The Politics of Proposition 19

Marijuana legalization hits the big time


It seems quite possible, even likely, that California's historic Proposition 19 to legalize adult possession and growing of marijuana will actually pass in November. The arguments against the ballot measure—both its alleged socially damaging effects and its alleged unconstitutionality—are weak and unconvincing to anyone not already prejudiced against pot.

Polling in support of the measure is consistently at or near 50 percent (though often within the margin of error in either direction), with the latest from the Public Policy Institute of California clocking it at 52 percent in support. Opposition is out there, publicly represented by a rather goofy reverend with a checkered past, but that opposition has been so far restrained and not willing to spend much money. The most prominent anti-19 campaign, Public Safety First, has spent just under $200,000 this year and is sitting on only $54,000 right now.

The group's largest contributions come from organized police groups (and a notorious 10 grand from California Beer and Beverage Distributors, though as one pro-19 activist told me, in organized political philanthropy that amounts to more like "go away money" than a concerted attempt to beat 19). Last-minute cash dumps can snatch defeat from the apparent jaws of victory when it comes to controversial legal and social change via citizen initiative, but for whatever reason no organized interest group that pro-legalization activists might have feared, from the Chamber of Commerce to organized parents groups, have tried to scuttle the ballot initiative.

Proposition 19 will legalize possession and growth (within 25 square feet on your property) of pot for adults, legalize possession of pot growing and consumption paraphernalia, and leave it open for localities to develop a regulatory system for sales and to allow sales or growth higher than the state limits of an ounce for possession and sales and 25 square feet of growth.

Localities are also permitted to not adopt the provisions of the proposition, a political maneuver that allows proponents to be respectful of local mores and that will certainly guarantee that—as is common with alcohol—California will become a patchwork of different county and local approaches to availability and regulation. Localities will also be able to tax and impose license fees on any of the newly legal pot-related activities.

According to the letter of the proposition, nothing about the current medical system created by California's Proposition 215 should change, although a loud but likely small minority of interests entrenched in the current medical system are campaigning against Prop 19 to the very constituents who might be naturally thought to support it: pot users that are already medically legal, some of whom fear—though their fears are not borne out by the actual proposition language—that it could actually weaken medical patient access to marijuana. Stephen Gutwillig of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), which is working to pass Prop 19, says that the medical controversy is "an intra-community squabble that won't impact the outcome."

Proposition 19 is the brain and cash-child of Oakland's Richard Lee, himself a medical marijuana entrepreneur through Oaksterdam University. As I found during my research into the Los Angeles medical marijuana world, there were doubts from the beginning about Lee's efforts among other big-deals in the pot reform movement; indeed, the largest medical interest group, Americans for Safe Access, remains on the sidelines in the fight.

Lee's Yes on 19 campaign, which will likely have spent around $2 million from start to finish, has other national drug law reform groups behind him now, including the oldest player in the game, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), and the George Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance. NORML's executive director Allen St. Pierre describes his group's contribution to Prop 19 as largely via access to its "opt in supporter network of 1.4 million." He says the pro-19 campaign has been "pinging NORML's network almost every day for last six months." NORML may also supply some celebrity viral video endorsements in the last days of the campaign. DPA's Gutwillig describes his group's support as "focusing primarily on building the coalition of endorsers and then messaging within the mainstream media."

Most pro-19 strategists agree that the campaign isn't going to hinge so much on swaying people to change their mind on pot as it is on guaranteeing voter turnout of their natural constituents. That will come through both traditional phone banking, viral videos, and both earned and, to the extent it is affordable, paid media. A large part of the get-out-the-vote energy is coming from the progressive web site Firedoglake in its first big foray into pure electoral politics post-Obama, through a group called Just Say Now (formed in alliance with Students for Sensible Drug Policy), which is pushing Prop. 19 and other milder pot reform measures in other states, including Oregon and South Dakota.

Just Say Now's Michael Whitney says, "Firedoglake went to our activists and readers in the spring, and 95 percent of our activist and readers said we should support marijuana reform. We are having our 100,000 activists place calls to voters" to encourage likely supporters to register, mail in ballots, go to the polls, and, especially for peripatetic students, make sure their legal addresses are up to date.

