Buzzkill: California says no to pot legalization
posted at 3:35 pm on November 3, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Does this signal an end to the Great Pot Strategy of 2012? The turnout value for turning on was supposed to help Democrats to victory in California when Proposition 19 made the ballot, drawing younger Democrats and libertarians to the polling booth and generating some serious buzz as it sailed to victory. The success of legalization as an electoral strategy would heal the breach between Democrats and libertarians and force Republicans to either back legalization or become increasingly isolated.
Of course, in order for the strategy to spread to other states like weeds through a garden, it had to actually work. Bummer, man:
In a landmark ballot measure that tested the boundaries of the public’s acceptance of pot, California voters decided Tuesday night they’re not ready to legalize marijuana smoking as a leisure activity.
With more than one-fifth of votes counted, Proposition 19 was losing by 56 to 44 percent. The initiative would have allowed adults over 21 to possess up to an ounce of pot and cultivate small amounts of marijuana at home.
The pot initiative – which would have made California the first state to legalize marijuana beyond medical use – drew international attention.
Who harshed the mellow? It was The Man, man — the Democratic Man:
Ultimately, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder weighed in on the campaign, vowing to “vigorously enforce” federal drug laws in California if voters passed the initiative.
“When the U.S. attorney general talked about the conflict with federal law, that gave people pause,” Roger Salazar, spokesman for Public Safety First, the No on 19 campaign, said as returns showed the measure headed to defeat.
There are good arguments on both sides of this debate, although in California it more or less degenerated into sloganeering and silliness, such as the supposed difficulty of determining impairment of drivers (which California has been doing for decades) and the notion that pot would significantly help balance the budget. The real question is whether the cost of prohibition in terms of both dollars and civil rights is worth the amount of success it has provided in keeping marijuana out of the hands of people who want to use it.
Unfortunately, the “pot strategy” made that basic question an afterthought to electoral strategy. In this case, the strategy was obviously not successful. Democrats turned out anyway and voted against the bill. If the strategy would work anywhere, it would only work in liberal-leaning states like California, where Democrats rarely have trouble winning statewide elections anyway. For better or worse, the consensus in the US appears to strongly favor prohibition, so as a lever for partisan gains, legalization referenda don’t seem to be terribly useful.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
So you just like to ignore the unconstitutional federal laws as long as they don’t affect you directly?
SirGawain on November 3, 2010 at 4:42 PM
What case showed it was unconstitutional?
The rhetorical meaning was, it doesn’t matter, every state will vote it down, which makes it basically a federal mandate.
right2bright on November 3, 2010 at 4:43 PM
And what would the social costs of alcohol be if it were made illegal? Which one is worse?
SirGawain on November 3, 2010 at 4:44 PM
But I’m not.
As far as “recreational use” is concerned, it happens. It happens without getting caught or being prosecuted.
Children can NOT make the distinction of what is happening TO THEIR BRAIN when they get stoned. And for the most part, those children who have access to pot are real sh!ts at school, and grow up into obnoxious self serving perpetual juveniles who couldn’t care less about others who just “don’t get it”.
Pfff. We have enough problems in America. Legalizing pot isn’t going to solve a damned thing.
maverick muse on November 3, 2010 at 4:44 PM
You will show us the case that shows it is unconstitutional, as requested above.
Always nice to have a link to a specific allegation…
right2bright on November 3, 2010 at 4:44 PM
2008: California votes for Obama and against gay marriage.
2010: California votes for Brown and against marijuana legalization.
Why are these social conservatives voting for Democrats that don’t represent their values? One reason is the absence of articulate conservative candidate in California. We need a Rubio of our own.
Terrie on November 3, 2010 at 4:44 PM
http://www.noonproposition19.com/learn/impact-on-public-safety
ButterflyDragon on November 3, 2010 at 4:46 PM
Maybe it’s the “good and welfare clause.” Why don’t you try reading the original document and showing me where it IS constitutional. See how that Constitution thingy works?
