Prop 19: Don’t Bogart That Vote

Cartel kingpin “el Barbie” knows Prop 19 would be bad for business

The current political climate in California is enough to make you fire up an industrial strength bong, and smoke yourself into oblivion. But don’t…at least not on November 2nd.

There is only one hope for Proposition 19. On election day, every regular user and casual toker of the devil-weed must drop that doob, and get to the polling place. In addition, every single Californian who believes the War on Drugs has been–and continues to be–a colossal failure, must make their disgust known to the “tough-on-drugs” vote mongers in Sacramento and Washington by pushing that chad (all the way through) for a big fat “Yes” vote on 19. Without the “smoker” and “fed-up” voters charging to its rescue, Prop 19 is doomed.

If that doesn’t strike fear in the hearts of the personal liberty-minded, remember, this chance to bring a touch of common sense to our government’s lunatic drug policy will not come again anytime soon. While such prohibition profiteers as beer bottlers, prison guards unions and booze distilleries have anti-pot war chests bulging with dollars, pro-legalization groups like California NORML and the Drug Policy Alliance simply don’t have the resources to launch major political campaigns every election cycle. In fact, if it hadn’t been for Oakland Pot pioneer Richard Lee’s initial dollars and efforts, Prop 19 would probably be gathering dust in political Palookaville.

Enthusiasm

With energized Republicans smelling blood in the water, and dejected Democrats sitting in a corner, preemptively licking their wounds inflicted by the predicted Republican massacre, California polling places will be teeming with people who think the movie Reefer Madness is a powerful documentary.

But, if every Californian who believes this prohibition is wrong gets to his or her polling place, Prop 19 would sail to victory by such a wide margin, politicians from Modesto to Manhattan would be forced to take notice. Who knows, they might even start applying a little common sense to America’s drug problem.

*

Benefits of Legalization

As a casual observer (non-pot smoker) I look at the benefits of Proposition 19:

• A potential windfall for state and local California governments that currently can barely afford to buy staples. An estimated $1.4 billion in state taxes [CA Board of Equalization estimate] that can be used on jobs, education and our deteriorating infrastructure

• Less time and money spent by law enforcement on the arrest, prosecution and incarceration of people for using and growing a substance proven to be less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.

• Ending the state’s totalitarian chutzpah of legislating its residents’ morality–a golden opportunity for people to let government know what they think of the destructive farce known as “the War on Drugs”

• No more ruining people’s lives for growing and smoking a substance used and enjoyed by millions of Californians

• New industry—new jobs. Tourism, Amsterdam-style coffeehouses, marijuana trade schools, designer roach clips and “limited edition” rolling papers–the possibilities are endless.

• Fewer bureaucratic hoops to jump through for medicinal users

• No appreciable increase in usage caused by legalization [found by many studies, including a recent study by the National Research Council, and reinforced by Portugal’s decriminalization of all drugs with no resultant spike in overall use]

• [Last, but certainly not least] A major setback to the psychopathic, all-powerful narcotraficantes who are on the verge of destabilizing Mexico with money and guns from trafficking in marijuana–estimated to be 16% to 50% of their illicit drug revenue.

Downside of Legalization

Then I forage through the misinformation — that Prop 19 will… “lead to more pot addicts,” “prevent employers from disciplining stoned employees,” “not provide revenue for state and local governments” (because…well, just because) —  and I look for the honest-to-goodness negatives if the personal recreational use and cultivation of marijuana becomes legal in California… and I look, and I look, and I…

The new Reuters/Ipsos poll has Prop 19 going up in, uh, smoke. With 53% opposing the measure, and 43% in favor. Historically, when a proposition goes into October with those kinds of numbers, things generally turn out very badly for that proposition in November.

The Republican Factor

With all their time spent opposing mosque-building, the Employee Free Choice Act, and every decent proposal that comes up before Congress, I figured Republicans had finally used up their lifetime allotment of “No”.

How wrong I was.

According to the poll, two out of three California Republicans are saying “no” to Prop 19. Though Democrats favor the plan 54% to 45%, it is nearly impossible to rise above those Republican numbers.

