VOTERS WON'T APPROVE LEGAL POT UNTIL ADVOCATES EARN THEIR TRUST

The defeat of Proposition 19, while disappointing, was neither
unexpected nor surprising. The best strategic thinkers in the
cannabis movement and the top political consultants all cautioned
against placing Prop. 19 on the ballot this election cycle, and urged
proponents to wait until the general election in 2012.

Now, the cannabis movement is asking, why did Prop. 19 lose? How did
we go wrong, and what can we do about it?

The language and provisions of Prop. 19, which would have legalized
cannabis for recreational use for people over 21, have been widely
criticized and were admittedly less than perfect in the eyes of both
cannabis consumers and the wary general public but they were not the
decisive factor in its defeat. The low turnout typical of midterm
elections and young voters was no doubt a contributing factor, but
also not decisive. And it's not clear that more funding would have
made a difference Prop. 19 backers exponentially outspent the opposition.

I believe at the root, California voters decided against Prop. 19
because they still are not convinced that cannabis can be legally
distributed in a safe, seemly and responsible fashion. Voters will
not welcome cannabis into their communities until it is demonstrated
that it can be done in a way that is not threatening to the health
and welfare of their families.

Poll after poll has established that Californians, like voters
nationwide, overwhelmingly support medical cannabis 70 percent
nationwide in the latest Gallup poll. Public opinion surveys also
consistently show that voters in California and nationwide are
significantly less likely to approve of fully legal cannabis. I think
these statistics indicate that voters are taking a wait-and-see approach.

If medical cannabis appears to work out well, they may consider
further reform. If not, they may continue to have reservations about
legalization. Since 1996, California voters have been watching our
state's experiment with the legal distribution of medical cannabis.
Unfortunately, the performance of this nascent industry has been spotty.

Cities like Oakland and Berkeley, which moved quickly to establish
good faith regulation of medical cannabis, have been rewarded with
responsible and trouble-free dispensaries. However, many
jurisdictions either entirely failed to regulate dispensaries or
bungled the process. The prime example is Los Angeles, where the City
Council first delayed regulation and then failed to enforce its own
regulations. Similar situations unfolded across the state, from San
Diego to Richmond.

The result in the unregulated areas was an uncontrolled proliferation
of entirely inappropriate dispensaries and related businesses. Shoddy
and sometimes shady storefronts sprouted up, often in close proximity
to schools or other sensitive locations. Over-saturation in the
marketplace led to sleazy promotional strategies, like bikini-clad
"nurses" on roller skates. Leaflets were distributed to school kids;
neon cannabis leaf signs beckoned from downtown windows, and that
which was intended for patients was forced on the public at large.

Many California voters understandably were soured by the experience.

Until these voters see that medical cannabis can be properly
distributed in a way that brings benefits to communities, rather than
harming them, they will not feel comfortable further extending access
to cannabis. They will not authorize even more extensive cannabis
sales until the existing medical cannabis system is healthy and functional.

In the wake of Prop. 19, the task of the cannabis movement is clear.
Over the next two years, we must demonstrate to our fellow citizens
that we are worthy of the trust we are asking for. We must develop
and launch positive models of medical cannabis distribution. We must
show California that cannabis can be cultivated and sold in a fashion
that brings benefits to communities.

The cannabis reform movement should focus its efforts on passing
reasonable, win-win regulation of medical cannabis sales in
California jurisdictions that have not yet done so. In jurisdictions
that have regulated medical cannabis, the movement must do everything
it can to ensure that only legitimate and professional dispensaries
are licensed and patronized.

When most Californians have directly experienced the civic benefits
that result from well-regulated cannabis sales in their own
jurisdictions, then the time will be ripe to ask them to expand
access to all adult Californians. If we do not shrink from holding
the mirror to our own community; if we equally insist on effective
regulation and positive models of cannabis distribution; if we earn
the trust of our fellow citizens, then our time will come in 2012.