Ryan Grim at Huffington Post reports on the notion going round political circles that California's Prop 19 (and, to a lesser extent, medical marijuana initiatives in Arizona and South Dakota, and dispensaries for medical marijuana in Oregon) will be for the Democrats what anti-Gay Marriage Equality amendments were for Republicans -- the turn-out-the-base social wedge issue that helps their candidates on the ballot.
A survey making the rounds among strategists, which has yet to be made public, indicates that pot could be just the enticement many of these voters need: Surge voters, single women under 40 and Hispanics all told America Votes pollsters that if a legalization measure were on the Colorado ballot, they'd be more likely to come out to vote. Forty-five percent of surge voters and 47 percent of single women said they'd be more interested in voting if the question was on the ballot. Most of these were energetic, with 36 and 30 percent, respectively, saying they'd be "much more interested" in coming out to vote. Roughly half said it would make no difference. For Latinos, 32 percent said they'd be "much more interested" in voting and another 12 percent said they'd be somewhat more attracted to the idea of trudging to the polls.
Surge voters said they would support the measure by a margin of 63-35. Young single women would back it 68-31. Latinos, meanwhile, oppose it 52-46, according to the survey. "Whether it can pass or not is another question, but I think it's clear that a marijuana legalization measure has the potential to increase turnout among voting groups that are critical to Democratic success in November," said a Colorado Democratic operative, who, like most strategists employed by campaigns, prefers not to talk about marijuana on the record -- highlighting the difficulty Democrats will have threading the political needle.Turning out an extra few percent can be the difference between winning and losing in swing states, a reality Karl Rove exploited in 2004 by papering the nation with anti-gay marriage initiatives.
What do Democrats have to offer the cannabis consumer who comes out for a 2010 election? Unlike Rove and the Republicans, the Democrats don't really believe in these initiatives (publicly). Sen. Boxer, Sen. Feinstein (a former mayor of San Francisco, c'mon now!), and former Gov. / current AG Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown all publicly oppose Prop 19 (really, Jerry? You toked with Linda Ronstadt! Please!) Democrats can't even go on the record to discuss this strategy. They haven't yet framed it other than to murmur a bit about tax revenues, which is a lousy frame easily countered with "Well, if taxing crack made the cities money, should we legalize that?" Tax revenues resonate well within Assembly committee hearings, but they make for a ghoulish appeal to the average voter.
There's also the disappointment factor. A lot of cannabis consumers were very excited about supporting Barack Obama for president. He wrote candidly of his youthful marijuana and cocaine use! No more "I didn't inhale" bullshit; we even got an "I inhaled, frequently, that was the point." He ran for Senate saying "The War on Drugs is an utter failure and I think we need to re-think and decriminalize our marijuana laws."
And, honestly, he's a black guy from Chicago and a constitutional law professor, so we figured he's probably got a pretty good read on the realities of marijuana and how devastatingly unjust, ineffective, and harmful its prohibition is. We are the "surge voters" Grim is talking about, those of us "who were driven to the polls in 2008 through a once-in-a-generation mix of shame at the outgoing administration and hope in a new, barrier-breaking candidate."
So we "surged," in the real world and especially online, and got Obama elected. We even got him a massive majority in Congress. We were thrilled when he asked us online what items we'd like to see on the new administration's agenda and multiple times we responded with "legalize marijuana," topping almost every public survey and dominating with 16 of the top 50 questions in the largest survey. So what did we get in response? Something we in marijuana law reform simply call "The Chuckle":
Democrats may still benefit from the cannabiphiles flooding the polls if only due to the "who else ya gonna vote for?" strategy championed by folks like Rahm Emanuel. But how long will it take some younger, Tea Party-friendly Republicans to realize they have a potential windfall of new, young, diverse voters if they steal the low-hanging fruit of marijuana legalization for their own?
