California Voting: Proposition 19.

[jpmassar]

The Governor's Race
The Lt. Governor's Race

The Attorney General's race   
The Senate Race

California Proposition 19.

Official summary:

Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired.

Summary of estimated fiscal impact:

Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products.

Sounds plausible enough.



But not plausible enough to anyone who's anyone in the State of California. Barbara Boxer? Nope. Jerry 'moonbeam' Brown? Nope. Gavin 'whether you like it or not' Newsom? He doesn't like it either. Needless to say, the Republicans are no better.

The San Francisco Chronicle? They like it less than they do Barbara Boxer. The Los Angeles Times? Nixo. The Lompoc Record? They's agin it too.

Okay, okay. Surely someone or some organization of prominence supports the measure...

There's Barbara Lee, but she hardly counts; she voted all by her lonesome against the Afghanistan War. Supporting organizations do include the ACLU's of Northern California and San Diego, the Berkeley and Oakland City Councils, the California NAACP, the Green Party of California and the United States Libertarian Party (quite possibly the only thing these two parties have or will ever agreed on).

What are the main objections? (I will spare you the moralistic rants, the logically flawed and factually challenged arguments):

• LA Times: "Proposition 19 is poorly thought out, badly crafted and replete with loopholes and contradictions."
  
• Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "Proposition 19 is so poorly worded and filled with loopholes that it's likely to create more confusion than clarity."
  
• SF Chronicle: "This is a seriously flawed initiative with contradictions and complications that would invite legal chaos and, more than likely, fail to deliver its promised economic benefits."
  

Can you detect a common theme? These editorials want us to believe that if only the ballot initiative had been worded better they would be all for it. Sure, they're all for having a debate, and are in agreement that prohibition is bad. But when push comes to shove, when it's time to speak out... Oh no, Mr. Bill, we can't support this bill. Let's wait another two years and see if everyone can't just agree on the perfect legislation. Can't we all just get along??

Gag me with a reefer.

Could a better initiative have been written? Undoubtedly. Such could be said of every ballot initiative that has passed or failed in California's history.

For me, the issue isn't whether the new law would provide a specific test to determine if someone is high while they are driving (being an objection of some, even though current law provides no such test). Or anything else so picayune. Sure, if the proposed law were really a disaster waiting to be passed I wouldn't vote for it. But it's not. Most of these establishment organizations and people are making stuff up. It's Reefer Madness updated for the 21st century palate.

(In any case the initiative does allow the Legislature to amend it to "further the purposes of the Act". So if there is some horrendous unintended consequence a remedy can be made law without having to wait for another ballot initiative).

For me, this vote is practical (revenue, justice), but most importantly it is symbolic:
-- It's past time to rethink our drug laws.
-- It's past time to stop making criminals out of drug users.

And the only way politicians are going to listen to rationality on this issue -- as evidenced by 1) 30 years of a completely ineffectual Drug War with no change in policy and 2) the list above of people who should, with any sense, be for this legislation but aren't -- is to start the ball rolling. This is the chance, here and now, to do it. Pass it now in California, and in ten years there's a shot at getting rid of this insanity nationwide:




Carpe Diem.

What are the prospects for passage? If you take a simple polling average of all the polling results since September 1 (this isn't completely arbitrary, since the latest polling done before that time was in mid-July), you get

Pro legalization: 47.6%
Anti legalization: 44.2%

If, instead, you weight each poll by the square root of the number of responders (which makes more mathematical sense, even if it more complicated), you get

Pro legalization: 48.4%
Anti legalization: 43.5%

That's because the favorable Field Poll (52-41) had a sample size of 2000 while the one unfavorable poll (43-53) had a sample size of only 450.

The current Intrade probability for passage is about 60%.

So it's looking promising, but in no sense guaranteed. I expect it will be a nail-biter come November.