Blogs and Stories
California's Reefer Madness
Leon Neal, AFP / Getty Images
The Golden State is flat broke, but all anybody there wants to talk about is legalizing and taxing marijuana. Joe Mathews on how vital reforms are going up in smoke.
California, broke and dysfunctional, desperately needs a white-hot public debate over how to fix its budget, its economy, and its state constitution.
What the state may get instead is a white-hot public debate over marijuana.
In a state where democracy is direct and voters rule, such debates take place via ballot initiative. So the next great opportunity to do something about the state’s troubles comes in the November 2010 general elections. With long lead times for filing initiatives and gathering the signatures needed to qualify, that ballot is just now beginning to take shape. The early outlook is worrisome.
“Taxing marijuana is easy to understand,” says one political consultant. “Constitutional reform isn’t. I think everyone will be completely confused by the reforms.”
Although reformers of all ideological stripes are planning major efforts to reshape how California governs itself, the only potential measure generating any political heat is a proposed initiative to legalize and tax the sale of cannabis.
Marijuana has the momentum. This week, Oakland voters approved a marijuana tax in their city by an overwhelming 80 to 20 percent margin. City councils in Los Angeles and other municipalities are considering whether to follow suit. The state’s nominally Republican governor says it’s time to debate the idea. Jokes about taxing marijuana in California are showing up in late-night comedy monologues. (Conan O’Brien recently spoofed a TV ad supporting the legalize-and-tax bill).
A Field Poll this spring found that 56 percent of California voters surveyed support the idea of taxing marijuana. Even in the midst of its worst budget and cash crisis since the Great Depression, a tax-and-legalize weed bill in the California legislature—a bill which has almost no hope of passing given the opposition of law enforcement—has drawn extensive coverage. Assuming the legislature fails to approve the legislation, the moment may be right for an initiative in 2010.
“That’s my feeling,” says James J. Clark, a Bay Area criminal defense lawyer who represents people accused of marijuana crimes and who, along with two other lawyers, filed an initiative with the attorney general’s office earlier this month. “There is a debate about whether to put an initiative forward in 2010 or 2012. I think we should capitalize on this media attention. There really is a groundswell.”
Interest is so intense that, if a marijuana initiative qualifies for a ballot next year, it could become a significant political problem for the good-government groups that have been plotting a series of reform initiatives for the same ballot. These well-funded efforts run the gamut. The Bay Area Council, a business-backed policy organization, is preparing measures to ask voters to call a constitutional convention. California Forward, a new body with strong foundation backing, appears likely to back a series of initiatives to shake up the state’s budget and politics. Powerful unions are preparing initiatives to reform education funding and roll back the state’s requirement of a two-thirds vote to raise taxes. Conservative groups are readying proposals to reduce pension obligations and put new restrictions on legislatures.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Why Newsom Dropped Out
Joe Mathews is a journalist, an Irvine senior fellow at the New America Foundation, and a contributing writer at the Los Angeles Times. He previously served as Justice Department reporter for the Wall Street Journal and as a city desk reporter at the Baltimore Sun. He is the author of The People's Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of Blockbuster Democracy.
The Polanski Tax
Joe Mathews is a journalist, an Irvine senior fellow at the New America Foundation, and a contributing writer at the Los Angeles Times. He previously served as Justice Department reporter for the Wall Street Journal and as a city desk reporter at the Baltimore Sun. He is the author of The People's Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of Blockbuster Democracy.
Don't Do It, Ladies
Joe Mathews is a journalist, an Irvine senior fellow at the New America Foundation, and a contributing writer at the Los Angeles Times. He previously served as Justice Department reporter for the Wall Street Journal and as a city desk reporter at the Baltimore Sun. He is the author of The People's Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of Blockbuster Democracy.
Legalizing pot is an idea that comes along a little like gay marriage. At first it looks unlikely, even impossible. But then, more and more people come out of the closet. And subsequently, more of their relatives begin to sympathize and understand. Initial fear becomes understanding. And if people are going to do it (same sex shacking up, or daily pot smoking), why should we care. Wnot legalize it? We damn sure need the revenue. "Reefer Madness" was never a reality anyway, just part of the pot prohibition propoganda. California will be dealing by 2012.
Jailing people for smoking a weed is absurd, expensive in so many ways and as outdated as prohibition. Get over it, legalize and tax this and grow hemp as well.
You forget that jails are big business now.
