This was a legalization measure that, before anyone else much cared, split the pro-pot base. Many commercial (grey and black market) growers were agin' it (fearing a market crash). Many medical pot providers were agin' it (fearing being taxed to death and/or getting shut down in the ensuing chaos, stranding needful patients either way). In "the community" of casual tokers, BS rumors were all around about various ways in which Prop 19 was eeevil.
So, right off the bat, the base was split.
Then, for everyone else, comes a lot of other BS like "this will legalize driving while stoned; this will legalize getting stoned at work; etc. And all because -- while legalization might be a fine idea -- this law is badly flawed."
Well, actually, a lot of that BS was pretty far off the mark but it was convincing enough to scare away a lot of voters who might otherwise have been fine with legalization.
NOBODY on the yes campaign made the serious and needed case about lowering the incarceration rate, about undermining organized crime, etc.
Frankly, I never saw any serious message from the "yes" campaign. I couldn't tell you their talking points if I wanted to. Meanwhile, the "no" campaign's are easy to tick off one by one.
Prop 19 lost because the "yes" campaign was very -- amazingly -- incompetently run.
This is an interesting and valuable comment, but I think, with regards to the particulars of the bill, that you're confusing the common sense positions of most pro-19 people with the actual details of the bill.
Prop 19 was spectacularly flawed. Among other things:
* It created a new protected class of employees in California with a clause that said "discrimination" against pot smokers was unlawful, modulo only circumstances where an employer could claim marijuana was actually harming job performance. The bill actually says that! Race, color, religion, gender, national origin... and pot smoking.
* The bill was remarkably fuzzy about the driving issue. Yes, it says you can't smoke and drive. But it also created circumstances where you could clearly be under the influence of marijuana and operate a motor vehicle.
In both cases, the underlying motivations behind these egregious overreaches seems to have been the concern that MJ metabolites are long-lived, and people would get fired or lose their licenses for smoking several weeks ago. At least as regards the driving situation, that seems like a valid concern... but the answer to that problem isn't a law with gargantuan loopholes.
Prop 19 may have lost in part because its campaign was incompetently run, but it also lost because the proposal was incompetently written. And those two issues fed on each other: read the political analyses to hear about the pro-pot groups that sat this one out because of the flaws in the measure.
And yet, even with the most amateur and underfunded campaign imaginable and opposition at all levels of government, it still got ~45% of the vote in a year that heavily favored conservatives.
I choose not to interpret this as a setback for legalization, but as proof that prohibition is in its dying throes.
That's a glass-half-full interpretation of what happened, but be aware that there is a valid half-empty take: 55-45 is, in political terms, a sound defeat. It wasn't a squeaker. The measure lost in a way that will make it harder --- either marginally or significantly, who knows? --- to legalize statewide in California in the next cycle.
Definitely a solid defeat, I dunno if I'd conclude that that means it'll be harder next time, though. Look at gay marriage initiatives, a series of defeats in state after state, but getting a little closer most of the time until they wound up passing in a lot of places (except CA, heh).
I agree with you there. All you had to change for this proposition to pass was change the timing to either 2008 or 2012. The 2010 elections seem to be the last gasp of an aging baby boomer population who believe everything they hear on cable news and are afraid that their country is going downhill.
We'll end prohibition eventually, but we need to vote on it in an election year where voter turnout isn't based on how much they fear the president.
They could have won this time if they made decriminalization the goal, instead of trying to end marijuana discrimination. Most Californians probably don't want people going to prison over a few joints.
I found it interesting that one of the factors mentioned as leading to the defeat was that "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law Sept. 30 that dropped the penalty for possession of an ounce of pot from a misdemeanor to an infraction punishable by a $100 fine." (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/02/...)
It's a setback. Conservatives weren't favored in CA. True conservatives want more individual liberty and a smaller government; you own your own body as well as the fruit of your own labor and talent. The nanny state (made up of big brother liberals and religious right conservatives) continues to expand on the Left Coast.
Conservatism and liberalism as they relate to government have come to mean the opposite in the US, since most conservatives want to conserve the limited powers of the Constitution and liberals want new state power to impose equality of outcome. A smaller government is less likely to boss you around. For this reason, libertarians vote for conservatives more often than not. At least this one does.
I wouldn't say there's much of an overall difference in the positions on state power between liberals and conservatives; they mostly disagree over what the state power should be used for. Liberals focus on state regulation of the economic sphere and think people's non-economic activity should be mostly left alone, whereas conservatives focus on state regulation of public order and morals, and think people's business activity should be mostly left alone.
It's not really a recent trend or specific to the Christian Coalition variety of conservatives; a belief in the importance of a stable social order, and an avoidance of rapid change or rampant hedonism, is a pretty core part of conservative political thought going back centuries (Edmund Burke is a frequent point of reference).
My observations of who libertarians grit their teeth and vote for is that it depends on which kinds of government power bug them most. Are you most angry about taxes? Or about the war on drugs? About business regulations? Obscenity laws? Permits and fees? Sodomy laws? Etc.
This libertarian is pretty much reduced to only voting in "Hitler vs. Dukakis" elections (which, er, don't happen much, despite what the raving partisans say) and for or against particularly important propositions.
As much as each side tries to brand itself with various ideological sympathies, their actual politicians don't differ that much on most of the issues - and their supporters will excuse them endlessly and hector you about how the other guys don't even give you the wonderful lip service they practice.
I would say that a conservative wants to preserve the status quo, and a reactionary wants to return to a time period before the status quo with more limited government. Libertarians are reactionaries (this is not a slight on libertarians, just making it clear there is a distinction between people who like what we have now and people who want to roll back even what we have now).
There are a lot more conservatives than reactionaries, most of the tea party is talking about rolling back spending/government to right about the day President Obama was sworn in. They didn't suddenly become Libertarians.
The whole "left-right" single-spectrum metaphor, particularly the American reduction of it into a column A-or-column B mindset, is such a thought-killing meme.
