You must log in or register to comment.

treesareweirdos t1_j2bd8q9 wrote

Very exciting, I wonder if there’s any chance of this passing. My gut would say no, but the way Marijuana legalization spread across the country surprised me, so who knows?


ctindel t1_j2ca0kr wrote

If we didn’t let lawmakers control everything and instead had referendum options like CA and CO this would definitely happen here.


CactusBoyScout t1_j2cm4q0 wrote

Yeah but then you also end up with stupid shit like Prop 65’s meaningless cancer warnings on every product.


ctindel t1_j2co326 wrote

I don’t care about that the referendum have done far more good than harm. Keeping people from getting priced out of their home when property values rise, legalizing weed and mushrooms, giving tax payers a bill of rights so they can vote on whether they want to pay more taxes or not and get a refund of the tax estimates were too high.

Let us recall some corrupt motherfuckers while we’re at it. I’m all for a much more direct democracy especially on the most important questions of the day. Let the bureaucrats manage the bullshit that nobody wants to talk or think about.


CactusBoyScout t1_j2coa9o wrote

Prop 13 was incredibly bad for California’s housing market. And it just caused cities/counties to raise taxes in other ways so it became a regressive subsidy for homeowners who are wealthier than those who do not own.


ctindel t1_j2dozjp wrote

Just because someone has wealth in a house doesn’t mean they can afford increased property taxes. Taxing income and cap gains is the only thing you know people can actually afford. Though I’d have no problem with property taxing stock portfolios of millionaires because at least we know you can sell some stock to pay the tax without going homeless.


CactusBoyScout t1_j2dp5xb wrote

Prop 13 doesn’t have any means testing though. And it isn’t even limited to a single primary residence. So landlords with a dozen rental properties and even golf courses in Malibu are paying next to no property tax.


igon86 t1_j2e2j8e wrote

I thought it was limited to the primary residence. That is wild.


CactusBoyScout t1_j2e3md9 wrote

Until fairly recently, you could even pass it on to your kids.

It was basically rent control for landlords and created a landed elite who paid very little into state coffers.

But it was sold with progressive framing like “save grandma’s house” and some people still believe that to this day.


ctindel t1_j2dpb6k wrote

Yeah I agree it could use some reform and I’d have no problem limiting it to primary residence and also any rentals that are used as someone else’s primary residence.


I_Cut_Shoes t1_j2dt6zr wrote

Damn you really came out here and argued that the thing responsible for California's housing crisis is good. Maybe it's a good thing we don't do referendums.


ctindel t1_j2dtgq1 wrote

Prop 13 is not responsible for a housing crisis, californias stupid anti growth zoning regulations are responsible. The state even failed to force cities to allow more dense development near transit.


CactusBoyScout t1_j2dyixf wrote

They’re both pretty big factors. Prop 13 strongly disincentivizes seniors from selling their family homes after their kids leave the house, for one thing.

It’s pretty normal in other housing markets for retirees to move to smaller housing when their kids are grown. The family home then becomes a home for a young family. So instead CA has a ton of older folks in massive houses because they’d actually pay more to move somewhere smaller.

Also if we loosened zoning you’d still have a ton of older people refusing to sell for redevelopment because their property taxes are capped at a few hundred dollars per year. So again it interferes with a lot of housing cycles.


ctindel t1_j2e5ork wrote

Society doesn’t need to be built assuming old people will downsize plenty of people want to live in their house forever (and that’s fine) or pass the house on to their children (and that’s also fine) and it sure as shit shouldn’t tax them to the point where they have to sell their family house.

I’d have no problem with a law that allowed people over 55 to keep their old property tax payment if they sell a primary residence and move to a smaller residence that would have a higher tax burden. But I don’t think it would make as big of a difference as you think it will, but who knows until we try.

Anyway if there’s anything society should be subsidizing it’s helping middle class families and old people become and stay home owners. In a world where housing prices are going up because giant corporations and REITs are just starting to move into SFH as investments this should be on the top 5 of government priorities.


Danimal_House t1_j2ewwkr wrote

It’s okay to admit you weren’t fully aware of what you were talking about man. You don’t need to backtrack and move the goalposts. Just go “Ah shit. Okay well yes that sucks, California seems to be a bit insane when it comes to these prop laws, but it would be nice if we could do it even better then they are.”


ctindel t1_j2ey0ji wrote

It’s not moving the goalposts I said up front I’d be fine with amending it. Every law has unintentional side effects and very rarely is the solution to throw the law out, you just change it to minimize the side effects while keeping the main benefits. Every once in a while you run into something so dumb like the 18th amendment or making abortion illegal where the solution is a 180 degree reversal but usually you just fix the problem with small changes.


Danimal_House t1_j2eax7f wrote

CA should never be the model on how to conduct a legislature/implement laws


ctindel t1_j2ey9gp wrote

Yeah it’s only the 4 largest economy in the world they must have gotten there through bad governance and incompetence.


Danimal_House t1_j2f55ql wrote

Sigh. I mean you can keep digging this whole you’ve made for yourself, or just be a normal person and admit what pretty much any legal professional would agree: California’s laws/systems are not something to be modeled after. Up to you

None of that has anything to do with why their economy is strong. But again, if you feel like making it painfully obvious you don’t understand that and that you’re Not Mad, go for it. You’re crushing it bro.


ctindel t1_j2fr09u wrote

Sure, right. The inability for California to price people out of houses they own by cranking their property tax payments to unaffordable levels is absolutely a terrible thing that California should reverse right away and definitely no other state should implement such a wildly popular program to help the middle class and elderly.


Pristine-Confection3 t1_j2co16m wrote

I don’t get why . When I take weed I get paranoid and have panic attacks but take mushrooms very well . I don’t understand why weed Is legal but psychedelics are not.