SirGawain on November 3, 2010 at 4:47 PM
I believe one priority for conservatives/Republicans, is to make sure that liberal states, such as California, are not given federal bailouts. As a “red state” Missourian, I have no interest in giving my tax dollars to help Governor Moonbeam, in California, or any other blue state socialist.
Star20 on November 3, 2010 at 4:48 PM
Unions.
malclave on November 3, 2010 at 4:51 PM
At least Californians got one thing right yesterday.
Captain Kirock on November 3, 2010 at 4:51 PM
But that is done with government approval.
Imagine if the alcohol companies were run through the same ringer as the tobacco companies have been for the last 20 years.
Ban alcohol advertising in the exact same manner as tobacco products. Demonize alcohol at every possible venue. Talk about how second hand drinking kills innocent children. Raises medical costs for everyone. Raises the cost of law enforcement by inordinate amounts.
I believe alcohol should be legal. But I believe it should fall under the same rules as tobacco.
ButterflyDragon on November 3, 2010 at 4:53 PM
Alcohol being the straw man here. There are laws against a brain surgeon being under any drug influence(alcohol is a drug) during surgery. Surgeons are more likely to be under the influence of prescription drugs then pot or alcohol. Humans are very fallible, you can not prohibit anything enough to fix this. This fact does not stop us from trying.
IowaWoman on November 3, 2010 at 4:53 PM
ButterflyDragon on November 3, 2010 at 4:53 PM
Terrible idea.
The government had no business doing what it did and is doing to tobacco and better stay the hell away from alcohol.
Our government needs to decrease its scope of activity and concentrate on its core responsibilities. We have serious problems in this country and tilting at windmill regarding alcohol would be a waste of precious time and resources.
NoDonkey on November 3, 2010 at 5:02 PM
I think one of the main lessons from Prohibition is that making something illegal after it has been legal, isn’t worth the trouble. So I’m not sure that even if all those arguments had been shot down that it would have made a difference.
Esthier on November 3, 2010 at 5:06 PM
I thought the bill made it clear that you could only smoke in your own home or in a place specifically designated for smoking pot, making it even more harsh against pot smokers than cigarette smokers.
Esthier on November 3, 2010 at 5:15 PM
It’s short term memory loss, and that’s usually only while high and goes away shortly once sober. You’d be surprised at the number of professionals who smoke on their own time.
That’s simply not true. Immediately after Prohibition, alcohol consumption was down to 30% of its previous levels.
Getting alcohol was more difficult, and the alcohol itself wasn’t as good.
Laws do affect behavior.
Esthier on November 3, 2010 at 5:22 PM
You guys are funny. Prop 19 wasn’t the important thing that happened in California last night. Prop 25 passed. That lowered the 2/3 requirement for the legislature to pass a budget down to 50% plus one.
With the democrat majorities in the state houses and Moonbeam in the governorship, there will be no stopping either the spending, or the taxing. That’s the real story here in California.
trigon on November 3, 2010 at 5:36 PM
Getting alcohol was EASY during Prohibition. There were speakeasies everywhere and the mob made a great deal of money supplying them.
dogsoldier on November 3, 2010 at 6:04 PM
Someone forgot to tell the advocates of Prop 19 to wait until after they voted before they started smoking yesterday…
More burrito supremes were sold at Taco Bells statewide in CA than votes were cast in favor of Prop 19.
Danny on November 3, 2010 at 6:20 PM
Eh,..this is Kalifornia.. I figure they will have a judge force it through, just like they do everything else there.
Noelie on November 3, 2010 at 6:30 PM
I’m not interested in debating legalization, nobody is going to change their mind at this point.
