« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

California Proposition 19: The next stand for federalism?

California’s going to have a busy ballot in November. In addition to voting for Governor, Senator, and more statewide offices than you can shake a stick at, we’re going to have a long list of initiative statutes and constitutional amendments to deal with.

One of the more interesting ones is numbered 19. Proposition 19, the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, if passed will legalize small time use, cultivation, and possession of cannabis for all Californians, instead of just those with doctor’s notes.

The first thing many critics of the initiative point out is that 19 can’t change federal law. That is true, but what it will do is turn California authorities into non-combatants on that front of the federal Drug War. That’s important, because according to Ballotpedia 99% of all cannabis arrests in America are by state officials, not federals. Without state cooperation, the federal cannabis prohibition will be, for all but the most high profile distributors, de facto repealed.

California is a sovereign state, and if we want to leave enforcement of federal law to the federals, we have every right to do that. If the FBI wants to start rounding up every idiot 16 year old who messes around with dope after school, instead of going after terrorists and international gangs, let them. But if Proposition 19 passes, that’s not our state government’s problem anymore.

The only factor in my mind that determines whether Proposition 19 should pass or fail is whether the policy is the right thing to implement. I personally don’t favor a sweeping new set of taxes combined with the legalization of a socially corrosive drug, and so I will vote against it. But standing up for expanded DC power at the expense of the states will be the last thing on my mind when I vote no.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • conservativecrusade

    of a catch 22. On one side, I can not explain why the use of weed is any worse than drinking. On the other, what a waste of a life to sit around getting high or drunk. I also think the state right to its own sovereign status is all powerful, but also can not understand why this is even on the ballot wasting both time and money when so may other issues are much larger.

    So since I do not live in CA, see no reason why it should be made legal or kept illegal, guess I will sit back and just enjoy the show in CA. But I would vote the same way as You Neil if it was ever brought up in my state.

  • http://www.dcworksforus.com Kenny Solomon

    I’ve been following the Delta Smelt nonsense since it started, because it’s nothing more than a Cass Sunstein “nudge” to Totalitarianism and an absolute danger to our nation, not just California.

    In fact, I even have a diary here on the mess and the article below is the latest addition to it.

    Here’s what I posted – a totally un-edited c/p…………..

    In a stunning development Tuesday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced he would try to pull an $11.1 billion water bond off the November ballot and instead ask voters to approve it two years from now. The governor said the delay was needed to focus on the overdue state budget, but the economic climate and persistent criticism of the bond?s cost also were making the measure a tough sell.

    Apart from the Sierra Club and League of Women Voters, the powerful California Teacher?s Association on Tuesday came out against the bond, saying that its $800 million a year in debt payments would take money that could be used for schools.

    ====================

    If I say it, I?ll get mad?? and I?m trying to relax tonight.

    Actually, if I say it, I might open fire on something.

    Let?s see what happens????..

    An $11 Billion water bond has to be canceled because ?it?s for the children? ?!?

    You Statist Dictatorial Unionized Leftist pieces of s?????.. BANG ! BLAM !?.. Bang bang bang bang bang bang ! BLAM !

    OK, I?m relaxed now. ;)

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I vote against all bonds anyway. They’re one not-small part of why our budget is a mess anyway.

  • SIConservative

    I would disagree and always value good beer and the good conversation that typically comes with it. That said, just about anything that is enjoyed by some is considered a waste by others. Personally, I think modern “art” is a waste, but it doesn’t harm me. Whether something should be legal should depend primarily on whether and to what extent it harms other people, not a value judgment of how it impacts the lives of those who engage in it. If you want to crusade against it, educate people about it, discourage people from using it, etc., that’s fair enough, but the government should not be in the business of social engineering.

  • drjohngalt

    California is expressing sovereignty? How about in relation to it’s state debt?
    Isn’t it about time that all 50 states began to once again demand their sovereignty from the Federal government?

  • jackbenimble

    Cannibas in most measurable ways is less harmful than alcohol.

    I think it is appropriate for the State to regulate driving while under the influence of any substance that might impair driving ability when people are driving in a vehicle that can quickly kill many other people as the result of one poor judgement or one slow reflexive response.

