“It’s No Longer a Matter of If, It’s a Matter of When”

Staying high on marijuana legalization after the defeat of Proposition 19

Brian Doherty | November 5, 2010

On election night, I was in the driveway of the law offices of Bruce Margolin, head of the Los Angeles branch of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and L.A.'s most famous pot-crime defense lawyer. The local marijuana community had gathered there to celebrate (or mourn) the vote returns on Proposition 19. This was California’s high-profile chance to legalize the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana and to grow up to 25 square feet of marijuana plants. The proposition would also grant localities the power to allow higher limits for possession and growth, and, if they chose, to legalize, tax, and regulate sales.

An hour or so after the 8 p.m. poll closing, despite the optimism and polling that presaged victory a month ago, we all knew voters had rejected this opportunity to liberalize their state’s marijuana laws, 54-46. The proposition won in only 10 of 58 counties—all but two on the state’s west coast. Los Angeles, which had enjoyed (or to some, suffered) the greatest profusion of retail marijuana shops under California’s existing medical pot regime, did not choose to legalize for all adults.

California’s voters had been told by 19’s proponents that legal pot for adults offered unprecedented opportunities for elevating both government revenue and racial justice, for redirecting police resources more helpfully, and for creating many good local jobs in the growth, processing, and sales of hemp and marijuana.

Those same voters had also been told that voting yes on 19 would lead to a flood of drugged drivers and zonked employees going unpunished and unpunishable, and an angry mob of federal agents meting out rough pot justice if the state went wobbly. The local option built into the proposition’s language that would have freed localities from having the Bay Area's sense of pot’s propriety imposed on the whole state was recast by opponents as a chaotic nightmare of different jurisdictions treating pot differently that would, somehow, be worse than the ways similar laws governing such matters as alcohol and guns already shift from county to county and city to city.

In the end, a half million more California voters chose to say no thanks to legal pot than chose to legalize it. A pro-19 effort of over a year, nearly $4 million in spending (more than 10 times as much as the official opposition to 19), and the tabling, door-hangering, and get-out-the-vote phone calling of many hundreds of volunteers was over, with nothing to show for it.

That’s one way to look at what happened with Prop 19. But there in Margolin’s driveway, where a small mob of 19 fans would gather every 20 minutes or so when the local news went live, cheering and shouting “Yes We Cannabis!,” even when defeat was conceded, the phrase spilling most often from the lips of 19 spokeswoman Amanda Rain Brazel to the reporters and cameras was this: Pot legalization was “no longer a matter of if, but of when.”

Richard Lee, a pot entrepreneur who runs both dispensaries in Oakland and Oaksterdam University, a school for would-be entrepreneurs in growing or selling the legally ambiguous leaf, was the proposition’s prime funder and original sparkplug. He told the Sacramento Bee after his proposition’s defeat, “We just need to do some research and see why people voted ‘no’….We did get more votes than (gubernatorial candidate) Meg Whitman. And she spent more than $140 million. We need to look at the bright side.”

At a telephone press conference the next morning from Oakland, representatives of various parts of the 19 coalition did just that, laying out their reasons for seeing potential victory in 19’s apparent defeat. When Lee launched 19, most other elements of the drug law reform movement, from the NORML to the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) to the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) told him he was picking the wrong year, that he was moving ahead too early.

They eventually came on board after 19 made the ballot, and at the press conference Ethan Nadelmann of the DPA (whose most prominent supporter George Soros came in with a last-minute million dollars for the campaign that helped sponsor a rush of TV ads) admitted that “I was among those who initially tried to discourage Richard from going forward. We said ‘wait until 2012.’…I called Richard a couple of weeks ago to say, ‘Win or lose, you were right. Even if we don’t prevail, the transformation in public dialogue, not just in California but nationally and internationally, has been nothing short of stupendous. The debate over marijuana legalization has been elevated to legitimacy.’”