"a conservative wants to preserve the status quo"
A fourth-grade textbook explanation, but one that has little connection to the ideology or to the political party most commonly deemed "conservative". What's status quo about wanting things like overturning Roe v Wade, constitutional amendments to stop gay marriage, stringent anti-immigration efforts, or invading the Middle East? Hell, what on Earth was status quo about 2001-2008?
"this is not a slight on libertarians, just making it clear there is a distinction between people who like what we have now and people who want to roll back even what we have now"
More making it clear that you don't know much about libertarians, or are only dimly aware of libertarians not wanting particular government programs you're fond of. What's "reactionary" about wanting to abandon the military imperialism of the last, oh, century or so? What's "reactionary" about open borders, or wanting to end the drug war, the war on terror, agriculture subsidies, and eminent domain abuse?
ETA: And how do anarcho-capitalists fit into this setup? :)
Bravo. Early in the GWOT, liberals attacked Bush for having a with us or against us attitude, or actually saying it. He wasn't nuanced at all. I see the same close-minded thinking coming from self-described liberals. Why can't we just talk about basic philosophy and not Team A vs. Team B? My original point was that conservatives should want legalization, or at least tolerate it, because they want to conserve limited government. It has nothing to do with republicans, democrats, libertarianism, etc. Conservatives were not favored in CA this election cycle. It's been the case since 1988. Liberals who want legalization can't simply blame conservatives for the banning of pot. They should call convvatives out on their supposed limited government, pro individual liberty ideals in order to convince them that legalization should be supported!
So once liberals get their wish list of policies, they will instantly turn into conservatives? You're being too literal. There's a big overlap between the tea party and libertarians. Both groups don't just want to roll back to Jan, 2009, they want to go back to 1900, when local governments had more power than the national government did, and people could vote with their feet.
Wow, why all the hate? Just stating my opinion. I loathe old time conservatives who want to control my life. At least respect the fact that most conservatives say they're for limited govt. They might be hypocrites once they get into power. cough Bush
Results are still coming in, but given how close most of the major races were (+/- 5% points in many cases) I don't think you can say conservatives weren't favored. If it was 80/20 I think you could say they were not favored.
Looking back to previous elections, this has been a big turn out for GOP in CA
"Agin' it" is kind of a regionalism that has a slightly added meaning, I think, to "against it". I think it implies a kind of stubborn, perhaps ignorant fist raised angry cowboy. Not saying it was appropriate necessarily, but just that it has its own connotation.
Thank you. Yes, it's a regionalism with the connotation indicated.
Sharp lines were drawn. For example, the founder of the first (then unlawful under state law) dispensary -- and a kind of "father of the moment" was quite against Prop 19. He and the author of the proposition had a falling out and parted ways in a joint business activity.
Various growers were against it. They are already dealing with falling prices and the perception was that Prop 19 would greatly accelerate that. That kind of political sentiment easily "trickles down" through the various supply chains.
Within the industry the main monied supporters look like folks who expected to make a cool quick few million in retail trade.
Those are the lines of a feud. Hence, the regionalism of "Are ya fer it? Or again' it?" [traditionally stereotyped as a question that comes from someone pointing a shotgun at you while asking].
A fair number of casual users were looking forward to their 5x5 personal plots and/or safe and (state-level) legal dealing --- but others were scared away by the "no" campaign's characterization of the implications of Prop 19.
I got down voted, but was actually serious. I've lived in the "deep south" part of Florida, Boston, Iowa, California and Montana and have never heard anyone say that. I then thought maybe it was something from south park, like that one "durka durr, teykin our jerbs" episode. Maybe it's from Texas, or Pittsburgh? I've always found phrases I've never heard before are always from those two places, or maybe new Orleans.
I heard a great program on This American Life on NPR this week about why the conservatives are winning the media game over the liberals...
It came down to the fact that conservatives by their nature like order, hierarchy and organization and liberals tend not to. Liberals won't come together to discuss an agree to the same media talking points where as the conservatives love to -- and more importantly they'll all stick to them which amplifies the message. This is what is leading to the total pwnage of the lib's by the cons in mainstream media.
The issue for Prop 19 is that you have a very organized and disciplined conservative movement in the NO corner and a very sparse group of liberals who all have their own perspectives with no serious critical mass in the YES corner. Paul Buchheit may have given $100k to the YES campaign, but did that group officially represent the existing legal pot growers, smokers advocacy groups, etc? I don't believe it did - they couldn't organize themselves because there are no aligned interests there.
As a European, I consider myself a liberal by US politics if that is relevant. I've never smoked marijuana but I've found this campaign to be incredibly interesting as a barometer for current political landscape
Republicans and conservatives make the same excuse when they lose. Trust me. "The liberals have better message discipline because they have the media and academia all saying with one unified voice that they want $ISSUE for these reasons, whereas we free-thinking conservatives..."
It is a crappy argument when we make it, too.
The conservative political establishment is much, much more fractured on the issue of drug legalization than you appear to believe they are. The most influential conservative opinion magazine in the country is pro-legalization and has been for, literally, decades now. It is quite contentious within the Republican Party. See also immigration.
Yeah, but conservatives really hate hippies. You sure that doesn't trump everything else when it comes to pot? Most conservatives I've talked to recently are extremely emotional/cultural on their reasons for being a conservative.
They aren't dueling teenage street gangs, The Conservs and the Hippies. You've talked to a strange little subset of conservatives. I'm a liberal, and my next door neighbor is an extremely emotional/cultural liberal too.
Maybe hippies is a bad way to put it, but how to explain "Take OUR country back" without hippies and race?
Not saying it's all conservatives, just a significant chunk. And, yeah, cultural liberals exist too but we don't have the anger level, you never see liberals get angry about the heartland the way conservatives are angry about "libs".
EDIT to reply since I'm heading out the door: Yeah, signs at rallies, plus Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, several people I met while canvassing, every outspoken conservative in my hometown that I've heard from..
Yeah, SF contrarian-libertarians don't talk like that. But a significant subset of the conservative movement does. We'll see if it changes now that they don't feel so emasculated after taking the house.
