AS THE SMOKE CLEARS

Another Look at the Defeat of California's Decriminalization Referendum

When it comes to analyzing voters' rejection last week of California's
marijuana legalization measure, the question is one of perception: Is
the joint half-smoked, or is there a half remaining yet to burn?

Given this paper's marathon editorial calling for an end to the drug
war - especially the war on marijuana dealers and smokers - we think a
little postmortem of the California Prop. 19 vote is in order. (To get
another take on the outcome, check out this week's Higher Ground
column by John Sinclair.)

Looked at one way, it was a resounding defeat. As the Christian
Science Monitor reported, "The controversial measure not only lost,
but it lost by a wide margin across most of the state." When all the
ballots were counted, the "no" side had achieved a 54-46 victory.

Among the places where the measure lost was the Emerald Triangle
region of Northern California, an area where, as the San Francisco
Chronicle pointed out, marijuana is the "biggest economic engine," and
the potential to market the region as the "Napa Valley of pot" could
be a real economic boon. The thinking is that growers there feared
losing significant income because of a possibly huge drop in prices if
the measure had passed.

From where we sit, the fact that criminals are worried about the
negative impact passage of a reform measure would have on business is
a strong argument in favor of reform. When criminals are in favor of
retaining an existing law that targets them, you have to believe that
law ain't exactly working.

There are other reasons to believe that, for those who favor
legalization, there's cause to be optimistic about the direction
things are headed in. For starters, there's the huge shift in public
sentiment that has already occurred. The last time Californians voted
on a pot legalization measure was back in 1972, when only 33.5 percent
of the voters were in favor. Given that margin of defeat, looking at
closing the 5 percent gap that existed after votes were counted last
week doesn't seem at all insurmountable.

That's even truer when you consider that, according to one recent
poll, about 70 percent of people 30 and under favor legalization.
Voter turnout among that age group was pitiful last week. But if that
demographic shows up in force in 2012, the way they did in 2008, it
could be a whole different story. According to several reports,
backers of the measure - which would have allowed adults to possess up
to an ounce, and to grow small plots of weed for personal consumption
- - are already anticipating a comeback attempt two years from now.

Among other things, the way opponents waged this battle shows how far
the issue has come. News stories indicate that opponents realized
early on that Reefer Madness-style scare tactics held little sway over
an electorate that has a fairly realistic view of pot and its
potential dangers. As a result, opponents zeroed in on flaws in the
law itself, rather than an outright attack on marijuana in general.

That means a better-crafted law could be especially difficult to
defeat.

Prop. 19 had other hurdles to overcome as well. Shortly before the
election, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law reducing the penalty
for simple marijuana possession from a misdemeanor to the equivalent
of a traffic ticket, with a $100 fine.

That had to take some steam out of the momentum to legalize. And, as
one writer pointed out, with a loosely written medical marijuana law
already in place, most everyone seriously interested in not getting
busted for smoking has already found a way to do so by getting an
easily obtained patient card.

Although Prop. 19 would have allowed local municipalities and counties
the authority to tax and regulate distribution outlets, the fact that
a hodgepodge of local ordinances would have resulted was something
that confused many voters, and thus contributed to the no vote.

Also cited as significant was U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's
pronouncement weeks before the election that the federal Department of
Justice would vigorously pursue all marijuana scofflaws even if the
state law were to pass.

That's disappointing coming from an administration that, if nothing
else, should seem to understand the idea of philosophical consistency.
And since the administration has already promised not to go after
medical marijuana users in states where sick people have been granted
the liberty to smoke, you would think that Barack Obama and crew would
follow the same path of logic and accede to the desires of voters in
any state that chooses to legalize weed in general.

What will be interesting to see in the months to come isn't whether
the legalization forces in California are ready to give voters a
re-roll, so to speak. That's seems pretty much a given. What we want
to know is whether, given the heavy-handed approach Michigan Attorney
General-elect Bill Schuette is likely to take, if the activists in
this state will find a way to make a push toward overall legalization
here.