(Wall Street Journal) A schism has emerged among California’s pot-legalization advocates. On one side are those pushing to get a proposition to voters quickly, including activists such as Richard Lee, who last month began collecting signatures to put a pot-legalization measure on the state’s November 2010 ballot.
California NORML's Dale Gieringer says "wait 'til 2012"...
On the other side is a go-slow camp calling for a 2012 vote, including activists like Dale Gieringer, director of the California chapter of the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws, or Norml. “I do think it will take a few more years for us to develop a proposal that voters will be comfortable with,” said Mr. Gieringer.
...but Oaksterdam University's Richard Lee bets $1,000,000 on 2010.
The 2010 ballot proponents say there is no time like the present, because California’s economic mess gives pot legalization an urgent fiscal appeal. Taxing pot could help reverse cuts in spending to education, health care and other services enacted this year, said Mr. Lee, who along with fellow activist Jeff Jones is gathering signatures for a 2010 measure. “We’re the answer for all of the things on the news,” Mr. Lee said.
Go-slow advocates say Mr. Lee’s camp doesn’t understand the California electorate and the subtle strategies of exploiting election cycles. “The demographics are clearly much better in 2012, and victory would therefore be much easier,” said Aaron Smith, California policy director of the Marijuana Policy Project, a national pot-advocacy group. “You have the younger, more progressive voters that get out in the presidential elections.”
I understand Aaron’s and Dale’s thinking: more young and progressive people come out for a presidential election year like 2012 than will come out for a mid-term election cycle like 2010. (Maybe MPP learned that lesson with a 39% legalization loss in the mid-term elections of 2002 and a 44% loss in mid-term 2006 in Nevada. Of course, their Alaska legalization failed with 44% in presidential year 2004, so maybe it really doesn’t matter.)
However, I’m with Richard Lee on the timing. We are in the perfect storm for legalization:
- the floundering economy, especially in California, has voters desperate for revenue – shouldn’t we strike while that iron is hot, or at least before the economy improves?
- the Mexican drug war is scaring the hell out of folks on the border; how many more Mexican civilians, cops, and officials get tortured and murdered while we wait for “the right time”?
- the acceptance of medical marijuana nationally has not yet experienced a major backlash – but will it if the Wild West California dispensary atmosphere has three more years to generate negative headlines?
Whether Lee’s initiative is the right one for 2010 is still worth debating. But I don’t think the timing is wrong at all. You put marijuana legalization on the ballot with enough money to push it in the media and you’ll see a youth turnout unprecedented for a mid-term election. The regular political rules don’t apply to marijuana.
It’s interesting to read this article now that the election is over and it was clear that 2010 was not the year to run marijuana initiatives. I know people will say it elevated the conversation and some of that was true, but 2012 HAS to be the year where legalization breaks through or else people will start to see a marijuana ballot fatigue. I’m not sure running campaigns year after year is effective. At some point we have to break through or else demoralization takes over (I know stoners are passionate but the rest of the electorate could care less really). I also think we should focus on WA and CO in addition to or instead of CA. It has to be easier to run a campaign in those states rather than CA. All bets are off however if it turns out to be another referendum on Obama. We might lose in another Republican leaning political cycle.
Marijuana hatred is so embedded into half of the voting population that it only takes a small minority to sway the vote either way.
The only way to get legislation to pass will be to try something new as obviously it has taken too much time to get this far.
1. Stopping law enforcement from lobbying against legalization would have a major impact on the outcome. Having this legislation on the ballot would draw attention to their lobbying immediately. You could have advertisements showing cops giving tickets so they take your fines and use them to lobby to keep marijuana illegal.
2. Retirees on fixed income will no longer be able to buy beer and wine. A commercial that shows Social Security being cut and health care being rationed could be an argument for “Grow Your Own Medicine.” Some of the marijuana tax money could go to help seniors learn how to cultivate it for themselves.