Nadelmann and others in the Yes on 19 campaign also think it highly likely that the pressure of Proposition 19—and a desire to blunt its most sympathetic selling point, the damage done to people’s lives by being dragged into the criminal justice system, even for a misdemeanor, merely for possession (61,000 such misdemeanor arrests in California last year)—led Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last month to sign S.B. 1449 into law, which reduced the penalty for an ounce or less to a mere infraction and a $100 fine, the legal equivalent of a traffic ticket.

(Article continues after the video, "Brian Doherty Explains the Failure of Prop. 19 and What It Means for the Future of Pot Legalization.")

As many Prop. 19 activists told me, not even their most tenacious opponents were out to defend the drug war status quo. (And I noticed that almost no one anymore is willing to be loudly against medical marijuana, including even the loudest anti-19 spokespeople, 14 years after it passed in California amid great controversy.) People against 19 tried to be specifically against 19, not to fight over the wisdom of the drug war as it is actually waged.

A major complaint about 19 specifically was, as anti-19 speaker John Redman of Communities in Action said at an October debate at Cal State Fullerton, “Proposition 19 is called the regulate, tax and control cannabis act, but it doesn’t do any of those things” since any specific regulations, taxes, and controls that might follow legalization were not built into the proposition but left up to localities. Enemies of 19 were unhappy—as were libertarian critics such as Jeffrey Miron and Walter Olson—that the proposition tried to protect legal users from being punished by their employers if their pot use did not lead to actual on-the-job impairment.

Still, exactly what set of concerns caused 19 to lose is still unclear, beyond a failure on the Yes campaign’s part to greatly increase usual youth turnout, where their support was greatest. The Yes on 19 forces even had police out front and center, most prominently from Law Enforcement Against Prohibition; the opposition had police chief and narcotics officer unions among its biggest-buck supporters.

Page: 1 2 >

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

Cheech|11.5.10 @ 4:40PM|#

Smokin' dope is the most important thing to a libertarian

mad libertarian guy|11.5.10 @ 10:01PM|#

Wrong. Though not being victim of the state's war on people via SWAT raids, puppycide and imprisonment for smoking a fucking plant are pretty goddamn high.

Hard On For Liberty|11.7.10 @ 4:06PM|#

I'm not gonna lie, my passion for drugs is the main reason I'm a libertarian.

|11.5.10 @ 4:56PM|#

Maybe they can write a better law next time. I was for prop 19, but jeebus, give every municipality in California the right to tax it?

Back to the drawing boards guys.

Brian Sorgatz|11.5.10 @ 5:12PM|#

Technical question: will reason.com articles have two separate comment pages now, one for themselves and one at H&R?

Sarcasmo 2000™|11.5.10 @ 5:17PM|#

Heretic! Taxes and heavy-handed regulation are a proper trade-off for our constitutional right to be left alone!

asdf|11.7.10 @ 2:47PM|#

Yeah man, being imprisoned is so much fucking better then being stolen from via taxes.

PabloKoh|11.8.10 @ 9:58AM|#

Good is less than perfect, so we settle for tyranny?

Suki|11.5.10 @ 5:11PM|#

How long has this legalization thing been "just around the corner"?*

*I am boycotting clicking to the half sentence on page 2.

Brian Sorgatz|11.5.10 @ 5:19PM|#

According to the respected Gallup organization, legalization is approaching majority opinion—which it never did in the supposedly licentious 1970s.

Suki|11.5.10 @ 5:38PM|#

Always approaching, never getting there. It reminds me of a geometric shape with an interesting name . . .

juris imprudent|11.5.10 @ 10:46PM|#

Wheeeew, for a second there I was afraid you were going to give us some details about what you do to John that we didn't really need to know.

European|11.7.10 @ 9:03AM|#

That would be an asymptotic curve.