    But I have never understood why the State (Federal or State) felt they had any business telling a free sovereign individual what they could ingest or inhale into their own body or what seeds they could plant, cultivate and harvest on their own land. I suppose it is the libertarian in me but I have always found this to be an attack on freedom and I have never understood why Republicans who are supposed to cherish liberty and property rights favored these policies.

  • Locked and Loaded

    Consider what happens when states have no inclination to participate in enforcement of other federal laws – like immigration laws, for instance. And even though CA is not required to help enforce federal law, wouldn’t the state now be aiding and abetting (profiting from!) the breaking of federal law. Holder must really be squirming over how to proceed on this. Nah, probably not.

    I think it’s also safe to say CA will see an uptick in crime because of this, as well. Why grow it yourself when it has become so easy to steal somebody else’s?

    Seems like CA is becoming a sanctuary state.

    To me, at least, it represents not so much an assertion of a state’s prerogatives as another weakening of the Union.

  • cwilson

    Most drug laws were originally passed because of racism (the real kind, not the ‘raaaaacism’ that the left always accuses the right of). In short, racist legislators passed these laws to “protect” white women from black men — who, everyone “knew”, couldn’t control themselves under the influence of drugs like cocaine.

  • cwilson

    Isn’t CA doing exactly what the Feds say AZ should do? Just stay out of our jurisdiction; we’re in control of (pick one: immigration policy; federal drug regulations), so we — the feds — are the only ones allowed to enforce them.

    So, AZ is not allowed to pass a law that puts a copy of Federal immigration law on their own books.

    OK. If that’s the way you want it…CA is going to remove their copy of Federal drug law relating to weed FROM their books.

    Isn’t that logical?

  • JoeG

    the IRS, the EPA, the department of agriculture, the INS…..

    They probably would rather just worry about the DEA and the FBI.

  • Achance

    You would have to send an engraved invitation to State or local cops to get arrested for personal use or possession. Meth doesn’t get a pass though, they go after meth labs and dealers. If you’re doing something else to get arrested and then have pot or coke, they’ll bust you for the drugs but that’s it. Alaska cops do work with the Feds on importation and dealing issues, especially importation and sales of narcotics.

    OK, it gives our cops something to do rather than bust druggies, but it is very socially corrosive. Drug and alcohol abuse are rampant in rural Alaska and Alaska’s larger towns are a teenage wasteland right out of “A Clockwork Orange.” Teenaged girls stripping and hooking for drugs are just a fact of life here and our jails are full of young men busted for some property crime to support their drug use. Because so many jobs here are safety sensitive and Alaska has steep Workers Comp costs, many, many employers drug test both pre-hire and randomly, so once someone becomes a drug user they are employable only in the cash under the table work or in low-skill jobs with the lowest pay so it quickly becomes a vicious cycle of crime and life outside accepted society.

  • Locked and Loaded

    The scenario you paint goes like this:

    Arizona invites illegals into the state, then sets up its own laws regulating them and taxing them.

  • joecollins

    Our esteemed CA legislators had to bribe themselves to put this bill before the voters. About half of the $11 billion is pork, including a $24 million golf course in Los Angeles (think Karen Bass’ neighborhood).

    Half of the money is pork. Half.

    I ‘m forced to vote NO because HELL NO isn’t an option.

  • redcometchar2010

    Being from MO I don’t have a say in this, but I don’t see the harm if this passes. People can argue the pros and cons of the war on drugs. I don’t really have a problem with legalizing marijuana, even though I’m probably one of the squarest guys here and never have and would never partake of the stuff (reminds me of hippies and I HATE hippies). However, with the harder drugs an argument can be made on either side. I think law enforcement resources are better spent stopping terrorists, murderers, rapists etc.

  • Achance
  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    The 10th amendment is what weakened it, and on purpose.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    If the feds can’t enforce the laws they pass, maybe they should pass fewer laws.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    INS no longer exists.

  • Locked and Loaded

    My usage of the term Union is intended to convey more of the sense of the ties that bind us as Americans rather than the federal government that lords over us.

    California politicians seem too married to the maxim, “As goes California, so goes the nation.” I recognize CA must look out for CA interests, but I don’t think they have done anything here to coalesce with any other of the several states, much the same as the warning labels declariing what CA knows to be true about the causes of cancer. It seems CA is persistently out on a limb, to the detriment of the rest of the country, but in sync with the liberal left goals emanating from Washington, DC. It is just my Okie opinion, and I don’t mean to demean your home state (just your politicians).

