High times ahead for California? ( Ziggy on MSNBC)

Reggae star and political activist Ziggy Marley explains how the legalization of marijuana could change California and the rest of the country.

Source MSNBC

California Pot Law Could Spark Court Action

an Francisco -- Federal officials haven't ruled out taking legal action if California voters approve a ballot initiative that would legalize recreational medical use in the state, President Barack Obama's drug czar said Wednesday.
In a phone interview with The Associated Press, Director of National Drug Control Policy Gil Kerlikowske said Justice Department officials are "looking at all their options" for responding to the measure, which would conflict with federal laws classifying marijuana as an illegal drug.

Among them, he said, is following the recommendation nine of the nation's former Drug Enforcement Agency chiefs made last month in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder: having Obama sue to overturn Proposition 19 as an affront to federal authority.
"The letter from the former DEA administrators, a number of whom are not only practicing attorneys but former state attorney generals, made it very clear that they felt that pre-emption was certainly applicable in this case," said Kerlikowske, the former police chief of Seattle.
Holder told the former DEA heads last week that that the U.S. government plans to "vigorously enforce" federal laws outlawing marijuana possession and distribution even if the activities are allowed under state law. But the attorney general did not respond directly to their suggestion that the administration should go to court if California passes the first-of-its-kind measure aimed at treating marijuana the same as alcohol.
Proposition 19, a state constitutional amendment on the November ballot, would allow adults at least 21 years old to possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana and grow 25-square-foot pot gardens for personal pleasure. It would also authorize county and city governments to regulate and tax commercial cultivation and sales.
Kerlikowske was in Southern California on Wednesday for a visit to a Pasadena drug treatment center where he planned to discuss new government data on marijuana abuse in California.

Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Lisa Leff, The Associated Press 

California's Prop 19: Dead on Arrival?

Attorney General Eric Holder says he will fight recreational marijuana use in California even if it becomes legal. Critics say he doesn't have the resources.

WATCH:

Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com

Eric Holder To Prosecute Distribution, Possession If Prop. 19 Passes

By Marcus Wohlsen

SAN FRANCISCO — Attorney General Eric Holder is warning that the federal government will not look the other way, as it has with medical marijuana, if voters next month make California the first state to legalize pot.

Marijuana is illegal under federal law, which drug agents will "vigorously enforce" against anyone carrying, growing or selling it, Holder said.

The comments in a letter to ex-federal drug enforcement chiefs were the attorney general's most direct statement yet against Proposition 19 and set up another showdown with California over marijuana if the measure passes.

With Prop 19 leading in the polls, the letter also raised questions about the extent to which federal drug agents would go into communities across the state to catch small-time users and dealers, or whether they even had the resources to do it.

Medical marijuana users and experts were skeptical, saying there was little the federal government could do to slow the march to legalization.

"This will be the new industry," said Chris Nelson, 24, who smokes pot to ease recurring back pain and was lined up outside a San Francisco dispensary. "It's taxable new income. So many tourists will flock here like they go to Napa. This will become the new Amsterdam."

If the ballot measure passes, the state would regulate recreational pot use. Adults could possess up to one ounce of the drug and grow small gardens on private property. Local governments would decide whether to allow and tax sales.

The Justice Department remains committed to enforcing the Controlled Substances Act in all states, Holder said.

"We will vigorously enforce the CSA against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law," he wrote.

The letter was dated Wednesday and was obtained by The Associated Press.

Holder also said legalizing recreational marijuana would be a "significant impediment" to the government's joint efforts with state and local law enforcement to target drug traffickers, who often distribute pot alongside cocaine and other drugs.

The attorney general said the ballot measure's passage would "significantly undermine" efforts to keep California cites and towns safe.

Officials in Los Angeles County, where authorities have aggressively moved to tamp down on an explosion of medical marijuana dispensaries, vowed that they would still assist the federal government in drug investigations.

County Sheriff Lee Baca and District Attorney Steve Cooley said at a news conference that the law would be unenforceable because it is trumped by federal laws that prohibit marijuana cultivation and possession.

"We will continue as we are today regardless of whether it passes or doesn't pass," Baca said. His deputies don't and won't go after users in their homes, but public use of the drug will be targeted, he said.

Both gubernatorial candidates – Democrat Jerry Brown and Republican Meg Whitman – oppose Prop 19 and declined comment Friday.

The ex-Drug Enforcement Administration chiefs sent a letter to Holder in August calling on the Obama administration to sue California if Prop 19 passes. They said legalizing pot presented the same threat to federal authority as Arizona's recent immigration law.

In that case, Justice Department lawyers filed a lawsuit to block the enforcement of the law, saying that it infringed on federal powers to regulate immigration and therefore violated the U.S. Constitution. The case is now before a federal appeals court.

Experts say the two situations are not the same.

If Arizona wants to crack down on illegal immigration more strictly than the federal government, the U.S. can act to prevent police in the state from enforcing the law, said Robert Mikos, a Vanderbilt University law professor who studies the conflicts between state and federal marijuana laws.

If California prevents police from enforcing the stricter federal ban on marijuana, the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government cannot order local law enforcement to act, he said.

It "is a very tough-sounding statement that the attorney general has issued, but it's more bark than bite," Mikos said.

"The same factors that limited the federal government's influence over medical marijuana would probably have an even bigger influence over its impact on recreational marijuana," Mikos said, citing not enough agents to focus on small-time violators.