While there is plenty of coalition support now for Prop. 19, Lee's campaign was at the start very much an outsider one among the biggest pocketbooks in drug reform such as George Soros and Progressive Insurance magnate Peter Lewis. While the DPA, which has Soros and his organizations as its largest funder, is in the game with its own pro-19 committee, neither of those big guys have given much to the Yes on 19 campaign yet. Some in the larger Prop. 19 campaign speculate that they didn't want to attract the attention and possible counterspending that out of state big bucks might have engendered. Others suspect a "not invented here" syndrome, since the legalization movement did not originate within organizations the financiers knew and trusted.

Those who thought Richard Lee was, if not completely wrong, at least coming in at the wrong time, seem to have been wrong themselves. As NORML's St. Pierre says, though NORML got behind the measure when it hit the ballot, "We gave counsel to Richard Lee like every other entity in drug policy reform that this was not ideal in 2010, that there would be a better chance in 2012. And Richard roundly rejected everyone's advice. I asked him if he was OK with potentially losing most of his net worth if it fails, and he said, 'Yeah.'"

Right now, Lee is looking like some kind of political genius. As Dan Newman, an experienced Democratic Party operative working as communications director for Lee's Yes on 19 operation, explains, "We have seen a steady and consistent gradual uptick in the polls, particularly as a wave of law enforcement professionals are speaking out in support of Prop. 19. We sponsored events up and down the state in which police officers, sheriffs, police chiefs are talking about their time on the frontlines of the drug war and their conclusion that the war on marijuana has failed, and why it is time to control and regulate marijuana similar to tobacco."

The measure, Newman says, enjoys "a broad and growing coalition, leading with law enforcement pros and including California's NAACP, and SEIU [Service Employees International Union], the state's biggest labor unions, and people are responding to their message—that the war on marijuana has failed, that regulating and taxing marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol and tobacco can generate significant revenue for local communities at a time when budgets everywhere are extremely tight." No one message is the killer app for winning support for 19; in addition to arguments based on futility and fiscal probity, "law enforcement pros talk about their desire to focus on violent crimes and the fact that over 60 percent of violent drug cartels' revenue comes from selling marijuana." DPA's Gutwillig, for his part, talks of winning support from civil rights groups by emphasizing the marijuana arrest machine's disproportionate impact on black and brown citizens (even though it rarely leads to actual jail time in California, where an ounce or less is now a mere infraction).

It's a genuine people power initiative, with almost the entire state's political and media apparatus against it; Newman thinks that's all to the better. "There's a general distrust for Sacramento and the status quo that is helpful for Prop. 19." Indeed, the proposition seems to have more support than any particular politician running for state office in California this year.

What happens if 19 wins? Richard Lee will have gifted the drug reform movement with a revelation of new possibilities, and both Just Say Now and DPA are prepared to follow up with similar initiatives elsewhere. St. Pierre of NORML predicts "that if the state where one of eight Americans live, almost a nation unto itself, if it moves in this direction it will take with it the states that make up the 9th circuit within not more than two election cycles, then be bookended by New England. Then it will be decades of infilling in the middle of the country, looking similar to the now 14-year effort to infill the map [on medical pot] since Prop. 215."

But California is just California, and it will still be part of the United States of America, where marijuana will still be illegal. Although various ex-DEA heads demand it, the Atlantic magazine predicts it, and some in the drug reform movement fear it, actual federal legal action to slow or stop 19 if it passes would be absurd, says Randy Barnett (who tried and failed in the 2005 Raich Supreme Court case to overturn the federal government's ability to enforce its own laws against purely intrastate non-commerce in medical pot in California where it was legal). "I can't think of a basis on which they could sue. The crude, stupid argument is about the supremacy clause, but states are not obligated to enforce federal law." The DEA uses the (bad) analogy of Obama's Department of Justice action against Arizona over its current immigration law, but as Barnett notes, "that is trying to stop Arizona from doing something." An attempt to sue to stop 19 from going into effect "is a mandate, and the federal government can't make a sovereign legislature pass a law or a state executive branch enforce one."

