
Marijuana Legalization Fails in California - robryan
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/11/marijuana-legalization-fails-in-california/65835/
======
dasht
So...

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.

~~~
gamble
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.

~~~
tptacek
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.

~~~
jbooth
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).

A 45% showing makes it a definitively non-fringe opinion and moves the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window>

------
philk
Well this is a rather discouraging result.

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.

~~~
davidmurphy
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.

~~~
rottencupcakes
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?

~~~
brownleej
Slippery slope arguments are also a slippery slope.

------
ajays
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.

~~~
philwelch
On point 3, I'm pretty sure CA cannabis dispensaries are required to be non-
profit.

~~~
ajays
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.

------
ed
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).

~~~
dasht
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.

~~~
kingkilr
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 :).

~~~
GFischer
Thanks, I looked it up and it's very relevant to the discussion so I'll link
it:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich>

"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."

~~~
chopsueyar
It's fungible (according to the Court).

------
alanh
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).

~~~
gjm11
Despite?

------
linuxhansl
Sad day indeed. I never had much interest in pot, but I find the general
populations stance w.r.t. to Marijuana irrational.

1\. A lot of tax money is wasted in prosecuting non-violent recreational
users.

2\. Most studies place Marijuana as less harmful than alcohol or nicotine.
Many attribute beneficial effects to it.

3\. This way we'll maintain the artificial scarcity providing a high value
market for organized crime.

4\. Lost tax revenue.

5\. Officially controlled substances are usually safer (since regulated,
inspected etc)

------
rms
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.

<http://www.economist.com/node/13649050>

~~~
dannyv
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...

------
vvpan
I'd wait till the votes are counted...

------
mturmon
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.

~~~
aneth
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.

~~~
andymorris
Worse - it's 20 million people preventing 17 million people from enjoying a
leisure activity through force.

Democracy sucks.

------
InclinedPlane
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.

------
ajays
The voting patterns for this prop look interesting:
<http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/ballot-measures/19/>

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.

------
lawfulfalafel
It's not link-baiting when you release an article about poll-results with <
50% reporting, right? Kind of sad for the atlantic.

<http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/california>

------
chopsueyar
_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?

------
narrator
Here's the breakdown by county. As you can see, this is quite the popular
initiative in startup land:

<http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/ballot-measures/19/>

------
rll
At least prop 23 went down. To me that is way more significant than prop 19.

~~~
jpwagner
I have been unable to find any logical discussion on prop 23. Was AB32 tied to
some massive layoffs?

~~~
rll
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.

The list of Donors for prop 23 is pretty telling:

[http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposi...](http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_23_\(2010\)#Donors)

Compare that to the list of opponents:

[http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposi...](http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_23_\(2010\)#Opponents)

Pretty amazing that 42% (as of the current numbers) voted Yes on this one.

~~~
jpwagner
Although you come off as somewhat biased, your circumstantial evidence could
be convincing.

~~~
rll
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.

------
ertyujhygfd
Yeah - from the Vancouver chamber of commerce

~~~
eddanger
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.

~~~
Mistone
PacNorWest states may have followed suit in next few years if Prop 19 passed.
But I doubt BC pot has a big impact on CA.

~~~
eddanger
Don't underestimate the power and reach of "BC Bud"!

~~~
ertyujhygfd
You should have seen the size of the promo event they had here in february -
just to sell it to snowboarders.

------
stretchwithme
I think some people got confused and thought the election was on 4/20.