    I absolutely agree with your point that governements should not pass laws they have no means or will to enforce.

  • zarathustralives

    “I personally don?t favor a sweeping new set of taxes combined with the legalization of a socially corrosive drug, and so I will vote against it.”

    Socially corrosive is strongly worded but supposing it is true, isn’t it even more reason to support legalization. Demand for marijuana is not going away and right now drug dealers get to keep all the profits. Legalization would bring tax revenues that that could offset the negative externalities created by the drugs’ use. Plus the extra revenue would relieve pressure to raise other taxes (though thats a little optimistic).

    In any case its a consumption tax, so if you don’t consume the product then you never have to worry about paying the tax. So if I assume correctly that you don’t use, then whats your beef with the government skimming some money off some stoners??

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • hippiessmell

    I don’t think it’s the job of the government to protect us from ourselves. If we want to ruin our lives with drugs (alcohol is a drug too, imo, and shouldn’t be tacked on after drugs), we should be free to do so.

    I mean, if we’re going to ban pot, why not smoking? Smoking is at least as addictive as heroin and cocaine. And why not ban alcohol? While there isn’t a direct causal relationship between alcohol and domestic abuse, there is definitely a correlation between the two acts. Why not ban stripping? In a lot of cases, stripping is a gateway to prostitution. Or gambling? I could go on and on with things we could ban because they can be harmful to the individual choosing to participate in the activity. When does it stop? Certainly not with fast food, trans fats, or salts.

    Also, I would say that pot is probably the least permanently damaging drug available today (which I have no scientific evidence to support) and that it is definitely the least physically and mentally addictive (which I do have evidence to support). So if we’re going to ban drugs based on their ability to harm the people who use them, we should legalize pot and ban alcohol and tobacco.

  • crosley

    I certainly don’t condone marijuana use, but I’m definitely in the camp that the government shouldn’t be in the business of protecting us from ourselves.

    I really see very little difference between smoking marijuana and consuming alcohol. Just like in the case of Prohibition, the marijuana will still get smoked, the government is only creating a funding source that creates criminal cartels and throwing massive amounts of money and resources for nothing.

    I think the biggest reason why conservatives don’t support marijuana legalization is cultural. I can definitely understand that (being traditional) but I think conservatives should take a second look at the issue.

  • IJB
  • crosley

    I definitely lean more in that direction.

    I think libertarians though are wrong on a number of issues, like border security, national security, gay marriage, the list goes on. And I also think the Libertarian Party is a joke.

  • renny

    1) Legalized “drug” taxes would help solve city and state tax problems.
    2) The criminal element would be defused. Control of the border would experience relief; Mexicans could get back their country;
    Colombia and Afghanistan could allow peasants to grow whatever they wanted and make as money as they can.
    3) We could send the Delta Forces to better hot spots.
    4) The DEA and all drug task forces that waste law enforcement budgets could be disbanded.
    5) 2/3s of all prison inmates (most minority) could be released, unless convicted of violent crimes.
    6) Gangs and esp. biker gangs would lose their sting with loss of drug profits.
    7) Addicts would get medical attention all the time without having to wait for places in rehab.
    8) Public schools and malls could return to the purposes of retail business and education instead of being the drug sales and distribution centers of the nation.
    9) Organized crime worldwide would partly disintegrate.
    10) Pharmaceutocals would produce standard quality product and alleviate the problems of doctored street stuff.
    11) Prohibitions don’t work once the social and cultural onus of a practice loses its negative moral force in society. Having laws and entire systems of legal oppression when populations refuse to comply just creates disrespect for all law and law enforcement.

  • TheSophist

    but not for the reasons you all cited.

    I’m torn on the “Regulate” part of the title of this.

    If Californians want to legalize pot, or cocaine, or whatever, as a federalist, I believe that they have every right to do so. And I also believe that the State government has nearly unlimited power to tell its citizens what they can and cannot ingest or put in their bodies, etc. If some folks think marijuana is a socially corrupting drug, and want to ban it, then convince enough fellow citizens to go along.