Brian Sorgatz|11.5.10 @ 5:16PM|#

(Dang! I didn't mean to post it as a reply.)

|11.5.10 @ 5:24PM|#

A lawyer friend of mine once commented to me that if marijuana were legalized he'd probably quit drinking. Maybe the major breweries and distilleries donated to the NO ON 19 camp.

George V|11.5.10 @ 9:55PM|#

It's not legal and I have pretty much quit drinking!

¢|11.5.10 @ 5:29PM|#

A CNN poll shows, disturbingly, that voters who think of themselves as the most anti-government were more likely to be against getting the government out of harassing, fining, and arresting people for growing, selling, and using the sweet leaf.

Actually, it shows that they opposed Prop 19, which wouldn't have stopped any of those things. I won't give them credit for knowing that—because voters who say they're "anti-government" are dipshits—but they might, sort of.

Do you think a proposition that repealed marijuana laws, rather than proliferating them in a way White People Like, would fail with the crackaz? I don't.

sounds real good|11.5.10 @ 7:10PM|#

But states can't repeal federal law.

|11.5.10 @ 6:06PM|#

Having attended several pre-election meetings and parties in the Bay Area to discuss ballot propositions, I was surprised to learn how many otherwise liberal progressive Democrats planned to vote NO on Prop 19.

The recurring themes and reasons for opposition among these groups were: 1) the official Democratic Party position was NO; and 2) a strong aversion to bucking federal government power.

It seems that this group is loathe to either go against the Party line or be a trailblazer for states' rights.

CrackertyAssCracker|11.5.10 @ 11:17PM|#

What a bunch of communist pussies. But I guess we already knew that.

Chad|11.5.10 @ 7:00PM|#

Yep. Pot should be legalized.

Hmmm...it's not as much fun when I agree with you guys.

mad libertarian guy|11.5.10 @ 10:04PM|#

But it sure is a lot less stupid.

Hooha|11.6.10 @ 3:15AM|#

wallow|11.5.10 @ 7:05PM|#

Has Reason been reduced to including a picture of a woman's chest in order to create interest in yet another Prop. 19 story?

asdf|11.7.10 @ 2:50PM|#

Should be mandatory for all stories.

sounds real good|11.5.10 @ 7:12PM|#

I'm a woman, and the most interesting thing to me about the shirt is the font. I like it a lot. I might like to have a tee like that, because of the font. Too bad the proposition lost - wearing the shirt would be a bring down now.

Robert|11.5.10 @ 7:35PM|#

Oh, the font. I thought you wrote "front". That's the part that was most interesting to me.

Hooha|11.6.10 @ 3:16AM|#

Font? There's writing on that shirt?!

Spiny Norman|11.6.10 @ 12:01PM|#

Of course there is. I read it over and over again.

Mensan|11.7.10 @ 7:49PM|#

This is actually what confused me about the shirt. It's written using characters from the Cyrillic alphabet, which (since it's Russian alphabet) is often used when trying to show a connection to communism. Are the makers of the shirt trying to say that Prop 19 is communist?

Keith Olbermann - In Memoriam |11.6.10 @ 2:09AM|#

Yay! I no longer can spread douchebagery on the TV.

Hooha|11.6.10 @ 3:23AM|#

Not unlike cheesecake, this is both satisfying (Olberdouche actually got suspended indefinitely) and rich. (Because MSNBC is trying to maintain the appearance of 'balance')

|11.6.10 @ 10:16AM|#

If Olbermann wants to donate to Democrats, or Sean Hannity to Republicans, I don't see why their respective employers should try to stop them. MSNBC and Fox News make no secret about being the Ministries of Propaganda for each party. Fair and balanced my ass.

sevo|11.6.10 @ 7:45PM|#

Brian,
Ever hear of that thing called a "contract"?
No body gives a shit what a third party thinks of a contract two parties signed.

|11.7.10 @ 10:13AM|#

Yeah, actually I have. I do contract jobs all the time. I was simply making an observation. A lot of you people need to go do needlepoint with the rest of the sour old women If you can't have an intelligent conversation here.

