl he told my mom over the phone, that he wanted a drink. Gee I wonder if beer commercials have ANYTHING to do with that.

We have gone from a society that didn't even test drug its train and bus operators to a society that drug tests everyone. Again, follow the money. Who owns the labs that do the testing? And there is so much money around that one activity (drug testing) that I am sure there are kick backs galore.

And isn't Montana a red state? Or am I just thinking that because that's where all the white separatists want to move to?