• frickineh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    The CA legislature passed a buttload of bills right before adjourning, so he’s working his way through them now. Plus, CA has a budget deficit, so stuff that costs money has to be more carefully considered - free condoms are a worthwhile thing, but then the question becomes what do you cut instead? It’s not always an easy question.

    • phx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      How much do they actually expect these to cost? How about they cancel fireworks at the next sports event. That’d probably cover it

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      How much would prohibiting caste discrimination or decriminalizing psilocybin increase the deficit?

      • Wrench@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s the wrong question.

        “How can this law be exploited.” Or “does it make sense to put another law on the books if this is already addressed with existing laws”

        If you take the specified reason, then it’s explicitly cited as reason #2. But the backlash is manufactured by progressives and exploited by conservatives to incubate in-fighting. Don’t fall for it.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          “You are forbidden from asking questions we don’t like. Those are wrong questions. Being anything shy of worshipful every time your party fails you is working with conservatives because we say so. Now excuse us while we capitulate to conservatives and order you to shut up and be happy about it again.”

      • frickineh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, he said he vetoed the caste discrimination one because it’s already covered by existing laws, so they don’t need a new one. No clue about the psilocybin. I must have missed that one among the 87 articles about each individual veto that have been posted in the last couple of days.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, he said he vetoed the caste discrimination one because it’s already covered by existing laws, so they don’t need a new one

          “We don’t need laws prohibiting discrimination against [minority]! They’re just whining about nothing because our existing laws cover them!”

          I must have missed that one among the 87 articles about each individual veto that have been posted in the last couple of days.

          A lot of unconvincing excuses to keep straight, huh?

          • frickineh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, yeah, if it’s already prohibited under an existing law, you generally don’t need another one. That’s how laws work, and people do a fair amount of work to remove outdated and duplicate laws because it makes everyone’s job harder when you have to weed through that.