    So I’m all good on the federalist grounds. Let California decide what its legal regime would be.

    I’m more troubled by the “regulate” part of this. So presumably, there would be some new state government bureaucracy setup to regulate marijuana. Perhaps standards of purity and chemical potency would have to be published (“minimum potency” or “maximum allowable” or some such), and inspectors would need to ensure that such regulations are being followed. If the sale of now-legal marijuana is to be regulated, then again, some sort of bureaucracy would need to regulate that activity.

    Sounds like more big government to me….

    Since a simpler solution — removing marijuana from the list of prohibited substances for which criminal sanction attaches — exists, whereupon it would be taxed like any other product in California (via the sales tax), I’d prefer to see a less intrusive, less Big Government alternative to drug legalization.

    But that’s me being unrealistic, I realize….

    -TS

  • IJB
  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    Calif NAACP to back pot legalization initiative?

    Jumping the shark in the process.

    Key quote:

    The group highlighted findings it says show the arrest rate among blacks for low-level marijuana crimes far exceed those of whites in the state’s largest counties. “Justice is the quality of being just and fair and these laws have been neither just nor fair,” said Alice Huffman, president of the California State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

    Fortunately other voices recognize the absurdity of promoting drugs within a community devasted by drug violence and family breakdown.

    International Faith-Based Coalition president Ron Allen said African-American leaders are distressed that one of the country’s most respected civil rights organizations would disregard the harm caused by illicit drugs among blacks. “The NAACP does not represent the African-American community when it comes to legalizing marijuana,” Allen said.

    I am not commenting here on the validity of liberty-based, governmental coercion arguments relating to marijauana laws here. These are certainly worthy of debate.

    But to effectively call marijuana laws as racist is a travesty against the brave pioneers of the civil rights movement who raised the conscience of a nation against an immoral practive, and in number of cases, paid with their lives.

    But par for the course for race whores.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    The </a? on the first line needs a closing bracket instead.

  • aesthete

    it’s less harmful in the case of driving than alcohol, and doesn’t fuel rage as alcohol does. There’s, quite frankly, a better case to be made in favor of prohibiting alcohol (which I don’t agree with, either).

  • aesthete
  • IJB

    And, no – “mainstreaming” vice, so you can increases taxes to fund a nanny state is *not* better in any case.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    And it’s because of the NAACP endorsement that I first heard about Prop 19 last night and wrote this, heh.

  • aesthete

    better than using police to put 14,000 people per month in jail, breaking into their houses with SWAT teams under said pretenses, using indiscriminate violence and killing innocents (even if you don’t count users as innocents) as a result, and wresting sovereignty from the states, all the while massively increasing bureaucracy and allowing mission creep to detract from the police’s jobs.

    It is not the optimal solution, but it is better than what I described above (which is the status quo), and it’s basically what we do with alcohol and tobacco.

  • zroxx

    And I also believe that the State government has nearly unlimited power to tell its citizens what they can and cannot ingest or put in their bodies, etc.

    This is unfortunately a true statement…

    If some folks think marijuana is a socially corrupting drug, and want to ban it, then convince enough fellow citizens to go along.

    And this is an accurate assessment of how our system typically works. But I hope you might agree that the ideal situation finds us with elected officials who prioritize liberty and small government over the majority’s personal convictions as to what individual decisions and private behavior they disagree with and want someone else to put a stop to. After all, there’s nothing that prevents citizens from publicly advocating and persuading their neighbors regarding (marijuana / transfats / smoking / sex toys / gambling / etc) in the absence of government intervention and intrusive legislation.

    The “regulate” part troubles me too, but let’s face it – right now you can’t even sell bacon dogs or raw milk in the absence of overbearing regulation. So I’m willing to accept a situation that gains increased liberty, personal responsibility, a new competitive capitalist market (as opposed to the current competitive criminal market) and re-prioritization of law enforcement efforts toward combating activity where actual injustices are being wrought in exchange for having one more item regulated and taxed in a relatively similar manner as tens or hundreds of others. With right minded officials, at some point we can deal with improving our over-regulation problem as well.

  • JamesSmith130

    but I would support the repeal of federal laws against marijuana use.

    This is something that should be limited to the states only, except when dealing with crossing the borders with large amounts of pot to sell.