My conservative friends don't talk like that. You know what talks like that? Crazy signs at rallies. Consider whether that's where you're getting your facts from.
I'm a midwesterner, by the way. And libertarians kind of drive me nuts. I'm talking about Republicans.
Even a lot of the "Take OUR country back" folks — who are not anything close to the majority of conservatives — resent the government telling them what plants they can grow and what they can do with them. The fact that this happens to coincide with something hippies enjoy is subordinate to the fact that the ban on pot represents the government sticking its nose into free commerce and their individual liberty.
Always keep in mind that these guys (and yes, their equivalents on the Left) are not experts in political science and philosophy. They are entertainers first and foremost, and their job is to be provocative. The day they say "You know, today everything is copacetic" is the day people stop listening and they lose their jobs.
Yeah, but is the average conservative (or liberal or just plain "voter") an expert in political science or philosophy? You ever talked to an undecided voter 24 hours before election day?
Whether or not those guys are stupid (and I agree that they are), they certainly have a constituency and are representative of a big chunk of the Republican party. Heck, anytime a Republican politician says anything bad about Limbaugh they wind up apologizing for it.
For a group that are putatively so diverse in their opinions, I've found that when I hear their talking points on the various issues, they speakers seem quite consolidated and repetitive to me.
Honestly, I think that this is just so much self-congratulations on the part of the Liberals.
It's one more variation on the "Their team is evil and cunning and my team is too dumb/cowardly/honorable/thoughtful to win" line that both teams Red and Blue use when they lose.
It came down to the fact that conservatives by their nature like order, hierarchy and organization and liberals tend not to.
Brian Eno made exactly the same observation in his published diary. Liberal tendencies might prove adaptive in the longer term though, if they keep the left ahead of the right WRT social and demographic change.
I've never understood why people want to lose tax revenue and provide a massive source of revenue to criminals when marijuana is going to be sold regardless.
I assume by people you mean people who regularly vote. The problem with Prop 19 and other similar measures is not that they don't have support, it's that their base of support by and large doesn't vote (at least until they grow up and realize you don't get anything through apathy).
As a believer in tax and regulate, I can tell you why I advised people to vote against Prop 19: It is bad law. Go ahead and read the wikipedia about it or any of the articles in the major california papers. Many say the same thing: legalization is inevitable, but this isn't the way to do it. It went too far on protecting pot (such as disallowing local ordnances from prohibiting outdoor grows.) Also, it allowed too many varying tax situations. Essentially, passing it would be empowering bad governance.
Unfortunately, voting against prop 19 as a bad law isn't differentiable from voting against prop 19 as a proponent of prohibition.
When legalization passes, it will have to satisfy people's NIMBY impulses while protecting considerate adult consumers.
No law will ever be perfect - it's all about steps in the right direction. If we wait for things to be perfect, nothing will ever change.
I find it very disheartening that some of the very people who want this change the most refused to vote for a 90% solution in the hopes that someone will come along with a 100% solution tomorrow. With this setback, the issue won't come up again for many years, and even when it does it STILL won't be perfect.
I just hope that in 10 years when it comes up again, people won't be going "I voted no because it's not perfect" and setting the process back ANOTHER 10 years.
> No law will ever be perfect - it's all about steps in the right direction.
Absolutely. The best is the enemy of the good. A better response for pro-legalisation people who disliked aspects of prop 19 would be to campaign for it, then when it's passed (and the dire predictions of the no lobby proven to be unfounded), campaign to improve it.
In Britain next year there will be a referendum on changing the voting system from FPTP to AV. Some people are opposing it saying it doesn't go far enough, and using pretty much the same arguments as aaronblohowiak. These people are IMO misguided; they are more likely to prevent the change they want from happening.
I'm pro-legalization and found the arguments of the "no" lobby persuasive. I'm not a CA voter, but I believe I speak for at least one of them who shares my sentiments. How does your argument --- "wait for the dire predictions of the no lobby to prove unfounded" --- address people who in good faith oppose the proposition?
My point was that if prop 19 had passed, then if after a few years bad thi8ngs didn't happen as a result of it, then that fact would change the tone of the debate on cannabis legalisation, leading to a big majority being in favour of people being in favour of it. When that happened, it'd be time to tweak the law to change some of the bad parts of it (because no law is perfect).
Why would someone vote for a law that seemed to them likely to create harmful side effects rather than waiting for a less ambitious, better-designed law that wouldn't? That's the conundrum I think many people fell into. You can say "the perfect is the enemy of the good", but that ignores the fact that the bad is also the enemy of the good.
> Why would someone vote for a law that seemed to them likely to create harmful side effects
Because as well as the bad effects, the law might also have good effects, i.e. be a net improvement. Most policy proposals have some potential bad side effects -- if they didn't, people would already be doing them.
So if a policy appears to be net-positive, it is probably worth supporting.
> rather than waiting for a less ambitious, better-designed law that wouldn't?
If a referendum fails, it may make it less likely that a better designed law will come along later. This is IMO the case for the referendum on electoral reform that will be held in the UK next May -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote...
Just because Paul Buchheit says it's a horrible reason doesn't make it actually a horrible reason.
In reality, the particulars of the law matter, a lot. And, in particular, this law could have allowed people to lawfully drive under the influence, and almost certainly would have caused hundreds of employers to end up in frivolous lawsuits. It manifestly did leave open the question of whether employers would have to allow employees to take one-hitters to their smoke breaks.
The second-order effects were even worse; companies in California are entangled in a web of business relationships that require drug-free workplaces --- FedGov is the most obvious example, but every investment bank in the world has a similar requirement --- all of which would have been thrown into chaos by this measure.
And why? To keep people from getting fired for something that currently gets people incarcerated. A step in the right direction is exactly what this measure wasn't.
The campaign for legalization could have written a minimalist bill. They could have waited 2 years for a more favorable election cycle. They did neither, choosing instead to walk into a buzzsaw. Don't blame the bill's opponents for this incompetence.
