So I started a thread on this when it was first announced that it was getting on to the ballot, but now that we have some specifics and a prop number assigned might as well get another one going. I mean, we’ve got this shiny new forum and all…
Anyway here it is: Prop 19. To be voted on November 2nd.
I’m kind of surprised I haven’t seen any real campaigning yet with the election only 3 months and change away. This is going to be a big issue that will bring a lot of people to the polls on both sides and if the prelim polls are any indication it will be close but it’s favored to pass.
So how will this change the landscape of California if it does? Think Starbucks will start offering a ganja latte? It’s going to be a very interesting time. In addition to whatever tax revenue comes in it’s really going to boost our tourism industry.
Interesting, this poll shows it winning 50% - 40%. Just a few days ago the Field Pollreported it losing 44% - 48%.
So it’s right on the cusp right now. Historically, a proposition has to be winning by well over 50% at this time to have any chance, because almost all undecideds end up voting no.
The article I linked about the SurveyUSA poll mentions that Field poll and comments on the disparity. It posits that there may be a Bradley effect because the Field poll was conducted with a live interviewer while the SurveyUSA poll was not.
It’s still against federal law, and while federal agents don’t do much drug law enforcement in California, large cannabusinesses would attract their attention. So, no Ganja Latte for you!
If this does pass, my guess is that sales would initially happen through the same channels as with MMJ now. You wouldn’t need the doctor’s recommendation anymore to get in, but the more conservative localities would continue to ban them just as they do now. I also expect that the current administration would would continue with its hands-off attitude. OTOH, if the Republicans take back the WH in 2012, I think the DEA will be shutting all the outlets down come January 21, 2013.
One interesting thing about this I haven’t heard mentioned is that, like most states, California enacted its MJ prohibition law before there was any Federal law; in CA’s case it was around 1915. If it comes to a Federal-State challenge in court, it probably won’t make any difference. But if the proposition does win, I can’t help thinking it would be only proper for Californians to decide when they want to end MJ prohibition in their state, just as 100 years ago they were among the first to enact it.
For those who don’t know, the president of the local NAACP chapter voiced her support for the proposition, citing the disproportionate effect of MJ prohibition on people of color. Predictably, the AA churches are not pleased with this announcement and plan to mobilize for the “no” side. So one can see the possibility of a concerted effort to stop Proposition 19 arising from a whole spectrum of conservative religions groups. Yet even now, this uproar may be fizzling; I’m not hearing anything more about it, although truth be told I haven’t been looking that hard.
Here in L.A. those dispensaries are everywhere (literally - there are 4 or 5 within a block from my apartment. The city has been trying to trim down the number, but if this prop passes it’s going to be insane how much business they’ll do. I predict lines down the block… and I agree with you about the DEA; they won’t be intervening at least if things remain as they are now.
I’m cautiously optimistic. If this thing passes, and it can be shown to generate substantial tax revenue, other cash strapped states are going to take a hard look at it. Tax increases in this economy are a hard sell in my state, which is very Red. Yet, we’ve already slashed the budget, and revenues are still dropping, with unemployment over 20% in some rural counties. A tax on marijuana would be a relatively painless way to boost revenue. Nobody really gets hurt by it, preachers can still rail against the vile weed, but maybe we could keep paying the teachers we have left…
What does it need to pass? 60%? Good luck to it, I say. Even if it doesn’t generate substantial revenue, it will save California billions in enforcement and incarceration costs.
If it passes what happens to those serving sentences on state drug charges for marijuana? Given the current prison overcrowding, maybe they’ve already been paroled, so it doesn’t matter.
The reduction in costs in the enforcement, judicial, prison and parole systems, plus the tax revenues it could earn makes this a big winner for the budget.
Let’s see–less public debt, smaller government, less of a nanny state. That’s a hat trick! I so hope it passes.
Nope. Tax increases or new taxes need a supermajority to pass here. I think it’s 66% unless the money goes to schools in which case it’s 55%. I’m not positive on the numbers but I am sure that it’s less for school taxes.
The MJ one is not a new tax. It’s making something legal to sell so there will now be a normal sales tax on it. It only needs 50%+1 to pass.
Huh. I guess all the crazy initiatives spending money we don’t have have been bond measures, then. Which seems like it should require a higher threshold than new taxes if you ask me, but no one ever does.
Bond measures also require a supermajority in the same percentages, two-thirds must vote for it unless it’s for schools in which case it’s 55%. We also require a supermajority of the legislature to pass a budget which is really why it takes so long to do so in most years.
The supermajority for bond issues and tax increases were part of the infamous Prop 13. The reduction to 55% for schools was via Initiative several years ago. I believe that it’s flip-flopped back and forth between 67% and 55% a time or two.
Actually, the situation with bond measures is complicated. Local bond measures often require a supermajority, but statewide bond measures usually do not.
