My thoughts on Proposition 19

[kaysho]

October in California is the start of two seasons: the rainy season and the proposition season.  The first is a result of Mother Nature.  The second is a result of our penchant to want to vote on everything.  I happen to think both are pretty much all wet, but that's another story.

At the top of the ballot this year will be Proposition 19, which

Comments

[kaysho]

The whole Federal vs. state angle is something that a lot of people I know who wholeheartedly support Prop 19 aren't really looking at. You hear a lot of, "If Prop 19 passes, weed will be legal." No it won't. The only change will be that peace officers who are employees of the state or its agencies won't be bugging you about it, at least until that crazy-quilt gets set up. But your "legal" weed can still get you years in a Federal penitentiary. And I am honestly concerned that, if California takes an in-your-face attitude about it, the DEA could very well step in and restrict pot even more than it is now.

Or conversely, a public vote in favour of pot could make it more difficult for the DEA to do so. Who knows? It may depend on whether the government after the election has a more left-ish or right-ish tilt to it.

Besides, for all Prop 19 says it'll do, weed is effectively legal in California already. If you want it, you can get it; and with possession now just an infraction under state law, the cops won't be pestering you about it anyway. I really want to vote yes on Prop 19 (as a "statement", if nothing else), but I truly see it as having more downsides than upsides when you compare what it will do with the actual situation on the ground that we have now, as opposed to the technically legal situation.

[iisaw]

Basically, if I knew how the consequences would fall out, I'd know how to vote. As you said, it isn't very clear because there are so many variables involved.

The probability for positive/negative outcomes seems about equal.

Time for a coin-flip?

[kaysho]

The new state law that cuts possession to an infraction did actually shift the dynamics of the argument, I think. The state has pretty much said that it doesn't care; infractions are for violations of the law that don't cause immediate obvious damage in the individual case but are illegal because damage will inevitably happen if there are no restrictions at all (e.g. speeding tickets). Given the amount of effort and paperwork for a $100 fine, the new pot law pretty much tells state agencies, "Don't bother".

That shifts the status quo in a direction where having the Feds do more active enforcement would worsen the situation more than before. OTOH, it's still not nearly as good as an open, regulated environment where you can walk into a store and know what you're getting.

[iisaw]

Well, if I might be serious for a moment (don't faint), that's why I'm voting for it. I think a backlash by the Feds would cause a bigger backlash against the Feds. Something that seems to be increasingly necessary, IMHO.

[brigus]

Honestly, I only expect the DEA to use anti-cannabis law as a means to get at someone they are interested in for other reasons, especially under this administration. That said, the administration will change in 2-6 years, and we could have a new drug czar...whenever.

I think, *if* this passes (and it's sounding a lot like it won't, but it's sure got my vote), it will pave the way for more states to do the same, and that will turn up the heat for change at the federal level. Nothing wrong with being a trailblazer.