I think it is about time it is legalized , Holland were it is sold openly but not legalized has had to close 8 prisons due to falling crime rates & Portugal seems to be doing fine and nearly all drugs are legal there.
All we have had is bad propaganda & lies from governments for years about it.
To the author:
To me, it seems the effect of a legalize-and-tax initiative on other reforms being discussed for the ballot will depend on what sort of reforms they are and whether they're ostensibly friendly to youthful pot-smoking culture.
I say this because, as it seems to me, turnout will be high (pun semi-intended) if marijuana legalization is on the ballot. Stoners may be notorious lethargic/lazy, but if there's one thing they're not lazy about, it's getting stoned. Give a state full of marijuana smokers a chance for legitimacy, and they're going to show up. I'd be shocked if they didn't. Also, there are always going to be people so radically opposed to the notion that they run out in force to resist the initiative--but those people are more likely to have gone to the polls anyway, on average.
So, the question is whether high voter turnout affects the other ballot initiatives, or not.
I think it would be just great if weed were legalized.
But as a solution to California's problems? Probably not. Especially by the time other states legalized its sale and cultivation. If pot growing was a legal business in California, the state would tax and regulate it like they do every other business and people serious about growing it would simply leave the state to find a friendlier environment.
California has developed a knack for encouraging business development in other states -- just ask Google and Intel.
"Even if a tax passes, pot alone can't solve California's budget troubles."
No, it can't, but every little bit helps, and $1.4 billion helps a lot.
What would be the harm in legalizing it? Marijuana doesn't seem to be any worse than alcohol. I may be wrong on that... not much of a pot smoker.. But seriously... Pot smokers and dealers are crowding up our jails and taking our money to keep them up. I would much rather see someone be thrown in jail for a much more harsh crime than getting a "little high." We have more prescription drugs that ARE legal that are floating around on the streets that are much more dangerous than pot smoking. Throw a tax on it and legalize it... the government doesn't realize they will be making a killing off of it.
"When I take my 7-month-old baby boy for a walk through our mid-city neighborhood, we pass as many as a half-dozen dispensaries, depending on our route"
LOL yeah well depending on your route you can pass by all of them if you try hard enough
The reform initiatives will do well with the addition of the Marijuana initiative on the ballot. With Obama on the ballot in 2008, and the subsequent higher voter turnout, Democrats did quite well in many conservative districts, and in fact the state almost legalized gay marriage. The next election, where only state budget propositions were considered, the turnout was dismal, and the conservatives prevailed. The marijuana proposition will attract progressive voters, and you will find the backers of conservative initiatives will choose to skip this election. This is how the game is played here. I propose that propositions that change the state constitution should require a threshold of no less than two-thirds of the vote of all registered voters to succeed, just like the threshold that is required in the state legislature for matters of the budget and taxation.
Upfront, I'm naive about this, so would someone please enlighten me.
Aren't there federal laws that supercede anything California might want to pass? Are the states allowed to have their own laws on an issue like this?
Federal laws prohibit it, but prohibition requires enforcement and most local authorities recognize California state law over federal. They used to raid dispensaries but since Obama came into office, such raids have drastically decreased.
I recall Mayor Newsom basically telling the Feds....you want to raid them, you pay for it and sending them 1 or 2 city police officers instead of the 10 or 12 the Feds requested. :)
I don't believe a Marijuana Initiative would crowd out other issues on the 2010 ballot. I do agree they should all talk to each other and work together. But, if pot is on the ballot, you won't have to worry that enough young people will show up!
I did a video on legalization efforts in California. "Should Marijuana be legal in California"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdONwv51Wm0
Your bias on the topic of marijuana legalization is abundantly clear. It's a shame you couldn't be more objective in your article. I agree with puarau's comment above.
what about taxing cigarettes? I head NYC has a 5$ per pack tax. and hiking the booze tax is a good idea too. both substances produce a lot of costs for the state (health and law enforcement). and both taxes are widely supported by the public. what about taxing oil drilling like EVERY OTHER STATE in the U.S.?
how come the county of L.A. does not tax or regulate most Billboards? it reeks of corruption and mismanagement. maybe if the gov was run efficiantly people would be open to paying taxes - they would know that their $ wasnt being flushed down the toilet.
How about closing loop holes for tax dodgers (personal and corporate). how about increasing gaming taxes on indian casinos? i sympathize with the native americans about the genocide but sociapathic gangsterism is a crass way to enrich a proud people.
legalizing weed is lame. how about legalizing gay weddings? both should be legal in our free country but whats more important?