Though there are more Democrats than Republicans in California, the GOP’s unity in lunacy always proves to be a formidable opponent to Democrats’ raging confusion–I mean, “diversity of opinion.”

It appears the “Party of Small Government,” wants a government small enough to deny extended unemployment benefits to onetime members of the once thriving middle class, but big enough to keep homosexuals from being married, women from controlling their reproduction, and everyone from smoking marijuana.  I guess Republicans actually belong to the Party of Situational Small Government.

Call to Action

When November 2nd rolls around, let’s ignore the depressing realities of California politics. Let’s pretend that Meg Whitman was unable to purchase her current neck-and-neck position with Jerry Brown, as the latest polls suggest. In fact, let’s pretend that Republicans are as clinically depressed as Democrats.

Let’s energize ourselves into believing that our votes–the pot-smoker votes, the had-it-up-to-here-with-the-Drug War votes, and the fiscally responsible votes–will come together and save the day.

California has millions of regular users of cannabis. Who knows how many social tokers there are out there? Toss in the Common Sensers, and you’ve got a potential voting bloc that would make Jerry Falwell jealous.

Proposition 19 can win, friends. All we have to do is vote.

California Gubernatorial Candidates Not for Pot: The Led Leading the Leaders, Once Again

Though Californians will decide in November whether their state will be the first in the nation to legalize recreational use of marijuana, the three leading candidates in California’s gubernatorial race have already made up their minds on the issue.

According to the Sacramento Bee, this is what they had to say about legalization of the devil-weed:

Republican Meg Whitman (by spokesperson): “absolutely against legalizing marijuana for any reason. … She believes we have enough challenges in our society without heading down the path of drug legalization.”

Republican Steve Poizner (by spokesperson): “feels we need an across-the-board tax cut to reignite our state’s economy, not an attempt to smoke our way out of the budget deficit.”

Democrat Jerry Brown to a meeting of law enforcement officials: “I’ve already indicated that that’s not a provision I am likely to support, I have been on the side of law enforcement for a long time, and you can be sure that we will be together on this November ballot.”

Finally, a point of bipartisan agreement.

Something Missing

Another thing all three statements have in common is the complete avoidance of any substantial reason for their opposition.

Meg Whitman’s “we already have enough challenges” approach assumes that personal freedom granted to a large number of California pot smokers would be a problem. Somehow, the reduction in taxpayer spending on incarceration, the courts and law enforcement–plus the huge dent in the dope cartels’ cash stream that legalization would create adds up to a “challenge” by Whitman’s reckoning.

Steve Poisner’s answer was simply an opportunity to recite the Republican tax-cut mantra—with an inane reference to “smok[ing] our way out of the [State’s] budget deficit” tacked on. I’m not even sure what that means.  Actually, I’m not sure he knows what that mans. But since he brought it up, to completely disregard the tax revenue that would be generated by controlled, taxed, commercial distribution of a very popular drug is a wee bit, well, stupid.

Brown

Then, there’s Jerry Brown. Mr. Brown may be one of the more enlightened of the three (faint praise, I know), but he is also a politician. His “I’m with law enforcement” statement was made to a group of law enforcement officials meeting in Sacramento.  What else would he say? “After careful study of academic, legal and medical reports—and deep reflection on my own personal use of the stuff back in the 60s and 70s, I’ve come to the conclusion that you law enforcement people have been wasting your time and causing untold misery to many decent people for the last 85 years. Marijuana is enjoyed by millions of Californians. To allow the manufacture and distribution of alcohol and tobacco, but draw the line on a substance that has been proven to be less harmful than both of the other substances makes no sense at all, is unconstitutional, and is, in all truth, very, very destructive. And remember, vote for me. Thank you.”

Brown also left a little wiggle room with his “not a provision I am likely [italics mine] to support.” Who knows, he may change his tune if the numbers supporting legalization continue to grow.

Wide Support

According to Reuters, legalizing marijuana “appears to have broad support in the state, with some 56 percent of Californians surveyed in an April, 2009 Field Poll saying they favored making it legal for social use and taxing the sales proceeds.”

The most recent polls show support for the initiative has declined somewhat, but no matter how you slice it, a whole lot of Californians think the ban on reefer should be lifted.

Once again, it appears the led are leading the leaders.