Reason TV: Brian Doherty Explains The Failure of Prop 19 and What it Means for the Future of Pot Legalization

In the 2010 election, California voters rejected Proposition 19, which would have legalized the possession and sale of marijuana in the state.  

Reason Senior Editor Brian Doherty explains to Reason.tv why Prop. 19 lost, and says that despite electoral defeat, the proposition actually resulted in a number of victories for the legalization movement. Doherty also explains why he believes legalization is inevitable in the next four to six years.

Approximately 5 minutes. Produced by Zach Weissmueller and Alex Manning. Edited by Manning. 

Related article: "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

Go to Reason.tv for HD, iPod and audio versions of this video and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Comments

[YES but not pissed it failed]

19 was "loaded" with weasel-worded paragraphs and would have turned into a regulatory nightmare. Let's have some sober people roll up a simpler version the next time around.

[Cheech]

"Let's have some sober people roll up a simpler version the next time around." Good one man.

[alan]

Were you auditioning for EraserHead 2 for that clip. Brian?

[R C Dean]

Howsabout:

"The State of California may impose restrictions on possession, use, sale, or distribution of teh pot that are no more stringent than those imposed on the possession, use, sale or distribution of alcohol. No provision of California law shall otherwise prohibit, restrict, or penalize the possession, use, sale, or distribution of teh pot."

[wylie]

Great, so they'll make alcohol illegal too. Keep working on it, RC.

[Gene Berkman]

R C - I like your proposal, and it has the merit of familiarity for people who are already accustomed to the legal sale of alcohol.

[Jim]

I love the irony that the Reefer Madness-style propaganda had older voters worried about drugged driving. Would these be the same older drivers who are unsafe at any speed?

[Cheech]

Great arguement dude!

[re-defiler]

Actually according to most studies, those cranky old drivers are safer than us younger ones, less likely to cause accidents, and less likely to cause injury accidents.

Its not as much fun, but slower usually equals more safety on the road. Potheads and gramps are the safest drivers out there.

I don't know which group is the least safest, but from my own experience in so cal... Prius drivers are the worst.

[Road-Hog Prius Drivers]

Used to be the big SUV pilots but now it's those arrogant Prius drivers that think they own the fucking road. Talk about no-signal lane changes, cutting other drivers off, cutting-in-front-and-slowing-down, shit!

[Pious driver]

Good for yeeeewww!!!

[Cheech]

Bad vibes man!

[Brian from Texas]

The federal government will always fight tooth and nail against marijuana and/or drug decriminalization. Jay and Silent Bob are a much easier target for them to go after than Osama Bin Laden.

[Brian Sorgatz]

Did I hear schadenfreude in Brian Doherty's voice when he mentioned the reefer-madness old farts who are "aging and dying," or was I projecting my emotion onto him?

[Brian Sorgatz]

Three thousand miles to my east, it was 4:20 when I posted the above. Whoa, dude, that's heavy!

[kiyo]

Brian, I think it's sad that you had to provide a link to clarify your meaning with 'schadenfreude'... I used the word recently in conversation and received a blank, uncomprehending stare.

That being said, if you were projecting, so was I. Methinks the schadenfreude here might have been legit.

[Athanasius]

I am 64 and have a medical cannabis card in CA. I voted against 19 because it is a regulatory nightmare.

[Dunder]

Thanks for helping drug warriors, you freeloading geezer.

[WIll you sell me some of yours]

[WIll you sell me some of yours]

Since you don't like the regulations, it should be no problem, right? I won't tell.

[AT]

That's a bit selfish and irresponsible.

[V]

Smoking 28Grams = $100 ticket, Growing 1 Gram = Felony Regulatory nightmare?

[R C Dean]

I am 64 and have a medical cannabis card in CA. I voted against 19 because it is a regulatory nightmare I've got mine, so screw you.

[El Duderino]

LOL

[Gene Berkman]

Brian mentions the "employee rights" section of 19. Liberal supporters of legalization see this as a civil rights issue, protecting people from losing their jobs for activities that take place on their own time.

Libertarians agree with the principle that a worker's own time belongs to him, and should not be subject to workplace anti-drug rules. But putting in a law would lead to litigation, including frivolous litigation (non-meritorious, in lawyerspeak) and that is frightening for buisiness owners in California, which already had excess litigation.

The law enforcement groups opposed to 19 did not raise much money. But the employee rights section of 19 caused the Chamber of Commerce and verious small business groups to opposed Prop 19, and include "No on 19" on their slate cards.

Two conservative Congressmen both announced that they support legalizing marijuana, but opposed Prop 19 because of the "employee rights" section - Rep Dana Rohrabacher and Rep Tom McClintock both took this stand.

[Paul]

I'm sure this in no way has anything to do with federal grant money restrictions of a drug free workplace affecting big business, and everything to do with small business owners wanting to control the lives of their employees in the free market out of paranoia of what their employees do on their own time.

[Han Solo]

I could not support Prop 19, because of the provision that FORCED employers to not be able to fire someone if they used.