As a gay potsmoker, your last question poses quite a conundrum. Do I have to choose?!
For Gods sake legalize the stuff and tax the hell outta it!
(Theres plenty of funding for the health insurance "public option"!
i live in california
micro usa
the problem is simple
the solution is simple
money
taxes
that's it
the rest is distraction from the necessity
republicans will never tax
and will forever distract from the necessity
simple simple
it always is...
Why is law enforcement against the legalization of pot? If it was legal, their jobs would be made easier. More crimes are caused by alcohol abuse, like drunken driving and domestic violence. The only crime related to pot is distributing it.
"As provocative and topical as the film Traffic, here's a scathing jeremiad against the war on drugs, notable both for the author's position and for the sustained anger of its argument. Following his career as a federal prosecutor and a trial judge, Gray, now a California Superior Court justice, is struck by the revelation that the so-called war on drugs was "wasting unimaginable amounts of our tax dollars, increasing crime and despair and severely and unnecessarily harming people's lives... the worst of all worlds." He effectively documents a growing coalition of often conservative lawyers, legislators and justices who view the drug war's impotent dream of national abstinence as folly and its shadow effects (from imprisonment of nonviolent offenders to diversion of law enforcement resources) as dangers to liberty. Gray writes with the courage of his convictions, bluntly addressing the most controversial elements of the drug war. For example, he asserts that politicians offer slavish loyalty to the drug war because it is "fundable," not because it is winnable. Similarly, Gray details how drug prosecutions have both whittled away at constitutional protections and corrupted many police agencies. He even takes the radical step of humanizing drug users. Without assuming a libertarian stance, he establishes that the risks to an individual who is determined to use drugs are dwarfed by the harm caused to the community by overaggressive policing and the criminal economy. Gray's crisp prose is mercifully short on legalese, and his book has the structural clarity of an accessible legal text. This quality, and the sensible passion of Gray's conclusions, will make this a crucial reference for those politicians, voters, activists and law enforcement agencies seeking to reform established policy".
http://www.judgejimgray.com
As a native Californian within Silicon Valley, I have seen innovation up close and personal. Proposition 13 severely limited the property taxes that could be collected and created a tremendous void in our budget income. This is a small way to try and recover on the back of an industry that already exists.
Pot has always been available because our climate is ideal for its cultivation and the underground distribution channels probably rival those of booze during prohibition.
The opponents to its legalization will try and corral pot with much more addictive drugs such as crystal meth, heroin and cocaine but there is no comparison. I think you will find highly placed individuals, that have or do smoke, anonymously assisting in its legalization. We're talking Apple, Google, Yahoo and YouTube MONEY.
As said earlier, there are countries, even though smaller than California, that have been existing with legal pot for decades with no negative results.
Other industry will also see upticks as well. Pizza, cookie, and cereal sales will skyrocket!
republicans brought prop 13
cut taxes
it hamstrung the state for revenue
california has been struggling ever since
republicans refuse to raise taxes
to work the state out of the hole
now the chickens have come home to roost
massive debt balanced by cutting public and social programs
less police
less firemen
gutting of care for the underprivileged
this is the world republicans have created and
they continue to go down this destructive social road
it's all in the self interest of more money for self
when the haves have it all and the all the have nots are at the gate
who's going to protect them?
the french revolution american style
should be an interesting show
i'm sure you don't want to be there...
tax pot and tax the elected dopes in sacramento. pot cannot be any worse for california than the big spenders in sacramento.
I was going to write something profound here, but I can't remember what I was going say...
HA!
That happens to me
There is a major problem out here with illegal growers destroying the environment. If pot were legalized, and farmed efficiently as on commercial farms, this would undercut the illegal growers. What they do is way to labor intensive and with commercialization the prices would have to come down. Seems to me this would get the illegals out of our wild lands.
high time to legalize it.
Another benefit of legalization: Legalizing marijuana here in California will cut into the profits of Mexican drug cartels.
pot is a toe-nail clipping in size of drug money from cocaine
Law Enforcements only real objection to the legalization of pot is they would lose some of the millions of $ given to them to fight the "war on drugs". It's the money stupid! It's an industry that they want to maintain no matter how much misery they cause.
Most comments (except 2 or 3) miss the thrust of the article and make the author's point that cannabis is distracting voters from the fiscal crisis that is ruining California. We can only hope that Californians give more power to legislators to save them from themselves.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.