"this law could have allowed people to lawfully drive under the influence"
Considering that marijuana impairs driving ability less than driving at the legal limit for alcohol, does it really matter? We as a society have already decided that the level of risk that driving stoned poses is acceptable.
Libertarians will also make rational arguments about how blood alcohol limit laws should be repealed. After all, there's no science to indicate that 10 different people will be impaired to the same extent by the same blood alcohol level. You can argue about any of these issues. But do you really think driving stoned is a winning political issue? And while tens of thousands of people are imprisoned over marijuana, isn't it relevant that it's a losing argument?
Libertarians will also make rational arguments about how blood alcohol limit laws should be repealed. After all, there's no science to indicate that 10 different people will be impaired to the same extent by the same blood alcohol level.
My point is simply this: now you're trying to convince sensible people of two things they've been trained not to believe. First, that something that has been a controlled substance for decades should be open to commerce in California, and second, that the basis of our drunk driving laws are unsound and should be in effect repealed starting with that controlled substance.
A campaign to repeal blood alcohol limits would almost certainly fail in every US state, so its attachment to this bill seems like a horrible overreach.
Obviously you can put enough of anything into your body that you can't stand up, but for normal amounts it's safer than driving drunk, on your phone, texting, etc. There are several researchers who have found that it's so safe that in double blind studies they couldn't tell the difference between the sober group and the stoned group, i.e. they found zero harm at all. The ones who do find some impairing effects say they are minimal.
> Obviously you can put enough of anything into your body that you can't stand up, but for normal amounts it's safer than driving drunk, on your phone, texting, etc.
The problem I have with what you are stating is that you hand wave over "normal amounts". What is a normal amount. I've seen one toke of weed be enough to lay someone out for a half hour, I haven't seen that from one sip of a beer.
Any citation for that statement about impairment? Does it impair less than texting to talking on the phone? There was a stunt article in the LA Times that is short on detail but indicates that marijuana may impair in different ways from alcohol:
No, because unless you can get a medical professional to write you up as an alcoholic (in which case the ADA applies), you can be fired simply for handling a martini at lunch. That isn't an open question. Employment in California is at will, excepting:
* discrimination on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, or national origin
* discrimination over disabilities covered by the ADA (diagnosed drug and alcohol addiction notably included)
* termination over lawful activities conducted outside the work place.
Perverse as this sounds to me, you can in California be fired over a bad haircut, but cannot be fired for marching in a Nazi parade.
> "termination over lawful activities conducted outside the work place."
What I mean to ask is: doesn't that statement right there cover any responsible person who might want a puff or drink during the work day? I'm not talking about having a martini or a smoke at your desk or on the loading dock.
I just don't understand
1: why anyone would be concerned that the law might allow someone to show up with marijuana in their system at a non-impairment level, when they might already show up with alcohol in their system at a non-impairment level.
2: why a law that explicitly re-iterates that you can't be fired for engaging in a particular lawful activity outside the workplace is viewed as a flaw, when the general case of any lawful activity is already law.
1. Employment in the US is (for the most part) at-will. Employers can fire you for having a bad haircut. This is a good thing: it lowers the barriers to starting new companies and taking on new employees.
2. In virtually every situation in which people are given protections beyond "at-will", the harms have overwhelmed the benefits (see: teachers, auto workers, municipal employees).
3. The very few exceptions to this practice mostly involve unconscionable discrimination: specifically and literally, race, color, gender, national origin, and religion. To these 5 protected classes we should add "pot smoker"?
4. To many employers, "protected class" is code for "excuse to get sued". Termination is already a minefield simply because of racial and gender politics. I'd argue that ending racial and gender discrimination makes the hazards worth it, but even as a legalization advocate I can't argue that ending pot discrimination is worth a dime to society.
5. It gets worse because in addition to the fact that every other state criminalized cannabis, huge companies operating out of those states (notable examples: the federal government, almost every major bank) have drug-free work policies that would overnight have become unlawful in CA.
6. California's "lawful activity outside the workplace" thing appears to be a CA quirk.
7. That quirk isn't settled in case law and may only apply to cases where companies try to suppress political speech or invade privacy.
8. It seems batshit crazy to me that I can, as a CA employer, fire someone for having a bad haircut, but I can't fire that person for being nationally televised for marching in support of Nazism. Let's not pretend that particular law was well-thought-out.
I can bring this discussion back to earth real quickly though. The problem is simply this: we're having a huge and tangled discussion involving discrimination, at-will employment, freedom of association, contract law, and so on. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people are imprisoned because of marijuana criminalization. Many of them are now going to remain imprisoned for a longer period of time because the advocates of this measure overreached and tried to pass a "marijuana anti-discrimination act" instead of a "marijuana decriminalization act".
> "1. At-will"
For the most part, this is true. However, it is and has been abused and has its existing exemptions for very good reason. Protecting an employer's right to punish people for lawful activity they engage in outside of the workplace, that has no impact on how they perform their job, does not seem like a very good reason.
> "2. harms from exceptions have overwhelmed the benefits"
You're conflating union contracts with legal protections. Also, we shouldn't overlook the ways in which employers would use their at-will rights to control employee voting, spending (company store) and living (company housing). Beneficial protections for employees from the at-will rights of employers go beyond the handful of explicit protected classes.
> "3. To these 5 protected classes we should add "pot smoker"?"
No more than we should add "alcohol drinker". But it absolutely shouldn't be a protected right to fire people for engaging in lawful behavior that occurs outside the workplace and has no impact on their job performance.
> "4. "protected class" is code for "excuse to get sued"."
Termination is pretty clean and easy so long as you document your decisions.
> "5. Existing policies unlawful"
I believe the correct interpretation there is the specific sections would be rendered invalid/unenforceable and would need to be amended. I don't see it as such a huge deal. The very organizations that would experience a large cost in this endeavor are overwhelmingly the ones who have annual updates anyway.
> "6. CA quirk."
But we're only talking about California. It's nonsensical to argue based on interstate applicability of a proposed State law.
> "7. That quirk isn't settled in case law and may only apply to cases where companies try to suppress political speech or invade privacy."