Republicans already have the frames of "small government," "personal responsibility," and "states rights" to work within. If marijuana legalization in California passes by a wide margin and sees support from the women, minorities, and young people the GOP desperately needs to rebuild their party, how long before they begin framing the War on Drugs as the "big government," "nanny state," and "federal overreach" that it is? They've got revered conservative figures like William Buckley and Milton Friedman they can quote to bolster their position. They can easily point to the Democratic Congresses of the 1980s that created the mandatory minimums and the last three Democratic presidents who supported decriminalization and inhaled or didn't inhale yet arrests kept increasing (at the greatest rate under Clinton, they'll note).
The GOP isn't quite there yet. Marijuana is still associated with hippies, counter-culture, leftism, atheism, communism, heathenism, and a few other isms the Republicans still rail against. When I was arguing for marijuana legalization back in my home state of Idaho, I used to ask the hippie-hating, pickup-driving, hardest-right Republicans I knew why, if they hated marijuana and hippies so much, did they support hippies making a living without ever paying taxes? "Why is it that you have to clock in at 8am every day," I'd ask, "and 30% of your check is gone before you ever touch it because of taxes, while a hippie gets to sleep til Noon, grow a plant in a closet, never leave the house, and make twice as much as you do, and never pays a cent in taxes? It's not like you see a bunch of hippies opening up brewpubs." If the GOP can use their base's continued engagement in the culture wars of the '60s and '70s by framing legalization as the only logical way to control and punish (through "sin" taxes) the users of cannabis, they could radically revitalize their party.
Just in time for 2012 when a vocally pro-marijuana legalization, anti-prohibition former governor of New Mexico named Gary Johnson will be fighting for the Republican nomination.
Follow Russ Belville on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RadicalRuss
Calif. marijuana supporters lead in campaign cash
How should employers handle workers who use medical marijuana where legal?
Police Find Marijuana Grow Operation in Rescued Boy's Home
More than 2000 apply for various pot licenses
2 juveniles arrested for tending pot plantations
Cops search for owners of torched marijuana
Chris Simms' Marijuana Denial is Doobious, At Best
Senate and Pot Brownies: Bill Could Double Trouble for Medical Marijuana Treats
Marijuana legalization campaign had only $62000 in cash on hand at the end of ...
And it's not just that he dismissed the pot question, it's the fact that he dismissed the whole online community with his "chuckle". The online community is what set him apart and helped him get elected, and then once he gets elected he does that? It just showed that Obama could not care less about the online community, it's just a tool for him to use for his own advantage.
On a more personal level, as the discussion goes forward, let’s remember to ask our fellow parents and grandparents, “If our child or grandchild got caught with a little marijuana, would we want him or her to go to jail, lose their college financial aid, spend a few days locked up with the sexual predators...?”
Californians: register to vote at
h t t p s://w w w .sos.ca.gov/nvrc/fedform/ Just fill out the form and mail it in!
Other states: Google your state name and “voter registration” to find out how to register!
Dems will show-up at the polls and send Fiorina & Whitman back to where they came from.
Often those most vocal for legalization are ex-felons. If you are truly vocal about it being "right" or "legal" then perhaps you'll use it or sell it. Then the cops will arrest you. Then you lose your right to vote. Then you lose your ability to make it legal.
That's a toughie. You'd have to convince small-government types who never used I think. Being one: I'll give a few pointers.
THE BEST ARGUMENT FOR LEGALIZATION:
Costs $35,000 a year to lock up a drug user. (where they make friends with other felons)
Costs $2,500 a year to rehabilitate them.
Second best argument: legalization will lead to the destruction of the street sellers. Sales will happen either way, better in a taxed, safe, legal way.
third: Prohibition doesn't work. Remember the mafia?
Another good argument: Pot is gonna be sold. Who'd you rather have selling it? A criminal gang member on the street, who uses the pocket money to pimp, buy guns, and rob? Or a harmless store clerk who pays taxes and is an upright member of the community not different from your local bartender?