7 ms·

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'

by dasht 16y ago

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 16y ago
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.
- webXL 16y ago
  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.
  - alanh 16y ago
    Careful of No True Scotsman. You also seem to confuse conservatism with libertarianism.
    - webXL 16y ago
      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.
      - _delirium 16y ago
        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.
        Semiapies 16y ago
        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.
- cabalamat 16y ago
  > I choose not to interpret this as a setback for legalization, but as proof that prohibition is in its dying throes. I think you're probably right. 45% is close enough to winning that I can easily imagine this succeeding in 10 years time.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    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.
- axod 16y ago
  > "I choose not to interpret this as a setback for legalization, but as proof that prohibition is in its dying throes." I'm pretty sure some people believed that in the 70s as well.
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    Are you referring to some specific event in the 70s regarding the legalization of marijuana in America (Federal Controlled Substance Act in 1970)? I was not alive during that time, and any clarification would be appreciated.
- illumin8 16y ago
  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.
- tptacek 16y ago
  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.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    It's a sound defeat, but it's not a landslide. 10 or 15 years ago, it might have been 70-30.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
- ojbyrne 16y ago
  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/MNUD1G3CL7.DTL&tsp=1 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/02/...)
aquateen 16y ago
I'm pretty sure the pro-base wasn't split. Dealers/growers should account for a very small percentage. Obviously the monied interests will have a louder message (prison unions, growers). Also, why did you use "agin'" rather than "against"?
- techtalsky 16y ago
  "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.
  - maxawaytoolong 16y ago
    "Agin' it" is a regionalism... in what region? South Park?
    - khafra 16y ago
      I would've called it a slightly anachronistic phrase more than a regionalism: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22agin%27+it%22 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22ag...
      - maxawaytoolong 16y ago
        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.
  - dasht 16y ago
    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.
dotBen 16y ago
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 (You can listen to the program at http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/417/this-party-sucks http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/417/t... - see "Act II - Mr Hitt goes to Washington")
- patio11 16y ago
  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.
  - euroclydon 16y ago
    National Review? WFB himself was, right?
tptacek 16y ago
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.

by dasht 16y ago

gamble 16y ago

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.

webXL 16y ago
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.
- alanh 16y ago
  Careful of No True Scotsman. You also seem to confuse conservatism with libertarianism.
  - webXL 16y ago
    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.
    - _delirium 16y ago
      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.
      - Semiapies 16y ago
        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.
cabalamat 16y ago
> I choose not to interpret this as a setback for legalization, but as proof that prohibition is in its dying throes. I think you're probably right. 45% is close enough to winning that I can easily imagine this succeeding in 10 years time.
- tptacek 16y ago
  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.
axod 16y ago
> "I choose not to interpret this as a setback for legalization, but as proof that prohibition is in its dying throes." I'm pretty sure some people believed that in the 70s as well.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  Are you referring to some specific event in the 70s regarding the legalization of marijuana in America (Federal Controlled Substance Act in 1970)? I was not alive during that time, and any clarification would be appreciated.
illumin8 16y ago
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.
tptacek 16y ago
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.
- philwelch 16y ago
  It's a sound defeat, but it's not a landslide. 10 or 15 years ago, it might have been 70-30.
- jbooth 16y ago
  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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
ojbyrne 16y ago
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/MNUD1G3CL7.DTL&tsp=1 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/02/...)

aquateen 16y ago

I'm pretty sure the pro-base wasn't split. Dealers/growers should account for a very small percentage. Obviously the monied interests will have a louder message (prison unions, growers). Also, why did you use "agin'" rather than "against"?

techtalsky 16y ago
"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.
- maxawaytoolong 16y ago
  "Agin' it" is a regionalism... in what region? South Park?
  - khafra 16y ago
    I would've called it a slightly anachronistic phrase more than a regionalism: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22agin%27+it%22 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22ag...
    - maxawaytoolong 16y ago
      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.
- dasht 16y ago
  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.

dotBen 16y ago

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 (You can listen to the program at http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/417/this-party-sucks http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/417/t... - see "Act II - Mr Hitt goes to Washington")

patio11 16y ago
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.
- euroclydon 16y ago
  National Review? WFB himself was, right?

tptacek 16y ago

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.