I’d rather ask an unanswerable question. At about 8:45PM, a representative of the California Secretary of State quoted the following election results (numbers approximated, I was on the road at the time):
Governor:
Brown ~ 50%
Whitman ~ 43%
Precincts Reporting ~ 5%
Senate:
Boxer ~ 49%
Fiorina ~ 44%
Precincts Reporting ~ 7%
Prop 19:
Yes ~ 38%
No ~ 62%
Precincts Reporting ~ 2%
Now, all three of the above were statewide issues. At a given point in time, in the numbers presented to the senior State official, how do they have different levels of reporting response? It makes little sense, and I tried to imagine a scenario that would produce different percentages of returns being reported from the same numbers of ballots counted. That’s not a form of math with which I’m familiar.
Pretty useless to call shenanigans, just saying…
Freelancer on November 3, 2010 at 6:40 PM
Can some one point me to the Drug Prohibition Amendment?
MSimon on November 3, 2010 at 6:44 PM
BTW the California Legislature had already legalized consumption. All Prop 19 was about was production and sales.
MSimon on November 3, 2010 at 6:46 PM
And what about the hardship tobacco taxes have on schizophrenics?
Schizophrenia and Tobacco
MSimon on November 3, 2010 at 6:50 PM
Washington state just voted a provision like that down, and also gave the smackdown to a Bill Gates Sr. subterfuge of a income tax that applies only above $200K/yr individual, $400K married. Voters saw right through that, so we are safe from an income tax for years to come.
pedestrian on November 3, 2010 at 6:57 PM
This was a silly argument that some conservatives were making, but a much better one was that the proposition itself was badly worded so that it failed to protect employers who wanted to maintain a no-drug policy. Specifically, section 11304(c) would have read:
The problem is with that “actually impairs” language which could be read to prohibit employers from firing people under the influence unless they could prove that their performance was impaired. There was other language in the proposition which would have made it impossible to amend the law to fix this (the law could be amended “only to further the purposes of the act” and to “adopt less restrictive limitations”.) This, along with the argument that legalizing marijuana while keeping the welfare state in place would basically bankrupt us, was what caused me to vote against Prop 19 when I had originally supported it.
JackOfClubs on November 3, 2010 at 6:57 PM
What do you suggest?
The voters, you know, those that VOTE, didn’t want it passed. They had the opportunity to do what pro-legalizers always wanted – legalize pot. What did they do?
The voters spoke. The WILL OF THE PEOPLE has been heard – and you don’t like it?
I’m not your enemy. But if the pro-legalization movement couldn’t pass pot legalization in the most liberal, hippy infested state in the country where most of this stems, then QUITE B!#CHING ABOUT LEGALIZATION.
They couldn’t get it passed. Move on. Attack it from another angle, whatever. But bitching about trying to get it legalized WHEN EVEN THE LIBTARDS IN CALIFORNIA don’t want it – WHEN THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM TO LEGALIZE IT is getting a bit tiresome.
catmman on November 3, 2010 at 7:32 PM
You do, I do, and anyone who understands what “liberty” means does too. Neo-Prohibitionists, who love imposing their subjective standards upon others, do not, however.
If an individual doesn’t have the ultimate authority in deciding what to put into her/his own body, the Pursuit of Happiness, which is a supposed God-given right, is an utterly meaningless concept on the physical level.
I wonder if every Christian who opposes marijuana legality, but supports alcohol’s, believes that they are reflecting the Lord’s will when they are doing so (not as though they actually care if they are or not.)
Bizarro No. 1 on November 3, 2010 at 7:33 PM
What do you suggest?
The voters, you know, those that VOTE, didn’t want it passed. They had the opportunity to do what pro-legalizers always wanted – legalize pot. What did they do?
The voters spoke. The WILL OF THE PEOPLE has been heard – and you don’t like it?
I’m not your enemy. But if the pro-legalization movement couldn’t pass pot legalization in the most liberal, hippy infested state in the country where most of this stems, then QUITE B!#$%ING ABOUT LEGALIZATION.