Or it may not. Or firing people based on lawfully smoking weed might be seen as an invasion of privacy.
> "8. It seems batshit crazy to me that I can, as a CA employer, fire someone for having a bad haircut, but I can't fire that person for being nationally televised for marching in support of Nazism."
You don't think freedom to political speech on your own time is a more important and sacred right than freedom of expression via appearance in the workplace?
> "Many of them are now going to remain imprisoned for a longer period of time because the advocates of this measure overreached and tried to pass a "marijuana anti-discrimination act" instead of a "marijuana decriminalization act"."
I think the jury's out on how much of the opposition to this bill had to do with marijuana anti-discrimination.
I'll absolutely agree that it was bad strategy, particularly as the right seems to already be protected. I'm just not convinced that a critical reading of the proposal would sway voters away from it for its inclusion.
Arguments against the anti-discrimination sections were overwhelmingly emotional arguments. Those arguments, and those swayed by them, have never needed a rational basis. If it wasn't "they'll drive high" it would've been "they'll babysit high" or "the welfare queen will be high on your dime" or some similar scare-scenario.
Concerns about having to choose between retaining a business relationship with your largest client who mandates a drug-free workplace and a rash of frivolous lawsuits is simply not an "overwhelmingly emotional argument".
I agree with something like healthcare or financial reform, but not here.
If we have a crappy law and it creates a bunch of talking points for the opposition, that is worse than no law. The CA law will be open for repeal and other states will be less likely to pass the law.
If CA passed a good law, had a good result over the next 10 years, proponents elsewhere can point to CA as a model example of what will happen.
Any law to legalize pot has to
1) Increase tax revenue
2) Reduce crime related to drugs (especially violent crime)
3) Effectively penalize those that endager others
4) Effectively regulate the industry so that the supply is safe
From the San Jose "Mercury News": Proposition 19 fails on that front. Instead of statewide rules, regulation is left to individual cities and counties. That's right. Every one of California's 478 cities and 58 counties would be allowed, but not required, to establish its own laws on how marijuana can be grown, sold, taxed and used. On some issues, local control makes sense, but this isn't one of them.
A single statewide set of rules (like we have for alcohol,) and a clear tax proposal would go a long way.
This explains why the California Cannabis Association ( a group that defends the medical dispensaries ) is against it -- but you may want to consider their possibly perverse profit motive, as well.
One complicating factor is that there isn't a simple equivalent to the Blood Alcohol Content standard for inebriation -- this would help for things like driving and intoxication at work.
Do we actually have a single statewide set of rules for alcohol? I thought SF was trying to pass an initiative that raise alcohol distribution taxes within the city.
Wikipedia explains its composite parts in a thorough and neutral-ish way, the newspapers make an argument against it based on the probably outcomes of its policies. I expected that the reader of wikipedia would also use its details to conclude that it is untenable; I apologize for the implication that wikipedia also spelled out why it is bad law =/
It makes sense in the context of other policy such as the body scanners at airports that were talked about here recently. It seems all about playing on the populations fears "you don't want another terrorist attack", "you don't want you children exposed to illegal drugs".
I'd imagine there would be a large percentage of the population primed with the opinion that drugs are bad without any real informed opinions past that.
Sure it's still being sold, but more in an out of sight out of mind type way for those opposed.
One reason is that people (like me) don't want to further legitimize something they want society to discourage. I am strongly against drug use, and believe it sends the wrong message to impressionable kids to make it (more) legal.
What else do you want to make illegal? I'd prefer to not legitimize horrorcore rap, but I don't want it to be illegal. The same with biker shorts.
It just seems like laws should be for things that we think breaking will undo the moral fabric of society more than denying people freedom will. IMO, this drug doesn't meet the bar.
Why are you strongly opposed to letting individuals decide what to put into their body? Are you also strongly opposed to alcohol and tobacco?
I just don't understand why many people opposed to marijuana are OK with alcohol; drunks are more likely to speed, brawl, and generally behave poorly, while stoners are more likely to drive 15MPH, munch on snacks, and generally chill out.
I'm not a fan of drugs either[1]. I've never smoked or taken an illegal drug, and I drink comparatively rarely.
The thing is, prohibiting things just makes them seem cooler. For example, 80% of new smokers start before the age of eighteen. Few people would sign up to an expensive habit that smells foul and gives you cancer if not for the lure of the forbidden.
[1] Although to be fair, I'm even less of a fan of governments telling people what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own homes.
Having Government enforce what people can or cannot do in their private lives is a slippery slope, David. If I don't want homosexuality legitimized, let's keep sodomy illegal, okay?
It's fine to be against something but I think this comes down to basic adult human rights. I have a theory that if it is regulated, kids would actually have less opportunity to use it because in order to get it they would have to find someone to buy it for them or give it to them and that person would be taking a risk for little benefit much as with the purchase of or giving alcohol to a minor. As it is now, the dealers all run the same risk and so they are willing to sell to anybody and are highly motivated to find new customers.
The problem is that keeping pot illegal at this juncture, is a joke.
Maybe 25% of the population has smoked weed, and yet these people for the most part aren't facing any penalties. If you are going to have laws, you need a force that is able to enforce those laws, otherwise those laws are a joke and the government is a joke.
Legalizing marijuana is just the state coming to grips with reality. All criminalization has done is cause most generations to thumb their noses and defy a majority of laws that are on the books.
It's actually roughly 85% of Americans have used weed by age 55.[1] The reason the numbers don't normally reflect that is because the age of first use varies widely, so asking what percentage of people currently alive have smoked weed yields a very different answer than asking what percentage of normal people smoke weed during some point of their lives.
Where does it end though? If the government can regulate what I do with my own body when it comes to drugs, why stop there? What about dangerous sports? Dangerous eating habits?
Should the governments prescribe a set of "safe" sports? Or approve a range of "safe" foods to consume? How about unsafe sexual practices?
If you answer "no", then how are drugs different?
