12 ms·
Marijuana Legalization Fails in California
- ertyujhygfd 16y agoYeah - from the Vancouver chamber of commerce
- eddanger 16y agoIn 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 16y agoPacNorWest 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 16y agoDon't underestimate the power and reach of "BC Bud"!
- ertyujhygfd 16y agoYou should have seen the size of the promo event they had here in february - just to sell it to snowboarders.
- philwelch 16y agoRegardless 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).
- vvpan 16y agoI'd wait till the votes are counted...
- alanh 16y agoWith 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 16y agoDespite?
- stretchwithme 16y agoI think some people got confused and thought the election was on 4/20.
- philk 16y agoWell 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.
- BigZaphod 16y agoFear of change.
- robryan 16y agoIt 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.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- btmorex 16y agoI 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).
- bbuffone 16y agoDoesn't that in-of-itself say something about the legalization. I see that things like this fail not because people are against pot, but because everyone has the same feeling, "it's fine, just not in my back yard".
- johnglasgow 16y agoNot only do the supporters not vote, but they have very little political power nor do they provide monetary support.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- jfarmer 16y agoBoth Brown and Boxer opposed Proposition 19.
- gcheong 16y agoThat 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.
- rll 16y agoAt least prop 23 went down. To me that is way more significant than prop 19.
- jpwagner 16y agoI have been unable to find any logical discussion on prop 23. Was AB32 tied to some massive layoffs?
- aaronblohowiak 16y agoWhat do you mean? Texas Oil wanted to stop our environmental bill from taking effect by creating scare about job loss. Californians said "No."
- jpwagner 16y agoWhat do you mean? 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?
- aaronblohowiak 16y agoI found it on NPR. http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201010110850/b http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201010110850/b You can find more details on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_23_(2010) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_23_(2010... 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.
- ed 16y agoHave 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).
- vvpan 16y agoThe 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.
- jacoblyles 16y agoIt'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? Law and order with bad laws is tyranny.
- linuxhansl 16y agoSad 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)
- mturmon 16y agoThere 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 16y ago45% 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 16y agoWorse - it's 20 million people preventing 17 million people from enjoying a leisure activity through force. Democracy sucks.
- dasht 16y agoSo... 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 16y agoAnd 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.
- webXL 16y agoIt'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.
- alanh 16y agoCareful of No True Scotsman. You also seem to confuse conservatism with libertarianism.
- ajays 16y agoI 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.
- tptacek 16y agoIt 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.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- rms 16y agoIt'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 http://www.economist.com/node/13649050
- dannyv 16y agoFrom 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...
- lawfulfalafel 16y agoIt'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 http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/california
- narrator 16y agoHere'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/ http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/ballot-measures/19/
- InclinedPlane 16y agoI 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.
- chopsueyar 16y agoHolder 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?
- ajays 16y agoThe voting patterns for this prop look interesting: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/ballot-measures/19/ 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.