Thats all pretty confused justifications there.

In some states the republicans set boundaries and make it so republicans win, and thats bad, so we need to go back to the way things were so that the democratic legislature can set boundaries so that democrats can win.

That makes total sense and is not in the least self serving.

I think if you were giving away 1000 dollar bills some idiots would find a reason to gripe about it.

Marijuana is far SAFER than both alcohol and tobacco, so why do we make it illegal to make the SAFER choice?

Anyone that wants marijuana is already getting it, so legalizing would not be adding another drug to society, it would just allow the legal SAFER choice.

NO ONE, OF ANY AGE, IN ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY, ANYWHERE ON PLANET EARTH, HAS EVER DIED FROM THE INGREDIENTS IN MARIJUANA... MANY HAVE DIED FROM ITS PROHIBITION AND TENS OF MILLIONS HAVE BEEN HARMED BY ARRESTING NON-CRIMINALS FOR NON-CRIMES WITH NO VICTIMS!

Because of prohibition 113 Billion tax free dollars funds criminals, gangsters and terrorists every year from US marijuana sales alone!

The drug war is a complete FAILURE! It's time to rationally regulate all drugs according to the factual dangers each drug poses to society.

The Constitutional right to freedom of religion, free speech, a free press, to keep and bear arms, to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizure, to life, liberty and property, to be protected from having your property taken by the government without due process of law and without just compensation, to confront the witnesses against you, to be protected from excessive bail, excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishment, to vote and others have been unjustly denied to millions of Americans in the name of the drug war.

All major authorities agree that the vast majority of so called “drug-related” violent crime is caused by the prohibition of drugs, rather than the drugs themselves. This was the same during alcohol prohibition. Alcohol prohibition created a violent criminal organization just like every other drug prohibition has. These violent crimes should be labeled prohibition related, not drug related. Ending alcohol prohibition is exactly why you don’t see shootouts over that drug trade any more.

Google: “WHY IS MARIJUANA ILLEGAL, Pete Guither” and “MARIJUANA AND HEMP THE UNTOLD STORY, Thomas J. Bouril”, or click the links to those articles on the webpage below:
Internet Explorer web browser: http://jsknow.angelfire.com/home
With All Other Browsers: http://jsknow.angelfire.com/index.html

The World Health Organization Documents Failure of U.S. Drug Policies http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/90295/

Watch this video: “Irvin Rosenfeld Medical Marijuana Testimony”, then get back to me about what you think of medical marijuana and heavy long term marijuana use.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1NggzEkltM

When Prop 19 passes, Obama will have to decide if he will sue California like he sued Arizona for passing an immigration law.

If he goes ahead and sues California, his political career is finished.

If the GOP were true to their principles, they would respect individual responsibility and the Constitution and end their nanny state war on drugs.

With 30% of California Republicans already supporting Prop 19, all it would take is some education to bring the rest aboard.

It was the Republican Party that brought civil rights through MLK.

What if the GOP championed individual liberty with marijuana legalization?

Don't believe the hype! Prop 19 will REcriminalize growing and possession for many who for whom it is currently decriminalized under 215 and arnold's recent law which "reduces possession of an ounce or less from a misdemeanor to an infraction, with a maximum punishment of a $100 fine."

Under Prop 19, parents who smoke when their children are at home can be arrested — unlike those who have a beer at the backyard bbq.

It's already decriminalized for us regular citizens. Prop 19 only legalizes marijuana for large "licensed" businesses — licensing requirements and procedures are nowhere defined or even mentioned within the bill.

see stop19 dot org for some cogent arguments/info.

a yes vote is a symbolic vote for federal legalization, not a realistic vote in any sense for actual legalization. wait for it, people. vote no on 19.
if 19 passes, it will bring the wrath of the federal government where they've been leaving us alone since obama took office.

And,

"Due to California's strong law against legislative tampering with what voters enact via the ballot initiative process, if Proposition 19 is passed and is later found to have unexpected negative secondary consequences, the California State Legislature will be unable to effectively address those problems" -- in response to sfbg's assertion that issues in the law can be fixed later. on ballotpedia.com, but didn't find their source.

Prop 19 is a smokescreen for huge industrialized growers who now are the attorneys who work in this industry and their clients. They want to stop hiding the millions they are making off medical marajuana whichis supposed to be non profit and become legit as far as the IRS goes and be able to show a profit. Say hello to big box store style business. This is how the rich get rich propaganda politics.

Prop 19 equals capitalism. Michael Moore should do a film to expose the truth about how the rich will take the poor out by making their hippy product unprofitable unless you are doing mass quantities like Marlboro. The cops need to go after the criminals that illegally grow cuz they will do something worse if they can't grow pot.

So I have a pretty solid system of determining how I will vote in elections. I compare sample ballots from the green party, democratic party, SFBG, and occasionally other sources. If they all agree on something, then it's safe for me to assume I would also agree with it. If they do not, then I go on a crusade to understand the meaning of the measures more fully so that I can make an educated decision on which way I will vote. This saves me a lot of time and ensures that I will feel good about my choices walking out of the polling booth.

So, I'm trying to understand what these measures could mean to me if they pass or fail. The Greens, Dems, and SFBG all make compelling arguments for why they are endorsing the way they are with regard to these measures, yet the Greens differ from the Dems and the SFBG.

Can anyone help me understand the division on these?

I'm turned off by the argument about the specter of a north-south geographic division of San Francisco as opposed to an east-west one. As a long-time resident of the so-called "conservative" west side, I suppose I'm just not getting the scariness of a district represented by both Leno and Yee. The west side is San Francisco, too, multicultural and largely liberal, and yes with a slightly greater tendency to fiscal conservatism because of a greater proportion of property-tax-paying residents, PERIOD. Watch yourselves, SFBG--you almost start to sound racist.