"Prop 19 Section 11304 (c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301. Provided, however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected."

In other words, non-libertarian activists for drug-legalization are hoping to create a protected class of drug users, who cannot be fired or discriminated against solely because of their drug use.

THAT is not very libertarian at all.

A truly libertarian legalization measure would not further abridge an employer's right to discriminate on any basis. Many libertarians are not willing to swallow this pill, especially when it comes to immutable characteristics like age, sex or race.

[Apogee]

While I agree with you, ending unconscionable incarcerations, distribution violence and black market corruption seem to be far more problematic.

Any issues regarding employers rights could be addressed by a corrective initiative in the future, IMO.

[El Duderino]

Why Prop 19 Failed:

The proposition was presented to many voters as some kind of miracle tax revenue generator. While I don't doubt the merits of this argument, it is a poor reason to up and vote for the bill. There are essentially 2 types of voters in CA.

Type 1: The pot smoking free wheeling young adults. These voters did nit turn out in very high numbers for any number of reasons, but one is that they simply could care less about legalized Pot, because for all practical purposes, they are not particularly concerned about Pot since they already have a ready supply and unlike all the hype, most of the people who are being arrested in the drug war are not the casual smokers, but the repeat offenders so there is no real fear of being arrested here. The idea that Pot would generate revenue to the state of CA is of no concern to this voter as they are not terribly concerned about fiscal issues at that age... and perhaps state of mind. Those that do go out to vote are also not particularly attracted to the "tax revenue" argument because so far their Pot has been about the only thing they can purchase tax free and the idea that it will be regulated like cigarettes or alcohol does not bode well for the future price point of Pot or at least creates uncertainty about the availability, quality and price of Pot. All of these things matter, even to stoners.

Type 2. The older more moderate yet somewhat left leaning voters. These voters are concerned with fiscal issues, but legalizing pot is still somewhat a big stretch and since the argument for legalizing pot seemed to have more to do with generating revenue, they are rightfully skeptical of this rationalization since the tax revenue issue is muddied by the uncertain state of the potential Pot marketplace in CA considering the Federal Governments promise to enforce Federal Drug laws in CA.

This is what happens when you let LIBERALS control a LIBERTARIAN issue. Lets make pot legal so we can tax it! WEE more money for all the other BS things we want to do. It also doesnt help much that certain cities, like San Fran are trying hard to ban fucking HAPPY MEALS. I'm sorry, but you cant on one hand ban happy meals and legalize pot, this is so counter intuitive that only a PROGRESSIVE could rationalize it. If you are a moderate voter, and you are having to consider Happy meal bans and pot legalization in the same thought, then you are going to have a tough time on this one. This has nothing to do with the tax revenue argument, but can you see how some moderate voters may just see these things as so insane that the only thing they can do is vote status quo on both?

I am from MA and I have many Progressive friends so I argue with them all the time about pot legalization. The argument that wins every time is this: A person should be free to do whatever they want with their own body in the privacy of their own home as long as they are not harming others while doing it. THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE BASIS FOR THE ARGUMENT, NOT TAX REVENUE.

[No on Prop 19!]

So you want to legalize heroin?

[El Duderino]

Yes. Making it illegal doesnt mean people wont use it. Doing heroin is in itself punishment for doing heroin.

Do you think making sex or masturbation illegal will stop people from doing it? I am not saying that hard drugs like heroin are like sex, but the mind reacts to them in remarkably similar ways.

The fact that drugs are illegal means that all we have now are people who are addicted to drugs and habitually in prison for having or being on drugs, do you think that throwing these people in prison is going to make them less likely to do hard drugs? Do we really have to pay for these offenders addictions? If they WANT to get off drugs, then they will have to go into rehab on their own. If we are constantly forcing people into rehab, we are wasting money because only people that want rehab will take to it.

I dont think that legalizing heroin is going to suddenly create a world of addicts. First of all, most people understand that that lifestyle is dangerous and make an effort to avoid it. People that get into heroin are going to get into it regardless of whether or not it is legal, they are psychologically predisposed to this behavior for any number of reasons be it genetic, mental or physical or what have you.

Gasoline is illegal (at least for now) and gasoline makes you high, yet we do not seem to have a gasoline sniffing epidemic. In fact many things that are perfectly legal are quite capable of getting you high and still there is no "epidemic" of people abusing them. People are going to dumb shit, it is governments role to protect individuals from other people doing dumb shit TO them, not from people doing dumb shit to themselves. If you get high and go out on some kind of fucked up rampage, the cops should take action, but if you are just stoned out of your mind on your couch, then that is your fucking problem, not mine or the governments. You and your family and friends will have to deal with your heroin addiction.

[El Duderino]

CORRECTION... Gasoline is legal... Though with all of this bullshit about going green etc... I am surprised it has not gone the way of the incandescent light bulb.

[Yes on 19!]

I agree, but just pointing out that it is not a legitimate argument to pass a voter approved State constitutional amendment. On to 2012!

[tiffany jewellery]

good topic

[nike shoes UK]

is good