This is not to say that Congress couldn't lean on California, like Congress is wont to do, by adding financial strings to federal money to try to make the state change policy, as Congress has previously done with things like the federal speed limit. The feds might also start overusing their retained power to enforce their own anti-pot laws against anyone trying to exercise the new California freedoms under 19. Such an overbearing response seems likely—Obama's own drug czar Gil Kerlikowske, says the L.A. Times, "has firmly stated that the administration will not condone marijuana's legalization for recreational purposes."

St. Pierre of NORML thinks there is one big reason to be optimistic about how Obama might react to the passage of Prop. 19: the departure of Rahm Emanuel. From St. Pierre's decades-long perspective in the drug reform movement, Emanuel " assiduously tried to avoid this subject matter and put out a political stiffarm, including on some of the Democrats' biggest funders like Soros and Lewis. He's happy to take their money then tell them to fuck themselves with a straight face." With him gone, "one of the biggest roadblocks on the executive level will no longer be there," leaving St. Pierre hopeful that the administration may let California be if its citizens vote for 19.

Despite the bizarre fantasy that somehow marijuana law reform is a Democratic Party issue, nearly every Democratic politician from Sacramento to D.C. is powerfully against it. Just Say Now's Whitney says "Democrats are running from this like from nothing else—even though turnout from 19 is probably the only reason [Democratic Senator] Boxer is going to win."

Yes on 19's Newman—a Democratic strategist himself—notes that "the conventional wisdom has proven wrong in this; this isn't a Democratic issue with Republicans opposed. There are supporters across the spectrum. And we have two leading GOP presidential candidates showing early buzz, Ron Paul and former Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico (who toured the in support of Prop 19)," for pot legalization.

As Newman didn't spell out, no nationally prominent Democrat is as good on the pot issue as Paul or Johnson. Whitney, whose constituency—to the extend it favors any party—leans overwhelmingly Democratic, agrees that the goal is not to have legalization be a stalking horse for pumping the Democrats, but rather to show both major parties that the pro-pot vote is strong, and "to see voters are there for the taking if either party wants to embrace" the issue.

Regardless, it's a shame that the hideous duopoly of American politics creates such false consciousness that Whitney is probably right that lots of 19 voters will vote for Democratic politicians totally opposed to their interests on an issue of paramount importance to them. I can only hope that the votes successfully brought out by the campaigns of Yes on 19, NORML, the DPA, and Just Say Now resolutely decline to vote for actual politicians—because if they are coming out to vote Yes on 19, every politician is pretty much their enemy. God bless the initiative system for giving people a direct way to go over their enemies' heads. A Proposition 19 victory will undoubtedly be an important game changer. But when it comes to the two-party system's awful powers and continued desire to arrest, fine, and ruin people for the sale and consumption of a much-used and much-beloved plant, it won't change enough.

Senior Editor Brian Doherty is author of This is Burning Man (BenBella), Radicals for Capitalism (PublicAffairs) and Gun Control on Trial (Cato Institute).

NEXT: Tune Into Stossel Tonight to Watch Veronique de Rugy and Others Talk About Our $13.5 Trillion Debt

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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If I was against Prop19, I would use the slogan "Don't end the pothead's prison sentence with a proposition".

    That's gold.

    1. You better load another bowl.

    2. Matt Labash has driven the stake through the medical reefer heart.

  2. the goal is not to have legalization be a stalking horse for pumping the Democrats


    Turnout-driving pot referenda that sweep in the very party whose judges, bureaucrats, and lawmakers will un-enact each of them, necessitating yet another, and another, and another, is an even better idiot-votegetter than TEAM BLUE!'s eternal pretense that it's antiwar.
    Sure, that's not the only goal. But it's top two. And "legalize it" isn't even on the chart.

    1. Yeah,

      This might be the left's version of the pro-life movement.

      Lots of heat, fundraising galore, mobilize your base for decades and as a result of all that activism -

      Nothing changes

  3. Thankfully, in CA, voter props can't be touched by anyone but the voters.

    Here's a legal analysis that claims local law enforcement will actually be barred by prop 19 from assisting the DEA in enforcing federal MJ laws. If that is true, the feds will be virtually powerless to enforce fed law against MJ in CA.