TheOtherSomeGuy|11.6.10 @ 5:32PM|#

Yet many in that community, and even more the growers in Northern California’s “Emerald Triangle” who feed that market (California’s most legendarily marijuana-associated counties, the growing lands of Humboldt and Mendocino, both voted against 19), were afraid of Proposition 19 upsetting a status quo they were comfortable with, or were making money in.

Does anyone have data on the numbers of Mexican/Hispanic immigrants who voted against Prop 19?

|11.7.10 @ 7:24AM|#

Not enough of them voted 'Si', that's for sure.

EMp|11.7.10 @ 10:20PM|#

Good one....

|11.8.10 @ 4:58PM|#

So ?

sevo|11.6.10 @ 7:47PM|#

What would immigrants have to do with the hippie growers protecting their turf?

TheOtherSomeGuy|11.7.10 @ 11:48AM|#

Many of them finance their move to the US by acting as "pack mules" for the drug cartels, don't they?

Isn't that what the phrase "The flow of drugs across the border" is talking about?

|11.8.10 @ 1:30PM|#

immigrants most of whom are non western have religious and cultural objections to marijuana and drug use and other things that white hippie dippie types like, like gay marriage.

How the clash between these two groups works out in the future is going to be fascinating to witness. the first group will win, of that I have no doubt. Their values will survive and flourish. the hippie dippie values will vanish.

|11.6.10 @ 10:46PM|#

Marijauna is the most dangerous drug known to man.It turned Amanda Knox,a nice,normal college girl into a satanic sex-crazed killer.

|11.7.10 @ 7:25AM|#

2 out of 3 aint bad, though..

|11.7.10 @ 10:21AM|#

That's a thousand times better than Amanda Knox being turned into a fat disgusting vomit machine who would be awful at sex by drinking a lot of booze.

TheOtherSomeGuy|11.7.10 @ 11:49AM|#

Marijuana: Hey, it's not a meth addiction!

|11.7.10 @ 11:51AM|#

Contrary to the propaganda put out by the AD Council.

Ben|11.7.10 @ 7:58PM|#

Is there another side to this debate? Or are some professional libertarians – like so many socialists - just obsessed with legalizing marijuana? Perhaps they just like banning bans, my guess. The again, some "free minds" (irony alert!) like to ban contrary opinions. Time to move on baby boomers. The science is not on your side. There are bigger issues – like slavery and forced abortions.

PoliticallyIncorectLibertarian|11.7.10 @ 10:01PM|#

There are other reasons why Californians didn't legalize pot:
1. They already hate tobacco. 2. They hate fast food. 3. They hate gambling. 4. They hate big and small business.

You can more about that here:
http://politicallyincorrectlib.....7/why-didn’t-californians-legalize-pot-they-don’t-like-freedom/

Duffy Dumbutt|11.7.10 @ 11:41PM|#

California officially sucks monkey cock.

The dumbutt has spoken!

Ben|11.8.10 @ 11:28AM|#

How could they?! Don't they know that Marijuana is NOT addicting in any way? Besides no one would attempt to steal it and it's not a gateway drug!

Where do I get my info? Oh the Hippy Liberal who does drugs in Portland. yeah he says that there are no ill effects from smoking it...I heard he DOed...Oh well!

Man it's not like the Drug cartels would use the legalization of Marijuana to push their other drugs, no way it's not possible.

On the same note smoking Marijuana doesn't give you a high or damage your brain. In fact it makes you more aware and smarter!

Paid for by Hippies for Socialism.

|11.8.10 @ 12:43PM|#

I went and looked at the Miron article linked where he says 'employers could only discipline marijuana use that "actually impairs job performance." That is a much higher bar than required by current policy.'

I'm from Denmark and, well, my question is: can an employer really choose to say "sorry, man, but I've got reports that you drank beer this weekend, so I'm gonna have to fire you for using that drug because our company policy doesn't allow it"?

