I can imagine the ad campaign: “Remember to NOT smoke on Nov. 2nd until AFTER you’ve voted!” and “Yes on [measure #]” stickers designed to be placed upside down on bongs.
Poll numbers swing around the midpoint. I’m not going to post cites, but as a whole, voters favor legalization by a narrow margin. This is a general election, and polls predicting defeat centered on primary voters. On the other hand, this is a midterm election, and the relatively conservative demographic for those swings against legalization. The fact that the governor is elected midterm mitigates that effect in California, but how the Jerry Brown/Meg Whitman match-up swings is anybody’s guess. Republicans, for some reason, are excited about Whitman, and may show up at the polls in greater numbers than Democrats, who are lukewarm about Brown. It’s close, but I think the trend is against legalization, and for Whitman (and as a leftie, I am sickened as I type that).
Just getting it on the ballot, keeping it in the news, is a good step. May lead to decrim in a couple of more states, and hopefully even more sanity over time.
The terrible state of so many states’ balance sheets might be enough to make some serious progress.
Rather Meg than Carly, though.
Carly’s not running for governor (she’s running for Barbara Boxer’s senate seat, and she’s behind big time), but all the same – how do you figure? Both are abysmally ignorant, supremely arrogant, and reality-challenged to boot, but at least Carly Fiorina has some recent exposure to public policy. Whitman hasn’t looked at serious politics ever in her life – she’s more ignorant of legislative realities than Schwarzenegger was, without his excuse that it was a short run-up recall election.
I’ve never cared much for Dianne Feinstein, but I’m starting to wish she was running, and not Jerry.
It is indeed weighing on many minds (and scales) here.
Well, mostly because of Carly’s tendency to hire spies to go through the personal information of journalists and other people working for her. I’d have to say that’s really pretty damn bad.
This is a State which is so backwards, like many others, it can’t even let lesbians marry. No way will it pass. I wonder which “subgroup” it will be this time who spearheads defeating it.
It’ll still be illegal under federal law, right?
I really hope it passes or if it fails, it can at least be the first step in decriminalization. I haven’t smoked pot in 25 years but I may consider giving it a try again, although the last time I smoked it made me paranoid as shit.
One of the bad things about legalization is that it certainly won’t help with our overweight problems in this country. Munchies!
Chill, man. It’s not like cops are gonna come busting down the door any second because they smelled our pot, or anything.
I mean, unless they’re *federal *cops… dude, you gonna hit that or what?
About time we decided to give the narks something better to do!
Stupid question: what’s the difference between decriminalization and legalization?
Hey Vinyl Turnip I wouldn’t even know where to look to get a bong nowadays or where to hide it if the MAN shows up. 
You’re right, I need to chill. 
Decriminalization: we don’t condone it, and you can’t openly sell it, but we aren’t going to hassle you (much) if you are holding or growing your own. Maybe a $100 fine.
Legalization: we condone it and are going to tax the shit out of it.
To expand on that, the really stupid thing about decriminalization is that it makes punishments for minor possession minimal to the point of it being a joke while keeping the penalties for possession/distribution of large quantities fairly stiff.
Even now in California, possession of under 1 ounce (and an ounce is quite a lot for personal consumption) is only a citable offense like a traffic ticket, less serious than a misdemeanor. But if you’re caught with several pounds of the stuff and you’re not an authorized medicinal supplier than you could be going away for quite a few years.
I dunno about a bong, but water pipes (you know - for tobacco) are available at anyplace that sells incense and blacklight posters.
It would be interesting to see how the DEA tries to deal with legalization, possession (intra-state) and the state borders. I have a feeling they’ll be trying to drum up support with cross-border towns in other states for grants of money and materials in order to beef up interdiction.
Rather than one-horse towns that exist only as speed-traps, you could have one-horse towns that thrive off of DEA money and confiscated personal possessions and vehicles.
Older Californians will remember that we had a legalization proposition on the ballot once or twice in the 1970s, but it garnered only about 20 or 30 percent. From the perspective of its backers, this might have justified a celebration even so, since – presumably – to reach that figure a lot of non-users evidently supported it. For the 2010 proposition conditions appear to be a good deal more favorable, but I’m less sanguine about the inevitable conflict with federal laws.
I’m definitely in favor of legalization as a general thing, but I do have concerns about how it’s going to be handled. Even if it isn’t directly toxic, it’s a strong drug nonetheless and it should be treated with respect. It will be difficult for public health officials to convey this message, when before the message was to avoid it completely.
There was an interesting reference to this issue in today’s L.A. Times. The article’s gist was that federal suits against HCR by individual states were unlikely to succeed because of the outcome of an earlier suit concerning private cultivation of cannabis within a state. The underlying principle seems to have been that, even though someone merely growing cannabis for his own needs was not directly engaging in any commerce, let alone interstate commerce, his actions still impacted interstate commerce conducted by others. In short, the precedent is an encouraging one if you support HCR, but not so much if you support intrastate self-determination in defiance of a Federal statute.