    1. Or so you think...

    2. Not when the feds start launching missiles at California for breaking the law.

      1. Those O-drones are very effective.

      2. We do not consider a depleted uranium armor piercing fin stabilized sabot a missile per se.

    3. Yeah, it's that pesky State Constitution's fault. I think that's even more restrictive of California law enforcement. Look it up, California doesn't like the people that they hire working at cross purposes to the laws of California.

    4. Until some statist discovers that the initiative violates a previously unknown "right".

  4. Hey Brian, did you know that if you switch a couple o' letters in yo' name it'd be BRAIN?

    1. I think every Brian knows that.

      1. Not the ones in public schools.

  5. So, now that they can blow weed, will all the Libertarians in Californica now become the Democrats they always wished they were?

    1. I thought they'd become Republicans, since it's well known that Libertarians are nothing but pot-smoking Republicans.

      1. [it's well known that Libertarians are nothing but pot-smoking Republicans.]

        Think again:
        Peter Bagge: 2008 Obama 2004: John Kerry 2000
        Ronald Bailey: 2008 Obama
        Radley Balko: 2004 John Kerry
        Bruce Bartlett: 2008 Obama
        David Brin: 2008 Obama
        Tim Cavanaugh: 2008 Obama 2000: Ralph Nader
        Steve Chapman: 2008 Obama 2004: John Kerry
        Bill Kauffman: 2008 Ralph Nader
        Craig Newmark: 2008 Obama 2004: John Kerry
        Steven Pinker: 2008 Obama 2004: John Kerry 2000: Al Gore
        Ryan Sager:2008 Obama
        Julian Sanchez: 2008 Obama 2004: John Kerry
        John Scalzi: 2008 Obama 2004: John Kerry 2000: Al Gore
        Michael Shermer: 2008 Obama
        RU Sirius: 2008 Obama 2004: John Kerry 2000: Ralph Nader
        Doug Stanhope: 2008 Obama
        David Weigel: 2008 Obama 2004: John Kerry 2000: Ralph Nader
        Matt Welch: 2004 John Kerry 2000: Ralph Nader

        1. Nice one Harvard.

          As for those on that list... Thanks assholes!
          Next time stay home on voting day.

        2. Because Bush and McCain were far superior choices.

          1. Huh?? Jaysus man, you're kidding, right?

            1. Just saying, it's a little silly for Harvard to rail on people for voting for what they consider the lesser of two evils. It's not a vote in favor of Democrats as much as a vote against Republicans.

              My point is that it's not like there were a bunch of good alternatives to those votes. You have one set of assholes, a second set of assholes, and abstention. It's not as if one of the three options is unquestionably worse than the other two.

              1. fucking Nader, REALLLY???

                1. I can close my eyes and almost see Nader assuming you want to waste a vote and send some cosmic liberal message, but Al Fucking Gore???? The single dumbest, most unctuous self serving amoeba on the planet.

              2. You are really going to try and sell me on that idea the O man had the credentials to actually be ferking president? You do remember what he actually said in the interviews and the debates, right?? Or did you and the rest of the Reason Tank think that the continuous use of the phrase "fundamentally change how things are done" means the same thing to a marxist neighborhood activist that it does to someone who's actually accomplished something.

        3. That's a list of Cosmo-tarians. If they are not as I postulate, then they would have to be regretting their past votes, big-time. IMO.

    2. They still need to legalize ferrets...

      1. Ferrets tend to jump out of the bowl when you try to smoke them.

        1. Not if you give them some legal weed first.

        2. Stick'em up your ass.

    3. If the New-World-Order Progressive Democrats stop oppressing and let us do our thing.

  6. There are some very powerful ugly phreakos in fart sack gray that do not want a relaxation of the drug war against us all.

    The cannabis issue is like a golden arrow flying into the heart of the foul beastly.

    Feels like prop 19 will win which should precipitate a mega liberalizing shift back into flowa powa daisy chain tra la laaaaa.