Or does the part in Prop. 19 mean that *smoking pot on the job* would be allowed as long as it doesn't "actually impairs job performance"? (In which case opposition to it would be much more understandable)

|11.8.10 @ 1:22PM|#

I will tread carefully on this subject. I got the crap kicked out of me on another “Reason” article string for suggesting that I understood why newspapers and municipalities were campaigning against this proposition, that politics had little to do with support or opposition, that fear of unintended consequences, i.e., more intoxication-related driving accidents and deaths may be a concern. For stating an opinion and not endorsement for or against the proposition, the so-called libertarians on this site resorted to name calling. Freedom of speech and opinion better apply to all or it will apply to none, and if that’s the desired outcome, then many of you are no better than right wing Fascists or left wing Marxists.

I’ve read the bill, I thought it would pass. Honestly I doubt that not having the bill passed will reduce usage or change people’s attitudes. If the bill had passed, certainly the government would have gotten into telling folks when and how they could use – is that any better? When has having the government regulate any activity made us more free? Maybe, some folks think the tax revenue would be a positive - I disagree. Giving the government more revenue means that they will find ways to spend it – that usually translates to oppressive intrusions into people’s lives. Or even worse the money will be spent on worthless politically motivated activities such as bailing out Union pension plans.

I’d rather just see an effort to de-criminalize use.

Hank Williams|11.8.10 @ 2:08PM|#

I personally do not smoke but I sure believe in liberty. One of the main reasons I hated to see prop 19 fail this time is because if it passed it may have forced Cali to become an unlikely ally of Va., Missouri, and others in the coming battle of Nullification
http://confederateunderground......s-for.html

Boss Tweed|11.8.10 @ 8:28PM|#

Any argument that says the state will collect more taxes is not a big selling point in today’s political climate.

Better arguments would be:
You don’t have to pay for arresting, trying, and jailing users.
Your dope money won’t be going to support violent criminal cartels.
You can grow it yourself or buy it for a tiny fraction of what you are paying now, and you don’t have to worry about being murdered or robbed by the criminal you’re buying it from.

|11.8.10 @ 8:47PM|#

There is no cause for optimism in regard to marijuana legalization. Future marijuana legalization in some states will mean nothing because the federal government has proved that it will arrest those who grow, distribute, or use marijuana for medical or recreational purposes regardless of state laws. Since a solid majority of Americans support continued federal criminalization of marijuana, it will remain illegal for many years.

|11.9.10 @ 9:10AM|#

Bilderberger influenceTO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT�..TO ALL THE COMMUNIST IN THE IG,FBI,CIA,AND U.S. Senators and the left wing media outlets�..Wake up america!!!! This goverment is the most corrupt we have had in years. The good old boy network is very much in charge.Mr. obama and pelosi are the puppet masters.How many of their good friends benefited by the agreement ” what a farce. All of the u.sSenators voted for this. I am ashamed to say I voted for the these corupted self serving politicians.With good reason they picked an out of towner to be president.All u.s departments need an overhaul. We need to rid ourselves of the puppet masters and the dept heads that bow down to obama and pelosi.I am sick of the lip service I have been getting from these dummies over violations, their friends are getting away with.in the goverment . Barack Hussein Obama , threatens friends and bows to Mmslim.
INPEACH OBAMA ,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.//////// I love communist obama.will you ,thank you,the commander.ps aka red ink obama.//////// Repost this if you agree, IS communist obama ONE , Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the Bilderberg group is frequently accused of political conspiracies. This outlook has been popular on both extremes of the ideological spectrum, even if they disagree on what the group wants to do. Left-wingers accuse the Bilderberg group of conspiring to impose capitalist domination,[21] while some right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society have accused the group of conspiring to impose a world government and planned economy.Obama's India trip really an Emergency Bilderberger Meeting ?THE COMMADER //////// .Is Barack Obama pushing forward dangerous policies that are bringing the United States closer to a socialist dictatorship. Are you even aware?