In fact the big problems stem precisely from the attempt to control drugs, creating artificial scarcity and consequently high prices that lead of organized crime serving the market.
While I don't share your opinions on marijuana, I do have negative feelings about some more harmful drugs. However I still don't want to lock people in a cage for decades should they choose to ingest them. Nor do I think the good done through "sending a message" by doing so would outweigh the injustice and cost of the law itself.
But keep in mind I'm a libertarian, and I generally support locking people in cages in fewer circumstances than the average member of the population.
I'm also strongly against drug use, and think society should discourage it through education.
On the other hand, the war on drugs is destroying Mexico, and is not stopping drug use here in the States. I just don't think we can afford the drug war's costs (social, foreign policy, and monetary) any more. If you can't teach your kids to stay off drugs, I'm sorry, but they're on their own, as far as I'm concerned.
Edit: I don't live in California, and haven't looked at Prop 19 in detail.
I find the view that kids are incapable of making decisions a little strange. Yes, at a young age people are more inclined to get talked into something they don't really want to do, but this is often an important lesson in itself. Youth is also a time when the majority of experiences are new, and the age when children are first exposed to drugs (nicotine and alcohol included) is also around the age when they begin to make their own decisions.
Personally, I know that lots of the things I did at 16-18 turned out to be a bad idea. That is kinda the point. If at 16 you skip work/school to socialize you might get fired and lose your beer money, do that at 30 you might get fired and lose your house. I'd say the same applies to kids and their exposure to drugs, learning while there are fewer consequences is the point of youth.
No reason to downvote things you disagree with, folks.
Thanks for sharing your contrary opinion, davidmurphy. :) Can you explain why you're against drug use, specifically marijuana (not the harder drugs)? And are you against alcohol as well?
EDIT: lol, I write the post and he goes from -1 to 4. Ah well. :)
Identifying law and morality inevitably means defining morality as peaceful coexistence with authority, which is a deeply unamerican and deeply illiberal concept, even when the authority is democratic. Respect for the law helps maintain a functional democratic society, but it says nothing about the morality of acts that are allowed or prohibited by the law.
Besides, in practice, your idea of right and wrong does not match the law anyway. Romantic relationships, for instance, are largely unpoliced. if you think marijuana use is wrong, then smoking marijuana just takes its place alongside sleeping with your friend's girlfriend, pretending to be in love with a sensitive, conservative girl so you can fuck her, and lying to your girlfriend about seeing other women as something that is deeply wrong but best left legal. Not to mention all the behaviors that are self-destructive but legal: excessive alcohol consumption, drinking sugary beverages, watching infomercials, etc.
The mismatch between law and morality, and the enormous overlap between legal and self-destructive behaviors, can never be eliminated, nor even reduced much. It's obvious to every child by the time they're teenagers, if only because basic civic education teaches skepticism of the law. Of the three dramatic internal struggles than define American history, the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Civil Rights movement, almost every American sides in two out of three cases with people who refused to comply with unjust, oppressive laws. (It's irrelevant that which two is still sadly controversial.) We're also taught never to be afraid to be in the moral minority. Even when a matter is not weighty enough to justify rebellion, even if it is best for the sake of civil unity to appear to comply and to bow to the law when caught, it is always imperative to make our moral judgments independent of the law. We can be morally taught or advised by others, but we never put our moral judgment up for a vote. I'm sure you agree with this, and I'm sure you will or do teach your kids this if you have them. So what's the big deal about marijuana? It's just one of a thousand legal things you will have to teach your kids not to do. It's still legal to undermine a girl's self-esteem so she'll do things for you sexually that she really doesn't want to do. Hey, it's legal, it's popular, why not? (Well, you won't teach your kids explicitly not to do that, but it will follow from the basics.) Sometimes it's pragmatic to bring law and morality into line, and sometimes it's a huge distraction and waste of money to try.
If you're nevertheless determined to cultivate respect for the law as a moral institution, you should still be in favor of marijuana legalization. Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and making alcohol illegal is not an option. Therefore, the illegal status of marijuana will always be a glaring advertisement for the arbitrariness of the law and will continue to turn almost every college kid -- even me, who was never much of a fan of marijuana -- into a willing drug criminal. Thanks to pot, I now feel pretty comfortable with the fact that some of my friends have dealers, and that if I want some kind of illegal drug, I'm just a phone call or two away from being introduced to a drug dealer and making a purchase. It doesn't seem weird to me, and it doesn't even seem very dangerous. Aside from speeding and failing to come to a complete stop before a right on red, smoking pot socially is the only way I'm comfortable breaking the law. Every time I'm offered pot at a party and say, "Sure, why not," I'm reminded that laws are often silly and arbitrary, and I become more comfortable being a criminal. Many Americans approve of that attitude, but it sounds like you do not, so why do you support a law that undermines respect for the law?
I was sort-of expecting this. I am very disappointed, even though I don't smoke pot. To me, it was a question of personal freedoms.
Here are some reasons why Prop 19 didn't pass, as far as I can see:
1. Fear of the unknown. People are fairly comfortable with the situation right now: small-time tokers don't usually get busted; anyone who wants to light up can get it from a neighborhood 'pharmacy' with a doctor's letter (or via a friend with a doctor's letter). So why change a good thing?
2. Fear of the feds. Eric Holder deliberately came and put the fear of federal retaliation into people. Why did he have to come down and take sides in this _state_ proposition?
3. Medical Marijuana folks. I was surprised to see that quite a few medical cannabis dispensaries were strongly opposing Prop 19. I guess they're doing a roaring business now; if Prop 19 passed, their business would have suffered badly as the recreational smokers no longer needed them. Shame on them for putting profits before principles.
4. More fear, this time about the wording of Prop 19. A lot of people came out and claimed that Prop 19 was flawed, it would make matters worse, etc. Just this evening one anti-19 guy was on TV, saying "Prop 19 doesn't ban smoking weed just before you get into the car and drive". Well d'uh! There's already DUI for that; does the Prop have to explicitly lay out and ban each and every way one can get high on pot? Use common sense, people.