    1. Get an early start, gagne? Ah, it's all good. Here you go, chill out.

      1. That is friggin' hilarious...dude!

    2. I'll have what he's having.

    3. Smoke the man!

      1. vape the best

  7. I will unequivocally say that if CA legalizes, I'll be spending a lot of tourist dollars there.

    1. Ironically, "drug tourism" is one of the boogiepersons of the prohibition lobby. My home state must have officially fallen below the poverty line if the phrase is losing its power to scare.

  8. "I asked him if he was OK with potentially losing most of his net worth if it fails, and he said, 'Yeah.'"

    Doesn't he lose it either way? Yeah, I know... they meant lose it for nothing... but still.

    1. Gotta take a guy willing to put his money where his mouth is seriously.

    2. With his connections in Oakland, I bet that Lee stands to get quite the business boost with passage of Prop 19. It's financially risky, but certainly not without its upside.

      1. richard lee is quite the man.

  9. Any bets how quickly the mainstream Dims will claim credit for 19 if it passes? Wouldn't be surprised if Babs Boxer didn't announce her double secret probationary support for the measure within minutes of the polls closing.

    1. Babs does the blow.

  10. Yes, I know the Dems haven't helped, but still, voting for 19 is incompatible with voting republican! Nightmare scenario: 19 passes with Steve Cooley as attorney general to implement it! Nooooooo

    1. Then don't vote for them either... too many people voted for D's last time because they were upset with R's... which was like telling a drunk driver to move over, so the drunk on meth with no limbs can drive.

      So I suggest you try to learn from your mistakes instead of repeating them and expecting a different result. In case that's confusing, next time just do the opposite of what you think is correct.

  11. Cooley is not cool.

    1. gov brown knows his way around a bong.

  12. Leave it to a magazine named "Reason" to put forth an argument the federal government just can't understand. I sincerely hope this proposition passes, not for the dope (I don't), but for the cause of the rights of sovereign states.

    What we have to decide in America is whether we have a constitutional basis of law or not. This issue has precedent since 1860 when a railroad lawyer elected to the Presidency decided to do unconstitutional things like imprison the entire legislature of Maryland and kill 620,000 Americans. Oh, yeah... We had to do it because it was about slavery. Never mind that all of Europe abolished slavery and we could have just federally bought the slaves for a lot less money.

    So now here we are! 150 years later and we have a federal government that is telling Arizona that they cannot under any circumstance enforce a federal law and telling the state next to them that they HAVE to enforce a federal law. Remind me again where it says the Controlled Substances Act is Constitutional? Gonzales v Reich where the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has the power to regulate non-commercial intrastate activity under the clause that says it can only regulate commercial inTERstate activity? Is this the same court that says blacks and indians are 3/4th's of a white man? Oh yeah... I totally submit to their authority.... They're from Haaaaaavaaaaaaaadddddd.......

    What a crock of shit this country is. Oh I'm sorry Guatemala! It wasn't only totally constitutional to inject your people with syphilis, it was totally constitutional to do it to our own blacks in the Tuskegee Experiments! It was totally constitutional to irradiate four thousand children to death! It was totally constitutional to test mind control drugs and bioweapons on your own citizens and soldiers!

    It wasn't unconstitutional to completely make up the Gulf of Tonkin incident to kill 58,000 American Soldiers and 1,000,000 Vietnamese! It wasn't unconstitutional to commit crimes against humanity (including the sexual torture of children with battery acid). It's not unconstitutional to wiretap and search every person, citizen or not, everytime! It's not unconstitutional to order the assassination of American citizens extrajudicially like Awlaki! It's not unconstitutional for the President to issue by decree that a political opponent can no longer get on an airplane. It's not unconstitutional to divert tax dollars to programs specifically targeted to disarm and kill gun owners and returning veterans.

    Wake up America! You live in the absolute most evil empire ever to exist. You thought institutional slavery was bad? Just spend a night on the internet typing in "America" and reading all of the heinous acts that have been conducted in your name.

    And it all started in 1860. I'm reminded of two quotes. One from Reagan (who I have "mixed" feelings about). "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth!" and one from Ken Blackwell, supervisor of elections in admittedly fraudulent Ohio to international observers...."It is congruent to the law of Ohio that you can't watch the outright crime we're committing here."