2. What is the major proof of the Bilderberger influence over many of the world events in the last decade!

3. Is it really true that the recent global financial collapse was engineered by the Bilderberg Group. Why was their 2010 annual meeting held in Greece?
4. Bilderberger influence,president George W. Bush says he was "blindsided" by the financial crisis that shadowed his final months in office, but adds that the Democratic-controlled Congress shares some of the blame. -

Now that the agenda for global government and a centralized world economic system is public and out in the open, the importance of the Bilderberg Group’s annual conference rests on grooming political candidates. The lion’s share of Bilderberg’s 2010 agenda has already been announced by its members weeks before – it will revolve around a potential military strike on Iran as well as the future collapse of the euro.The Bilderberger group, whose policies would pave the way for global communist conquest.

----- Bilderberg group in United States-------
George W. Ball (1954, 1993),[13] Under Secretary of State 1961-1968, Ambassador to U.N. 1968
Sandy Berger (1999),[14] National Security Advisor, 1997–2001
Timothy Geithner(2009),[15] Treasury Secretary
Lee H. Hamilton (1997),[1] former US Congressman
Christian Herter,[16] (1961, 1963, 1964, 1966), 53rd United States Secretary of State
Charles Douglas Jackson (1957, 1958, 1960),[17] Special Assistant to the President
Joseph E. Johnson[18] (1954), President Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Henry Kissinger[19] (1957, 1964, 1966, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1977, 2008),[20] 56th United States Secretary of State
Colin Powell (1997),[1] 65th United States Secretary of State
Lawrence Summers,[15] Director of the National Economic Council
Paul Volcker,[15] Chair of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board and Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979–1987
Roger Altman (2009),[15] Deputy Treasury Secretary from 1993–1994, Founder and Chairman of Evercore Partners
[edit] Presidents
Bill Clinton (1991),[21][22] President 1993-2001
Gerald Ford (1964, 1966),[4][23] President 1974-1977
[edit] Senators
John Edwards (2004),[24][25] Senator from North Carolina 1999-2005
Chuck Hagel (1999, 2000),[26] Senator from Nebraska 1997-2009
Sam Nunn (1996, 1997),[1] Senator from Georgia 1972-1997
[edit] Governors
Rick Perry (2007),[27] Governor of Texas 2000-current
Mark Sanford (2008),[28] Governor of South Carolina , the United States closer to a socialist dictatorship. Are you even aware? === The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are people of influence in the fields of politics, banking, business, the military and media. The conferences are closed to the public.== The Bilderberg Group in which he accuses them of manipulating the public "to install a world government that knows no borders and is not accountable to anyone but its own self."

Repost this if you agree,

|11.11.10 @ 12:40PM|#

THANK YOU TO ALL VETERANS , THE COMMANDER ------NOV.11 ,2010

tiffany jewellery|11.14.10 @ 7:15AM|#

good topic

|11.20.10 @ 6:02PM|#

Sometime in the prior week (before November 20, 2010) the Prop. 19 vote tally passed the point of no return. At 53%-46% in favor of "NO," it is now impossible for Prop. 19 to win, even if "YES" was marked on all of the 600K+ unprocessed ballots remaining after the most recent update yesterday. All that is left to be determined is the actual margin of loss: currently 7%, but it could narrow before the reports must be certified on December 10.

NHLJersey|1.26.11 @ 2:07AM|#

two most popular players
ed belfour Jersey
carey price Jersey

Hillary|3.10.11 @ 1:51PM|#

The fact that this even made it on the ballot shows the progression in thinking. It won't be much longer before this issue resurfaces with a different outcome.

nike shoes UK|8.4.11 @ 5:44AM|#

is good

patriots jerseys|8.25.11 @ 3:42AM|#

thank you for sharing,I enjoyed the article.Tom Brady Jersey

Reason.com