5. Recent law in Sacramento that turns possession into an infraction. Many people are unaware of this, but the State legislature passed a law a few weeks ago (and signed by Arnold) that reduces the penalty for possessing a small amount (1oz or less) to and infraction; just a $100 fine, and no jail time. This, to me, is still a victory for Prop 19: had Prop 19 not been leading, the legislators would not have passed this new law.
So all in all: I'm disappointed that Prop 19 failed; but at least we got a law in the State that makes possession just an infraction.
It is not at all clear how existing CA DUI law --- which is very specific about measuring the influence of alcohol, but completely vague about the influence about drugs --- would have meshed with Prop 19, which spoke only of avoiding conflict with statues against "impairment".
Your question regarding whether the measure needed to explicitly lay out each and every &c &c? Yes. That is what they needed to do. This is a point Steve Yegge made, persuasively, last year (in "Have you ever legalized marijuana?"). The details killed this proposal.
There are ways to be "non-profit" and still make a ton of money. "Non-profit" only means that the organization should not make a "profit".
A trivial example would be if you ran your own non-profit, and basically paid yourself all of the "profits" as salary. There are non-profits where the top leadership makes in the high 6-figure range.
Have a friend who posted this elsewhere, an interesting take on the unconstitutionality of 19.
--------------------------
Prop 19 is 100% unconstitutional, and it's not even close. It will get struck down by every court that reviews it, unanimously so by SCOTUS (if it makes it that far). It violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which says Federal Law trumps State law (when they conflict) and Prop 19 clearly contradicts the Federal Controlled Substances Act.
Now, medical marijuana also violates the Federal Controlled Substances Act, and so technically the Feds could go in and enforce federal drug laws against medical marijuana users/growers in CA, and they actually threatened to do so, but they have since opted to let California enforce that law on its own, which CA has basically decided not to do. That same thing could play out here, with the Feds making an empty threat to enforce FCSA in California, and CA calling the Feds bluff and basically refusing to enforce Federal law.
Even if you support marijuana legalization (which I do), you shouldn't condone states simply ignoring Federal Law. If you think its acceptable for CA to ignore the FCSA, do you also think it's acceptable for states to ignore the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Obamacare, Federal Minimum Wage Laws?
Also, it won't be hard for the Feds to force California's hand. The Feds can threaten to withhold funding from CA unless they follow what the Feds want. This is how the Feds forced a nationwide drinking age of 21 (see: South Dakota v. Dole).
The Supremacy Clause does not mean that "Prop 19 is unconstitutional" it means that Prop 19 would not protect people from prosecution under federal law. For example, if I have a warehouse full of pot and the feds bust me, I can't point to Prop 19 (if it had passed) to get out of the bust.
You are sort of right that the federal gov't can kind of use the commerce clause to (in my view) over-reach (e.g., threats of withholding various forms of funding). As a question of realpolitik, it's not so obvious how far that would have gotten.
FTR the relevant supreme court case is Gonzales v Raich, which says the commerce clause covers marijuana grown in California, sold in California, and consumed in California. Passed by a conservative SCOTUS no less :).
"The Controlled Substances Act does not recognize the medical use of marijuana."
"The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate and prohibit such consumption. This argument stems from the landmark New Deal case Wickard v. Filburn, which held that the government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops, due to the effect of that consumption on interstate commerce, however minute it may be."
Re the commerce clause covers [intra-state marijuana production, distribution, and use].
Sure. As I recall the court's main reasoning was that as a fungible commodity, there is no such thing as purely "intra-state pot". That's sensible. For example, suppose that 19 had passed and everyone played by the rules: lots and lots of marijuana were produced and consumed strictly within California. That will nevertheless have enormous impact on inter-state price, production, and distribution patterns throughout the US for a substance in whose trade Congress asserts there is a strong public regulatory interest.
That decision did not overturn California's medical marijuana laws. Those are still operative. They are the authority by which, for example, dispensaries are owned and operated that do not violate any California laws.
From time to time the federal government does take action against the medical marijuana industry but, mostly they leave it alone. One suspect that part of the reason for that is because the last time they cracked down heavily, they gave rise to medical marijuana laws like California's. The original distribution co-ops / businesses were not authorized under state law. They were in defiance of both state and federal law. They largely arose out of the AIDS crisis after it was realized that marijuana had both palliative and therapeutic benefits for many patients (with no lawful substitute coming even close). The feds tried hard to shut down those scoff-laws and parts of state law enforcement helped. In response, first many other wholly unlawful medical distribution efforts sprung up (like mushrooms overnight). Second, the state-level medical marijuana law went on the ballot and won soundly.
Of course. States' rights are very important when a state wants to make it mandatory to pray before attending school, but less important when a state wants to make it legal to grow and vaporize certain plants. I mean, c'mon, someone might enjoy smoking pot, and we can't allow that. The Bible says that anything enjoyable is wrong, and it's the duty of the Supreme Court to enforce that.
This differs slightly from the wording in the Constitution, but who cares, those mofos are dead...
It's wrong to call it "unconstitutional". California has no obligation to enforce federal law.
From both an anti-prohibitionist and an anti-federalist perspective, I liked proposition 19. It's about time states pushed back against federal overreach.
>" If you think its acceptable for CA to ignore the FCSA, do you also think it's acceptable for states to ignore the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Obamacare, Federal Minimum Wage Laws?"
I never liked these "law and order" arguments. The civil rights protesters ignored state laws on segregation. What if they also ignored laws on rape, murder, and arson?
You're missing the point. Even if it's unconstitutional and might/will be ruled so, its passage will send a message to everyone that change is coming. It will ignite a greater debate, and more states might/will follow. It will ignite change.
In 1923, New York State passed a law repealing Prohibition, even though Prohibition was a part of the Constitution. http://bit.ly/9m0NDX
One would imagine that a law of Congress has less "power" than a Constitutional Amendment?
This situation fascinates me. CA has been ignoring federal law for a long time w.r.t medical marijuana. IIRC, during Bush, the feds actually did raid the medical marijuana dispensaries. (Glancing at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Medical_canna... doesn't rule out that possibility but doesn't actually support it either.)
