IF PEOPLE OPPOSE THE MARIJUANA INITIATIVE IN CALIFORNIA, ARE THEY
PROHIBITIONISTS?

The Marijuana Policy Project has largely sat out the campaign to end
marijuana prohibition in California this election cycle, but the
recent escalation of infighting among allies who claim to support
marijuana legalization has inspired me to speak out, and firmly.

The best way to explain is to tell a true story about something that
happened just across the border, in Nevada, in 2006.

MPP was in the midst of campaigning for our ballot initiative to tax
and regulate marijuana like alcohol in Nevada. (Only six statewide
initiatives to end marijuana prohibition have ever been voted on --
one in California in 1972, one in Oregon in 1986, two in Alaska in
2000 and 2004, and two in Nevada in 2002 and 2006. The highest
voter-getters were the 2004 Alaska initiative and the 2006 Nevada
initiative; each received 44% of the vote.)

Surprisingly, one of the leading libertarians in Nevada -- someone who
had real access to mainstream media outlets -- told me he was going to
oppose our initiative. The reason? As a libertarian, he didn't like
taxes, and he didn't like regulations.

I explained to him that it's one thing to be disappointed with the
exact wording of the initiative, but it's another thing to actually
oppose the initiative. He didn't budge.

I then pointed out that if he opposed the initiative, he would also
have to endorse making alcohol illegal. "How interesting," he said,
wondering what I meant.

I expounded that -- by campaigning and voting against the marijuana
initiative -- he would be choosing to keep marijuana illegal instead
of taxing and regulating it. So, if prohibition is somehow preferable
to taxes and regulations, he should prefer alcohol prohibition over
alcohol being taxed and sold in bars and restaurants.

I never heard from him again, even to this day. But, to his credit, he
ended up not campaigning against the initiative, I think because he's
well known to be intellectually honest and consistent.

The same dilemma now faces anti-prohibitionists in California, except,
unfortunately, some anti-prohibitionists are choosing to advocate for
prohibition, because Prop. 19 isn't "perfect enough," they imply.

One need not be a lawyer to find something not to like about Prop. 19,
if one looks hard enough. The initiative gives local governments the
option to prohibit or legalize the sale of marijuana; perhaps you
prefer not to give local governments any option at all? The initiative
allows all adults to possess up to one ounce of marijuana; perhaps you
prefer a pound or more? The initiative allows all adults to grow 25
square feet of marijuana; perhaps you prefer not allowing
grow-your-own at all?

These kinds of debates are legitimate and -- to be sure -- it's
literally impossible to reach a consensus on any of these points
before or even after a statewide initiative is drafted and qualified
for the ballot. So the issue isn't whether a consensus can be reached.

Rather, the issue is whether anti-prohibitionists really want their
souls to be burdened with voting to prohibit marijuana -- which is
what they'd be doing by voting against Prop. 19 on November 2.

Have you ever heard a marijuana user say the following? "I don't want
marijuana to become legal, because it would take the fun out of it. It
would make it less glamorous."

I respond to such pea-brained declarations of adolescent rebellion by
saying, "Oh, because you want to have more fun, you therefore want the
government to continue arresting more than 800,000 people every year
for what you, yourself, are doing? And you want to spend my tax money
- -- and yours -- to accomplish this?"

How selfish.

Of course, to be fair, people who say they like the glamour of being
an outlaw don't really want more than 800,000 of their brethren to be
arrested every year for marijuana. It's just that the glamour-seekers
are losing sight of what's really important: They're choosing a public
policy that resonates with them (keeping marijuana allegedly "cool"
because it's illegal), while inadvertently overlooking the horrible
byproduct of that choice (arresting the equivalent of every man,
woman, and child in the state of Montana every year, forever).

So, to bring it back to California, it's important that opponents of
Prop. 19 at least be intellectually honest: By opposing the initiative
for whatever reasons one has, the tradeoff is that more than 60,000
people will continue to be cited for marijuana offenses every year in
California. That's not something that I'd want to have on my conscience.

Going back to the top of this column: Many people who remember the
1972 initiative in California, which lost with 34% of the vote, muse
nostalgically about how great it would have been if that initiative
had passed ... how it would have changed the whole course of events,
especially in the midst of President Nixon's administration. But have
you read that initiative? It was inferior to this year's initiative in
California.

And you know what? Coincidentally, they're both labeled "Prop. 19."
The first Prop. 19 failed 38 years ago; do we really want to lose
again, in just a few weeks?

Please visit Yeson19.com to support the current campaign.