Are you sure about that? I seem to recall that at least as recently as 2004, we had a raft of propositions funding various pet projects via bond initiatives which passed by simple (and in some cases narrow) majorities. For example:
Proposition 55, $12.3 billion in bonds issued to renovate public schools, passed 51% to 49%.
Proposition 63, which raised state income taxes to pay for health services, passed 54% to 46%.
Proposition 71, $3 billion bonds issued to fund stem cell research, passed 59% to 41%.
There were a bunch of others, but you get the idea.
Ballot initiatives need only a simple majority, if no new taxes are imposed. IIRC the notorious Proposition 8 in 2008 didn’t get anywhere near two thirds approval, but it passed.
Statewide propositions and countywide measures all require a two-thirds majority if they impose a tax at a definite rate. L.A. County’s Measure R, which imposed a $.005 sales tax to fund transit projects won so narrowly that it took them months to count the last ballots tricking in, before they could certify it.
But is Prop 19 a tax proposition if it allows an unspecified tax rate on a product that will not be legal until and unless the law comes into force? Probably not. I expect that the two-thirds rule would apply to subsequent efforts to levy such taxes, which would be separate laws.
Even more curious, can localities impose and collect taxes on a commodity that remains illegal under Federal law? Probably not, strictly speaking, but the Feds might be inclined to disregard it, especially if the tax money so collected is used to ensure proper regulation of a legal MJ market.
Again, I don’t think this is true – click my link to Proposition 63, which imposed a 1% state income tax increase on everyone earning over $1,000,000/year.
There aren’t a lot of people in prison for just simple possession, but there are probably many more who were convicted of it, or pled to it, along with other crimes listed in the complaint or indictment. If Prop 19 passes, I imagine every one of these people will be calling their attorneys to try to get the pot charges knocked off–what the hell, if it knocks a couple years off the sentence, why not?
IANAL but I believe the basic principle is supposed to be that a repealed law does not automatically void any convictions, or commute the sentences of those convicted of its violation. For example, if you are guilty of tax evasion and then the law imposing that tax is repealed, you still should have paid the tax. But if history is our guide, this sort of thing does happen. For instance, not long after Prohibition was repealed, there were a few people serving life sentences for simple possession in Michigan, which had a much stricter alcohol policy than the Federal prohibition law. It took a few years, but they got out.
I’ve a hunch that, even if they can’t get out (or have their sentences reduced, or whatever) just by virtue of the new law, that they’d probably still be good candidates for a pardon or commutation by the governor. Even more so since, if I’m not mistaken, the current governor is very pot-friendly.
I believe he is on record as opposing the measure.
If it goes down to defeat, we can thank the soccer moms. Who probably smoked their share back in their own youth, but recoil at the idea of their own snowflakes ever getting their hands on the demon weed. Polling shows that women are the group most opposed.
I predict that the measure will go down to defeat. Lots of interest groups around to fund ads opposed to the measure, law enforcement, bible thumpers, heck even the growers up in Humboldt are against the measure because they believe it will reduce the price they can get for their crops. Who out there will fund advertising in support? So the measure is likely to lose support as the fear mongering ads start to roll.
Sad, really. It would strike a big blow against the senseless war on drugs once the rest of the nation sees that the sky didn’t fall after legalizing it here. Of course the voters will vote for any damn measure that increases the bonded indebtedness… Stupid voters. :mad:
See my post upthread. Some prominent AA religious leaders have already excoriated the L.A. chapter president of the NAACP for endorsing prop 19. I expected this would lead almost immediately to a tidal wave of religion-based, concerted opposition efforts, and I’m surprised to see that that hasn’t happened yet.
Other news: A major food service workers’ union signed on; sorry I forget which one it was.
ETA: In this context, perhaps I’d better explain that I mean African American, not Alcoholics Anonymous.
From the publicity in the news about these dispensaries, it’s easy to get the idea that it’s like something out of Cheech and Chong come to life. For one thing, they generally offer a dozen or more “strains” of cannabis, and the names of these strains sound unfortunately like something out stoner movie–e.g. “Purple Kush”, “Silver Haze”, and “White Widow” to name a few. The fact is, however, that these strains have different characteristics as to general strength and as to the genetic makeup of the plant; some are more sativa and some are more indica–which in turn is supposed to make different strains more suitable for different ailments. In essence, the proffering of all these different varieties with giggle-inducing names is not done so they can pretend they’re an Amsterdam coffeeshop, but so an appropriate remedy can be offered, and customers and sellers can have rational discussions about their effects.
In reality, the shops are discretely conducted, not least because in the City of L.A. most have been forced to close. If you weren’t looking for them, you wouldn’t even know they were there. More than anything else, it appears to me to be like a subculture operating quietly under our very noses. I think if more of the general public were aware of this, there would be a lot less concern and fear about cannabis, even among the soccer moms.
I find it amazing that my generation (I was in college in the late 60s) is now “in charge” and marijuana (a rallying cry of that era) still isn’t legalized. Sigh.
In fact, states and localities have been known to tax commodities that were illegal under their own law, too, as when Mississippi in 1944 (then thirty-seven years into a fifty-nine-year state “bone dry” law) enacted a ten percent sales tax on “tangible personal property, the sale of which is prohibited by law.”
Enforcement priorities. The state evidently decided that collecting the tax was better than pretending to interdict liquor and not collecting the tax. Yet Mississippians continued to stagger to the polls to vote dry.
For those interested, an opinion piece in today’s L.A. Times. Among other things, it points out that legalization would run counter to both Federal law and international treaties, and will likely be rendered moot by a Federal crackdown, in the event that it wins.
Mark Kleiman, in that OpEd, rests his thesis on these premises:
1a)Pot possession and manufacture will remain illegal under federal law.
1b)Anyone operating a licensed business under CA law will be confessing to federal crimes, in writing.
2)The Feds aren’t going after MMJ in CA due to “good legal and constitutional reasons”.
3)Legal MJ would be much cheaper leading to CA becoming supply hub for pot in US & Canada, displacing other sources. To prevent this, Feds would go after legal growers in CA.
All of these are shaky or unpersuasive.
1)The MMJ allowed in CA since a dozen years now has remained illegal throughout under Federal law. Many of the dispensaries that operate in CA are licensed i.e. they too have confessed in writing to acts illegal under federal law.
2a)The Bush admin did go after MMJ dispensaries. So did the DEA under Obama, both before & after his stance to not do so. The AG’s decision rationale is based on “an assessment of how to allocate scarce enforcement resources” and not the sanctity of the state over medical practice. There’s no talk of good constitutional/legal reasons. If it were so, the FDA would become almost toothless.
2b)The international treaties do disallow legalizing drugs for recreational use, but here’s the thing: the US is the big dog in the international drug policy arena. What consequences does the US really expect to suffer should CA pass Prop 19?
3)Pot is much cheaper in Mexico, yet it doesn’t maintain that price band in Chicago or New York. Any bulk pot shipped out of CA still has to pass through hostile territory, same as cheap Mexican weed. The same risk premium applies. Pot may become modestly cheaper elsewhere, but no collapse of current pricing levels should be expected.