    Wake up America. Wake up California. You live in one of the most oppressive police states on Earth. What are you gonna do when the exit polls show what the current polls show for Prop 19 and the official results show something radically different? Demand a recount from a hacked electronic voting machine? What are you going to do if (and that's a big assed if) this thing has so much overwhelming support that it swamps the hacked algorithm in the voting machine and the Feds send ten thousand DEA agents to your state to arrest grandma? What are you going to do when you say "YES!" and the president says "sit the f*ck down bitch! I run sh*t here!"

    Oh my God! I have to clock in at my shift at the big-box Chinese slave-labor goods store and I don't have any more time to write or protest or apply for permission for a permit to be permitted for permissible permission to protest my government. I'm too busy agreeing with some government paid hack operative on disinfotv when he laughs at a cancer patient in a wheelchair getting his teeth kicked in by the FBI on youtube. I thought it was funny as hell when I saw the picture of the feds SWAT teaming Elian Gonzales and firing CS gas from Army tanks into the Davidian women and children. I gotta get off of here. I think I hear the government slapping a GPS on my car without a warrant. Maybe it's just my ISP hotboxing all of my keystrokes to the feds.

    1. Jeeesh, and I thought I was angry!

      1. You mean to tell me that you're an American and you're not angry? You are the privileged child. Check this picture out and really think about how much value you just added to this world by your eight syllable comment.


        Everyone ask themselves who has contributed more to the human experience. Wayne or this child.

        1. I'd bet cold hard cash that you millions of readers won't copy and paste that link into your browser because you know what is on the other end. Are you so special as to not been born as this? To have been born American? With a voice?

          1. Yeah, people from the past have done all sorts of terrible things. SO... if you're going to damn the entire result of the American experiment based on your list, then you're a cave-dwelling, goat-f*$king, syphilis-infected, cannibalistic, sack of pus who couldn't even figure out the wheel. Don't believe me? Check out YOUR family tree, it's filled with all the worst of humanity and then some. Go back far enough, and you'll find you're just the accidental forgotten offspring of bacteria.

            Besides you better check yourself, before you wreck yourself. If we planted a flag on the moon, and we're as horrible as you claim, then we can also plant a flag somewhere very intimate. Booooooooo! Idiot.

            1. Cops in New York City raped an innocent man with a broomstick. Is that close enough? His name was Abner Louima

              1. living has a built in gyroscopic yimmer.

  13. I am voting yes on 19, and straight Libertarian for all the elected offices. For elected positions that don't offer a Libertarian candidate I plan to write in my own name. For my small city council I plan to write in the name of a buddy that I work with; it will the best practical joke of all time if I actually get him elected.

    P19 is the main reason I am voting at all.

    1. I grew up as a died-in-the-wool whatever, y'know? I've gravitated towards libertarianism in my adult life. I've got a wife that's staunchly Republican in her viewpoints, it's more strongly culturally ingrained in her because of her ethnicity, and that's great. She hasn't ever smoked and I have but don't currently. I've been following the 19 debate for about 3 months now...

      Admittedly my position has little to do with the legalization of marijuana for getting highs sake. As evidenced above my purposes are purely for the dismantling and the destruction of unconstitutional federal government. Prop 19 is the "watershed" vote of our generation, and in my view probably the most important vote in the history of the Republic since the election of 1860, and maybe even more so because of the diametric opposition to that election, albeit on a more "civil" scale.

      I'm personally thrilled to read comments such as yours. I'm glad you're voting because of proposition 19. What I'm imploring you, and other voters do, is not to stop there. Find out how your government truly operates. In two years when you get to cast a ballot again make sure your vote counts.

      The internet is awesome and the powers that be are moving insidiously, every day, to regulate and restrict that unabashed freedom, that "Americanism" that it is. Today Microsoft announced that they want the government to license your access to this grand forum of free expression. What do you think that means?

      Write in your candidates. Get involved. Spend an hour of your time and go to a community that isn't yours and talk to people that are different from you. I know it's hard. But it isn't a "joke" even if it's practical. If you elect a sheriff in your municipality you have elected the absolute supreme lawman of the land. It's not some circuit court or some sequestered senator! It's your own elected law in your own town. If it's f*cked up you know whose face to get in.