They couldn’t get it passed. Move on. Attack it from another angle, whatever. But b!@#$ing about trying to get it legalized WHEN EVEN THE LIBTARDS IN CALIFORNIA don’t want it – WHEN THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM TO LEGALIZE IT is getting a bit tiresome.
catmman on November 3, 2010 at 7:34 PM
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, or something.
They don’t care about consistency, they care about power and control. This is not rationally disputable.
Bizarro No. 1 on November 3, 2010 at 7:37 PM
Well, at least I still have the constitutional right to abort my baby.
Dork B. on November 3, 2010 at 7:57 PM
Since it’s moral to let Joe Nickelbag get legally high in his attic while listening to a really crappy band like the Grateful Dead if he wants to, there’s no heartache for people like me when we consider the societal problems that would accompany marijuana’s legality, just as there isn’t when we see all of the chaos alcohol’s legality causes.
I don’t like that some people can’t handle their liquor or their highs very well, but that’s what you have to accept in the name of freedom, if you do care about it in the first place. Tyranny doesn’t solve abuse issues.
Bizarro No. 1 on November 3, 2010 at 8:11 PM
Californians (not me though) re-elected Brown and Boxer, promoted Newsom and Harris while stone-cold sober…just think what the results would be while on dope.
Yeah, pretty much the same.
Left Coast Right Mind on November 3, 2010 at 8:35 PM
Well done, California.
The Mexican drug cartels are breathing a sigh of relief today.
chumpThreads on November 3, 2010 at 8:39 PM
As a conservative I have no interest in bailing out ANY state. PERIOD.
So I FIFY
SgtSVJones on November 3, 2010 at 9:50 PM
The proponents probably got lost in the voting booth.
Dude…. what do I do with these ovals that look like albino lady bugs?
profitsbeard on November 3, 2010 at 10:19 PM
This part in particular earned my no vote as well. The libertarian side of me is willing to listen to pot legalization arguments. But why the hell do these ballot proposition writers have to turn the employer into the boogeyman time and again? I am so sick of that misbegotten impulse.
Edouard on November 4, 2010 at 12:57 AM
Funny thing is employers who test for drugs have LOWER productivity. At least in high tech industries:
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/08/drug-testing-lowers-high-tech.html
MSimon on November 4, 2010 at 1:55 AM
Praise God. The forces of law, order, and sanity have won this battle. But be ready for the next one! The willful fools and closet anarchists aren’t just going to melt away in the meantime.
We may laugh at the idea of the stoner squad being too stupid or lazy to vote – and there IS some truth to such ‘slacktivism’ – but that alone won’t stop this movement. Sending them crying back to their bongs will require much more than hoping they can’t tell which checkbox to mark. The real problem is that such a proposal even made it that far!
Dark-Star on November 4, 2010 at 3:42 PM
Of particular note, and largely unremarked, is that the Emerald Triangle counties of Mendocino, Humboldt and Trinity voted overwhelmingly against Prop 19.
Since the formerly-timber-based economies of those counties are dependent almost wholly on the illegal marijuana industry, it would seem apparent that the big growers didn’t want it. Cui bono, one wonders….
Legalization itself is long past being the issue here. Why would George Soros and the unions in California spend money on this initiative? Why in God’s name do you think Legalization is gonna have any effect on the juggernaut of Mexican cartels (and by the way, 45 members of La Famillia Michoacana were arrested today in Atlanta with $2.3 Million in cash, along with 2 tons of pot, 94+ pounds of cocaine and 46 pounds of meth)? The Drug Wars are here, now.
And btw,
I’ve written about this before.
I know more about it than you do.
It’s gonna be a disaster, no matter what.
Better wise up, kids.
warbaby on November 4, 2010 at 8:48 PM
Libertarians have little in common with leftists, so using Prop 19 or any other measure to garner the big-L vote for Democrats is silly.
That said, what have we gained exactly from a century of government oversight (do notice I didn’t say prevention) of drug use in the US?
spmat on November 4, 2010 at 11:32 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2