TetraCubane t1_j2cmf1g wrote

I mean if you assume that all Democrats will vote yes on this, it should pass.


brihamedit t1_j2blkn0 wrote

If some big psychedelic assisted therapy clinic lobbied for legalization, then it would pass. Otherwise state/city insiders probably aren't sensible enough to consider the positive implications.

Masses of people need psychedelic assisted therapy. But our system is too primitive to allow it.


sbb214 t1_j2bv6zp wrote

Mt Sinai is a leading research hospital for MDMA and other psychedelic therapies


Pristine-Confection3 t1_j2co6br wrote

And then nobody would be able to afford it and it wouldn’t be covered by insurance. They will it where it isn’t accessible to all as they do with ketamine therapy .


GoRangers5 t1_j2bsbt9 wrote

Getting high is not therapy.


PhillyFreezer_ t1_j2c5c19 wrote

Correct, but psychedelic assisted therapy is!


GoRangers5 t1_j2c5lym wrote

What’s the difference between paying and dealer and having a friend watch you and paying a therapist to watch you? Honestly asking in good faith, I don’t see a difference.


PhillyFreezer_ t1_j2c61s4 wrote

Because you’re not “paying a therapist to watch you” lol just Google it dude


tictac_93 t1_j2dvyon wrote

Having a therapist who knows what they're doing help you unpack some trauma safely and thoroughly, vs your friend who may try to do the same but lacks the experience and training (or maybe is just smoking weed and chilling). Not to mention, in a clinical setting they may be able to give you something if the experience becomes overwhelming.


GoRangers5 t1_j2dxcfh wrote

Ok, fair enough, thank you for taking the time to answer instead of being dismissive, whatever it takes to heal.


keefhernandz t1_j2bm87j wrote

Omg yesss please let this happen, even though the process would be long and tedious and probaly very restrictive. There is quite a bit of mid to lowgrade stuff on the bm.


DrewZeiss t1_j2b2l86 wrote

Let's goo I'm so excited for this!!


aviciiavbdeadpunk t1_j2bkemt wrote

of all people to bills passed, it would be rosenthal ( most bills passed i think in the assembly ), reyes is a nurse


GoRangers5 t1_j2bqz07 wrote

This is Brave New World shit, dope us the fuck up so we’re apathetic.


SkankinHank t1_j2bur83 wrote

Lol, exactly what you would expect to hear from someone who has neither personally experienced nor researched the positive effects of psychedelic use. Sure, it's not a panacea, but it's a different ballgame entirely from opiates or even weed. I can't imagine a scenario where someone comes out the other side of a psychedelic experience more pathetic than when they went into it.


GoRangers5 t1_j2bwzs9 wrote

Science doesn't care what you can imagine, people have fallen into permanent psychosis from psychedelic experiences.


Amphiscian t1_j2c2yer wrote

Wait till this guy finds out what alcohol does to people


GoRangers5 t1_j2c5b1u wrote

Nobody claims alcohol isn’t dangerous.


MisterFatt t1_j2dhgc2 wrote

They’ve also fallen into psychosis from nothing at all

Now let’s list all of the statically negligible (and not) dangers of legal things like alcohol or sugar


GoRangers5 t1_j2dmgtf wrote

Nobody is claiming alcohol and sugar are good for you.


MisterFatt t1_j2e60xk wrote

No but you’re arguing that psychedelics should be illegal because they’re potentially not good for you (which is not really true anyway).

Just because you aren’t explicitly saying other things are good for you, doesn’t mean you’re not being totally inconsistent in your reasoning for why psychedelics should be illegal. Unless of course you think that everything that could have a potential harm should be illegal.


GoRangers5 t1_j2e6hgy wrote

Where did I say they should not be legal? By all means they should, everyone has a right to bodily autonomy barring it doesn’t hurt anyone else. I am against saying they are magic beans with zero risk because that’s factually incorrect.


Pristine-Confection3 t1_j2coj1d wrote

Oddly , Huxley the writer of “ Brave New Wold “ also wrote and entire book on the psychedelic mescaline . It isn’t even a good argument source

Also, psychedelics don’t do that at all. If anything they amplify emotions and you feel so much more . They are not comparable to opioids. Funny how you cite the works of a man who thought highly is psychedelics. You have clearly not done your research


GoRangers5 t1_j2ctnrx wrote

He was an addict, it’s a warning, that’s what “soma” is in the book, man was so addicted to acid he asked for it on his deathbed.


Pristine-Confection3 t1_j2cujsc wrote

The book was written before he took psychedelics. It wasn’t at all what soma was about . It doesn’t mean addiction to enjoy the last minutes of life on a substance and LSD isn’t really physically addictive. It can be psychologically but not physically.

You really won’t win an argument about this since I have done extensive research on psychedelics but you haven’t even tried them if you are comparing likely dissociative drugs in a book to LSD . It seemed more like big Pham drugs anyway .


Die-Nacht t1_j2fq96k wrote

Pretty sure the "drugs" in Brave New World was a metaphor for modern comforts. We let our government get away with so much because, at the end of the day, we're pretty comfortable with all of our modern stuff.


PhillyFreezer_ t1_j2c5e2i wrote

Oh yeah, a huge side effect of magic mushrooms is apathy. Totally true


Unable-Ad3852 t1_j2c6vss wrote

Or a viking berserker. Imagine hopping at the wheel and thinking you're Maxx damage in Carmagedon.


Hoser117 t1_j2ffa1e wrote

Ironically you'll find lots of people saying the government shut down psychedelics in the first place because they were terrified of the anti-establishment mode of thought it put so many people into.


GoRangers5 t1_j2ffqt6 wrote

Haha, well those boomers are in charge now and I'm skeptical anyone does anything out of altruism.