      To quote Tyler Durden "We're the middle children of history."

      We don't have to be. Get off of your couch. Get off of your TV. Get off of your internet. Call in to talk radio. Write comments on MSNBC and reason.com. Change the world. You can do it by voting (and cell-phone camera-ing) your vote for Prop 19. End the corrupt police state. End the wars. We might be the middle children of history. We might be the generation that finally took a stand for freedom.

      1. If it is ok to ask, what is your wife's ethnicity? I'm curious to see what culture make's her staunchly Republican.

        1. Cuban. As in escaped from Cuba on a raft.

            1. marvin bush for prez

      2. I think you should take a couple very deep breaths, and before you roid-rage out, consider for a moment that it is you that might need an education into how exactly this country works.

        Just seems like you do a lot of blaming and lashing out at some imagined 3rd party that's out to get you, I'm guessing the Mrs. isn't satisfied? Sack up, take responsibility for yourself, stop blaming others, and find her a real man to handle the big boy duties.

        1. Is this supposed to refute the responsibility that I'm imploring people to take to find out how their government operates?

          1. I think most people on this forum already know.

        2. all the king's pundits and no one understands how the game works.

          sir humpty

  14. One small correction to my previous post: I am seriously considering voting for Carly Fiorrina because I REALLY, REALLY want Boxer gone.

  15. Just a useful idiot use of young voters to get them to the polls for old hippietards to stay in power, and in the process look for evermore things to tax to fund an ever growing government. Can't wait for the bureau of pot regulation and the cadre of tax collectors to regulate the industry!


    1. "I don't have a real argument to advance against this initiative so I'm going to agree with a talking head and parrot something. Here's a link from a skewed poll supporting my parroted position."

      "P.S. I don't thing those friggin gays have a right to participate in antiquated, admittedly malleable religious customs."


      Bill O' Beckvage,

    2. Sorry but there's already a tax on marijuana - 100%. And they have a bureau of pot regulation - the DEA.

      Fuck you and every autistic anti-19 pot head or rent-seeking pot grower.

      1. Yeah. "Regulation sucks, give me criminal prohibition instead."

        Real libertarian.

  16. does john galt smoke pot or is he too busy combing his wavy hair?

  17. That's golden hair. We are forcing him at gun-point to tell everyone to vote to keep pot illegal.

    1. Galt has golden hair that Michelle envies. We have a gun in his ribs to force him to condemn marijuana legalization.

      1. That golden hair belongs to me the people. We have a gun at his back forcing him to film our "Marijuana Is Bad For Children" infomercial.

        1. pot enlarges testicles.

  18. Thanks for your wonderful share. There is an wonderful website about Belstaff jackets and i want to share with everybody. Products including :
    belstaff discount
    Belstaff jackets
    belstaff outlet
    belstaff jackets outlet
    belstaff jackets sale
    belstaff discount
    We will do our best to give you professional service.

    1. libertarians will love the free-spirited look.

  19. A interesting article,thank you for sharing.Then I will share my website with you too.On our website there are so many new shoes in 2010,E.g.tory burch
    tory burch reva
    tory burch flats
    tory burch reva flats
    tory burch flats sale
    Welcom to our website whenever!Give yourself a new option and give us a chance to make you satisfied.We will do our best to give you professional service.

  20. (even though it rarely leads to actual jail time in California, where an ounce or less is now a mere infraction)

    Via probation and parole, cannabis prohibition leads to jail time with extreme regularity -- I'd wager that failing a piss test with THC metabolites is one of the most common parole violations in existence. This wouldn't necessarily completely go away with Prop 19; from my understanding, drinking alcohol is a parole violation in certain cases. But the "fail a piss test, go back to jail" phenomenon is extensive indeed, and could be partially ameliorated with legalization.

    1. so you're a young brown skinned male who got busted for smokin a j.

      employer will not hire

      1. Pot heads of any color need not apply.

        1. we don't shine jack-boots.

        2. Jesus said "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Matthew 7:12).

          I know I wouldn't want my child sent to jail with the sexual predators, or my aging parents to have their house confiscated and sold by the police, for growing a marijuana plant.