3. Have a strong campaign to keep marijuana away from children.
Um, I don’t get it. It’s all one or the other? I’m ignorant to the ballot initiative rules, but did try to search google and wiki, with nothing saying a failed initiative can’t be re-tried two years later. Why not try in 2010? Do you honestly think it’d be debilitating to the 2012 attempt? Like a proposition of legalizing receiving a 48% yes would be a negative going forward?
I’d argue opposite, while it’d definitely invigorate both sides, the side where your more concerned with turnout is consistently on the yes initiative. 48% would make the lazy, non-believer, fence-watchers get off their but. It could lead to an increase of donations to NORMAL campaigns and everything. I felt that way about Nevada losing 44%, I thought, “that’s more than any year before and in one of the more conservatives states” It’s a bit of a paradox, I know, but it’s true, just look deeper. Then I thought about how national sentiments have changed since 06 and I feel like 2010/2012 is definitely within arms reach, if maybe just touching the fingertips.
Why not the same for Cali, is this just my small opinion gone awry? Would a 48% loss help or hurt other states’ chances, I could see this maybe being a blow to other states since we view California as the liberal state, especially in this realm. Please reply, I’m curious.
Law Enforcement are supposed to enforce the law, whatever it may be. Law Enforcement should NOT be concerned with making law.
cops don’t make the rules we do!
The first sentence of my second-to-last paragraph of the above post should have read “[...]should not be able to use either their paycheck or government resources to lobby for or against government policy”
Stupid mistake.
As the carpenters say, “measure twice, cut once.”
Jose makes an incredibly useful point. His comment is 10 million times more useful and practical than mine.
Right now, we have a situation where government officials (prosecutors, prison guards, etc.) are fighting to protect their jobs and livelihoods.
Those who are ostensibly servants of the people should be able to use either their paycheck or government resources to lobby for or against government policy. It ought to be illegal.
I think this should be an urgent priority of the marijuana legalization movement.
If we put it on the 2010 ballot, (and I’m referring to AB 390, which will clear the records and release those with possession charges)I’m highly confident it will pass. Even those who don’t smoke will benefit from the boost to the state economy. So long as we keep spreading the word (and get your signature on the petition to get it on the 2010 ballot)next year ought to be the year!
Fingers crossed, spread the word!
First pass legislation that prevents law enforcement from using taxpayer money to lobby against marijuana legalization.
Then the chances of success will increase.
Normally, I’m an incrementalist. Half a loaf is better than none.
But at this point, you run up against the boundaries of rationality. You need to take an uncompromising stance. You keep the pressure on, adopt an obstinate pose, and take an failure as just a delay or a setback.
We need a sort of “religious revival” type of fervor for marijuana. We must continue growing our movement and fighting for our position until the other side decides it’s just not worth it to fight back.
The time is now! We even many women joining the cause lately so it has to happen now!
[...] Wall Street Journal examines the 2010/2012 division among pot legalization advocates | NORML Daily A…. Tags: california, [...]
I’m not a Californian, but I say go for it in 2010, just make sure there is a strong campaign for it so enough voters show up. If there is a lesser turnout for midterms, then perhaps there’d be a better chance of it passing if enough pro-marijuana voters decide to show up. That way, should it work out well, other states may follow suit and put it on the 2012 ballot. Otherwise, if they wait until 2012 in CA, other states may think the Presidential ballot is where it should be and wait until 2016 to put it on theirs. Good luck!
As a pot loving Californian I think having it on the ballot in 2010 would be nicer than waiting till 2012, and I think we’d show up to the polls.
As an unemployed Californian (since Jan), I wish it were sooner. I believe there are many unemployed anti pot people that would gladly eat a big helping of crow for a good job in the marijuana industry.
Besides the unemployment in this state, we also have budget deficits that could be quickly turned into a surplus by making it legal and taxing it.
California has the opportunity to lead the way for the rest of the country. Why would we want to wait?