Civil rights and the drinking age are high-profile examples of the Feds forcing states into compliance, but I wonder how widespread the state/federal discrepancies are about smaller things.
The best scenario to my mind would be if the cops simply decided unanimously to ignore all marijuana offenses. On a side note, I really wonder how often cops act against their beliefs, such as arrest people who, they feel, did not harm.
With 92% precincts reporting, the Arizona bill to legalize medicinal marijuana is 50.3% against. Surprisingly close for a conservative state (McCain was overwhelmingly re-elected despite some debatably racist campaign commercials).
It's ok. We get to try again in two years, four years, six years, however long it takes. Someone who isn't me can still drive three miles to Oakland and buy weed at a non-medical dispensary.
And Proposition 25 passed, which is actually more important to California, as it fixes the fatal flaw in California's constitution.
From what I've read, while Prop 25 removes the 2/3 majority requirement to pass the budget, it also removes the 2/3 majority requirement to raise taxes due to a "poison pill" provision in the language. This is bad news, as it gives democrats pretty much free reign. If you thought taxes were already high...
There was little real support for this among the general public. Prop. 215 (medical MJ) passed in 1996 because it seemed like it might benefit people (patients) who needed it. Without the medical appeal, it sounds a lot more like just making it easier for people to get high.
People are pretty ambivalent about MJ. A lot of cities have outlawed medical MJ dispensaries, or limited them.
And Prop 19 was not very well-written (like many propositions). Among other problems, it allowed each city and county to set their own rules for MJ regulation, which would have been a huge mess. It's not clear that there would have been significant tax revenues, for example.
There's a bill (AB 390) bouncing around the legislature now which is better crafted.
45% is not "little real support." That's 1 in 20 people from passing. I'd put some money that it got overwhelming support in the cities, particularly San Francisco.
I can't help but feel that a good portion of the blame for the failure of Prop. 19 is attributable to the increasing polarization and isolation of political debate.
The vast majority of political debate now seems to come down to: preaching to the choir / echo chamber; circus acts from the mainstream media; and people ignoring or talking past each other. We have to get to a state where people are actually talking to each other like reasonable adults rather than just shouting at each other or skulking back to their private clubs.
It's surprising that even Contra Costa and Santa Clara counties voted against it. Otherwise, the Bay Area seems to have been the primary driver for this prop.
Holder sent "a message to all those swing voters that, even if this makes sense to me, maybe it isn't okay with the Democrats running the country," said a California Democratic strategist.
Any voting Californian democrats care to comment on this?
The way the proponents spin this is that AB32 means higher energy costs which they say results in a loss of blue-collar jobs.
The opponents point to the large number of green energy jobs that can be directly attributed to AB32 plus the obvious environmental benefits.
Personally I find the job loss argument hard to quantify because there is no direct correlation while it is pretty easy to count the number of green energy companies and the resulting jobs that have sprung up in California.
Also, it is pretty much impossible to ignore the fact that the proponents of prop 23 that are touting blue collar job losses as the reason to suspend AB32 are not the folks who traditionally would give a crap about blue collar job losses.
Well, you asked who "Texas Oil" was. I gave you a nice list that told you exactly who they were. It is Valero, Tesoro, Flint Hills, Marathon, Occidental, Tower, World Oil, Frontier, etc. vs. the American Lung Association, Pediatrics, Firefighters, AARP, League of Women Voters, just about every chamber of commerce, Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman, and even the Teamsters. If you are going to pretend to fight for blue collar jobs and you have the Teamsters against you, something is fishy.
Where did you find a logical discussion on this topic?
Who is Texas Oil? What are the positives about the environmental bill that would be lost? Scare? Does that mean there's no logical argument for potential job-loss?
It covers the three refineries that are the primary donors, two from texas and one in kansas city. the fact that ab32's suspension would be for very long time (because unemployment is unlikely to be below 5% for a year for a very, very long time -- if ever.)
There is an argument, but it's assumptions aren't good. The long-term job growth from green business will FAR outpace job loss from AB32. Further, if job loss was a real concern, one would expect to see pro-labour interest groups come out in support of prop 23, which did not happen!
Even the California utilities (who will lose fiscally) from AB32 have come out against Prop 23.
In all seriousness, this is probably true. Marijuana is BC's 2nd largest industry behind construction and ahead of forestry. I believe it contributes over $7 billion/year to our GDP. I'm sure there are articles somewhere to back this up. :) Had Prop 19 passed it would have been bad news for BC's economy.
Regardless of Prop 19, WA has legalization initiatives in the hopper. We were supposed to get one on the ballot this year, but the petitioning campaign was poorly organized (and lost a lot of signatures).
That is not too surprising. One idea is that the war on drugs is one of those easy sell issues that's always good to have in your back pocket to pull out when you need to be seen taking a strong stance on something. This works for both republicans and democrats.
This was a legalization measure that, before anyone else much cared, split the pro-pot base. Many commercial (grey and black market) growers were agin' it (fearing a market crash). Many medical pot providers were agin' it (fearing being taxed to death and/or getting shut down in the ensuing chaos, stranding needful patients either way). In "the community" of casual tokers, BS rumors were all around about various ways in which Prop 19 was eeevil.
So, right off the bat, the base was split.
Then, for everyone else, comes a lot of other BS like "this will legalize driving while stoned; this will legalize getting stoned at work; etc. And all because -- while legalization might be a fine idea -- this law is badly flawed."
Well, actually, a lot of that BS was pretty far off the mark but it was convincing enough to scare away a lot of voters who might otherwise have been fine with legalization.
NOBODY on the yes campaign made the serious and needed case about lowering the incarceration rate, about undermining organized crime, etc.
Frankly, I never saw any serious message from the "yes" campaign. I couldn't tell you their talking points if I wanted to. Meanwhile, the "no" campaign's are easy to tick off one by one.
Prop 19 lost because the "yes" campaign was very -- amazingly -- incompetently run.