          Let's change the world. Let's get registered and vote.

          Just Google your state name and the phrase, voter registration. In many states, you can simply print off the form and mail it in, but do it today! Registration deadlines are upon us!

  21. I'm so excited about Prop 19. I've already donated twice. Shit I might even go stand out in front of Walmart the weekend before the election.

    I'm not even a big fan of weed (I prefer uppers). But it's still a huge step forward for freedom.

  22. either we roll up the police state carpet or the police state hits the next level of intimidation.

    after passage, armed masked men attempting door-to-door busts will not fly in cali.

  23. Great article. I'd like to see Prop 19 pass, if not just we can stop talking about it!

    Just last week some kid got shot for having a little bit of pot. This madness really needs to end. The Govt. lied to us about the dangers and they are all still lying about it today.

    A list from NORML. If you are Pro-Cannabis Vote for:

    Jerry Brown
    Gavin Newsome
    Kamala Harris

    Barbara boxer is slightly more Cannabis friendly than Carly Fiorino, so if you have to go with one of the two major parties, NORML has stated that Boxer is probably more sympathetic to our causes.

    And of course, vote YES on Prop 19. Let's give adults a legal option other than booze and hard drugs shall we? It will benefit society, but we won't see any benefit if we don't all get out and vote!

  24. I say who gives a fuck about legalization, there will always be est. vs. anti est. in this ses pool of a country anyway. Gods greatest miracle got into Satans hands, and that Satan is Harry J. Anslinger. Study that, but in the logical sense, all this arguing wont go anywhere any time soon. Legal or not, I'll still smoke the skunk so hop off our nuts and go FUCK your faggot-little- selves.

  25. There is a way to vote only for candidates who support Proposition 19: Vote Libertarian.
    Dale Ogden, Libertarian, Candidate for Governor of California

  26. Once again, liberals show their two-faced, hypocritical selves:

    Prop 19 = okay, let's defy federal law

    States wanting to legalize gay marriage = okay

    States wanting to defy federal healthcare legislation = not okay

    All of the above, or none. Which is it, liberals?

  27. For stories on what international Libertarians are doing, page down http://www.Libertarian-International.org

  28. Jesus said "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Matthew 7:12).

    I know I wouldn't want my child sent to jail with the sexual predators, or my aging parents to have their house confiscated and sold by the police, for growing a marijuana plant.

    Let's change the world. Let's get registered and vote.

    Just Google your state name and the phrase, voter registration. In many states, you can simply print off the form and mail it in, but do it today! Registration deadlines are upon us!


  30. I really hope all California citizens take the time to vote "YES" to Prop 19.

    As a resident of Connecticut - we always have respected the voters of California who have the opportunity to change the lives of "norml" people throughout the United States.

    Please remember to VOTE! You know the opposition will be out in full force... especially anyone over the age of 60

    1. I'm over 60, yet if I lived in California, I'd vote YES, even though I don't use pot.

      But I do consistently vote for freedom. Remember the 10th Amendment does NOT give the Feds the right to regulate it in any state. Their assumption that Federal control is constitutional needs to be challenged...

  31. I don't have a stance either way. But I wonder if you can grow your own pot, what will the dealers sell? One of the arguments for legalization is it will reduce the income of the drug cartels. But what business will sit idly by and lose BILLIONS in revenue? What will the loss of this product push them into selling to maintain their cash flow? The law of unintended consequences. If 19 passes there may be a fundamental shift in underworld economics... Interesting...

  32. good post and thanks for share with us

  33. Marijuana needs to be legalized and taxed. Our nation could greatly benefit from doing so.
    We also should use Hemp and we need to legalize it too. Go to http://www.theCTU.com to learn about marijuana.

  34. Now, not to be missed opportunity where you pick a Christmas gift, you only spend a minimum of $6:

    1. Professional Monster Beats sales site, you should go and see, because Christmas is coming, you can put it as a Christmas gift, and they have a crazy low price, as long as the $ 40: http://www.spidermanbeats.com/

    2. Dress like girls born to Mac Cosmetics is the most appropriate as a gift, they only need $ 6 minimum: http://www.allmaccosmeticswholesale.com/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.