A few short months ago, California's Proposition 19, the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, seemed likely to fade away in a puff of smoke. After more than three decades on the front lines of the disastrous "war on drugs," I feared this best-hope-to-date chapter in the battle for sane drug laws was a lost cause. But something has changed in the public's consciousness, and in its resolve.
On September 30 the Public Policy Institute of California published the results of its new poll. It shows Proposition 19 winning, by a resounding 52-41 margin. Other polls are similarly encouraging.
What, apart from a smart, well-run campaign, explains this big swing in momentum?
For one thing, more and more police officers have decided that the 40-year drug war is a farce and a failure. These cops have been eyewitnesses to the ruinous effects of drug arrests on the lives of the people they've been hired to protect and serve, and they're finally speaking out. Members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, in particular, have been reaching out to service clubs, civic groups, and fellow cops throughout the state. They've been especially persuasive in countering the escalating fear-mongering misrepresentations of anti-19 forces.
Parents, including multiplying ranks of formerly resistant single moms, fed up with violence in their neighborhoods, with marijuana's ready availability in schools, and with the heartbreaking realities of their teenage children's criminal records, are at last speaking out against the absurdity of the state's marijuana laws. (And they won't be dissuaded from voting for Proposition 19 simply because of their governor's cynical, last-minute but long-overdue gesture in reducing penalties in simple pot possession cases.)
Surprising numbers of conservative Californians have joined forces with civil libertarians to create a formidable bloc of states' rights advocates opposed to indefensible government intrusion into our everyday lives.
Human and civil rights advocates, such as the NAACP, have taken official positions in opposition to the deep-seated racism reflected in drug law enforcement, and in support of Proposition 19.
And, of course, Golden State voters are increasingly motivated by reliable estimates that California, buried under a mountain of debt and forced to slash vital services, stands to capture up to $1.4 billion in new revenues, along with substantial savings in law enforcement and other criminal justice costs.
But perhaps the biggest boost to the pro-19 campaign may be found in the vast army of young adults working for its passage. A natural anti-prohibition demographic, young Californians not only oppose their state's marijuana laws they are investing substantial time and energy to the cause of replacing them. They've organized, mobilized, gone door to door, rallied their friends.
Cynics take note. These young people will show up at the polls. And, in all likelihood, they will cast the decisive votes that will restore adult possession of marijuana as a basic freedom.
Follow Norm Stamper on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CopsSayLegalize
"Profound drug impairment constituting an obvious traffic safety hazard could as easily be demonstrated in a laboratory performance test as anywhere else. But THC is not a profoundly impairing drug. It does affect automatic information processing, even after low doses, but not to any great extent after high doses."
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7176
"I conclude that granting Respondent's application would not be inconsistent with the Single Convention, that there would be minimal risk of diversion of marijuana resulting from Respondent's registration, that there is currently an inadequate supply of marijuana available for research purposes, that competition in the provision of marijuana for such purposes is inadequate, and that Respondent has complied with applicable laws and has never been convicted of any violation of any law pertaining to controlled substances. I therefore find that Respondent's registration to cultivate marijuana would be in the public interest."
And finally, from the Shafer Commison, as requested by Former-President Nixon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafer_Commission
"[T]he criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only 'with the greatest reluctance."
------------------------
that's not true (or rational).
Miles "Hail, Hail, The Gang's All Here" Long
You forgot to add while they secretly do everything they rail against.
The fact that the elites sponsored Obama after Bush disaster shows that they now prefer to look like progressive and humane. Kevin Rudd's apology to the Australian Aboriginals was also a part of this strategy. In the UK Labor dumped Blair and trying to put on a more progressive face.
I personally don't care for pot, and for a long time I could have cared less about whether or not it was legal. Your book "Breaking Rank" helped me to look at things differently. Thank you for that. I definitely will vote yes on 19. :)
-----------------------------------------------
We don't actually live in a democracy though....we live in a republic based on democratic principles.
I think california is well aware of all the propoghanda talking points on mj by now, a hy7pocritical article in NYT is not gonna change the movement. That's nothing more than a hysterical right wing ploy to try and take back the debate which has been swinging away from them for along time.
If they are going to convince people to change their minds they needs to find some new talking points and evidence. But as the govt has made it illegal to also scientifically study the effects of mj (in hope of contqaining and controlling it with fear) the right wing can't do studioes to porve it is bad.
and even if they could their studies would only disprove their stances.
The Drive to Demonize Pot Started With a Power Play in One Act
Reading about history can be boring, but the history of marijuana prohibition is anything but. When Congress outlawed marijuana in 1937, it was the climax of a story surrounded by mystery, intrigue and a cast of characters that would rival any blockbuster movie ever made. Think Orson Wells' 1941 masterpiece "Citizen Kane," a film portraying the life of powerful newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst, who, by the way, happens to be one of the major players in the marijuana story.
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n819/a04.html?1071