Federal drug agents have long concentrated on big-time drug traffickers and left street-level dealers and users to local and state law enforcement. As police departments began enforcing California's medical marijuana law, the DEA only sporadically jumped in to bust medical users and sellers that local law enforcement was no longer targeting.

Allen Hopper, a drug law reform expert at the American Civil Liberties Union in Northern California, predicted that federal agents would selectively crack down on marijuana growers and merchants instead of going after every Californian who uses pot.

"They don't have the resources to flood the state with DEA agents to be drug cops," he said.

Nearly all arrests for marijuana crimes are made at the state level. Of more than 847,000 marijuana-related arrests nationwide in 2008, for example, just over 6,300 suspects were booked by federal law enforcement, or fewer than 1 percent.

Consequently, the fight over legalization may end up the same way medical marijuana did, experts said.

When Californians approved their first-in-the-nation medical marijuana law in 1996, Clinton administration officials vowed a harsh crackdown. But nearly 15 years later, California's billion-dollar medical marijuana industry is thriving.

During the Bush administration, retail pot dispensaries across the state faced regular raids from federal anti-drug agents. Their owners were sometimes sentenced to decades in prison for drug trafficking.

Yet the medical marijuana industry still grew, and it has expanded even more since Holder said last year that federal law enforcement would defer to state laws on using it for medicinal purposes.

Besides California, 13 other states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana in recent years.

At the San Francisco Medical Cannabis Club, where you can buy marijuana-filled carrot cake and lollipops, manager James Kyne said the federal government would just be continuing "an endless cycle" with little positive effect.

Holder "is opening a bigger can of worms," Kyne said. "I really think the AG and the federal government could put our tax dollars to better use."

___

Associated Press writers Pete Yost in Washington, Terry Collins and Lisa Leff in San Francisco, Samantha Young in Sacramento and Robert Jablon in Monterey Park, Calif., contributed to this report.

Legalizing Pot Won't Hinder Mexican Cartels

Santa Cruz, CA -- Mexico's drug traffickers are likely to lose customers in America's largest pot consuming state if California legalizes marijuana, but they won't lose much money overall because California's residents already prefer to grow their own, according to a study released Tuesday.
That means the proposal on the state's November ballot to legalize marijuana also will do little to quell the drug gangs' violent and sophisticated organizations that generate billions of dollars a year, according to the study by the nonpartisan RAND Drug Policy Research Center.

Californians, who make up one-seventh of the U.S. marijuana market, already are farming marijuana at a much higher rate than in neighboring states and tend to buy domestic rather than smuggled marijuana, the study found.
"We're already growing our own in California, so it's hard to see how we'd impact Mexico's market all that much," agreed Valerie Corral, a Santa Cruz, Calif., pot grower whose farm north of the city provides medical marijuana to members of a cooperative she helped found.

California voters will decide next month whether to legalize and tax their own recreational use of marijuana. The measure is closely watched in Mexico, where more than 28,000 people have died in drug violence since Mexico's President Felipe Calderon launched his crackdown on organized crime in late 2006. Both Calderon and President Barack Obama agree the vast profits cartels collect in the U.S. - estimated between $18 billion and $35 billion a year - fuel drug wars south of the border.
RAND found that less than $2 billion of those profits come from marijuana, though, and only about 3 percent of Mexican marijuana sales are in California.

Proponents of the proposition say they want to lower prison costs and find new revenue from marijuana taxes, and that the measure could reduce violence associated with the illegal drug trade in California and Mexico.

The Obama administration disagrees, and U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske told The Associated Press that the new study backs them up.
"This report shows that despite the millions spent on marketing the idea, legalized marijuana won't reduce the revenue or violence generated by Mexican drug trafficking organizations," said Kerlikowske, head of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy. "The bottom line is that increased access and availability to marijuana jeopardizes the health and safety of our citizens."
Some former law enforcement officials, however, said it's hard to imagine there wouldn't be major cartel profits at stake.

"It's ridiculous to claim that ending prohibition won't have a big financial impact on these violent criminals' bottom lines," said Stephen Downing, a supporter of Prop. 19 and a former Los Angeles Police Department deputy chief of police.

But the RAND study concludes the only way to cut into the cartels' profits would be the unlikely scenario of legal marijuana growers taking over cartel distribution elsewhere in the U.S. Under that scenario, Mexican drug trafficking organizations, currently providing at least half the marijuana in the U.S., would lose roughly 20 percent of their total drug export revenues. Their remaining profits from more lucrative drugs like cocaine and heroin would continue to flow.

"If that happens, then legalization could reduce some of the Mexican drug violence in the long run," said Beau Kilmer, the study's lead author and co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center.
But the study authors said they don't believe the federal government will stand idly by if home-grown smugglers were to capture the entire national market now held by Mexico-sourced marijuana.

"It would be difficult not to notice that the quantities produced and perhaps even taxed were vastly larger than what is needed to supply the California market alone," said the study.
But some say it's already beginning to happen.

"Smuggling in the U.S will be easy, as marijuana can be shipped to consumers in other states through our mail system, said economist John Carnevale, a drug policy expert who has worked with the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy for three administrations. "There is anecdotal information that this is already occurring."

Former San Jose, Calif., police chief Joseph McNamara says the proposed law's key goal isn't aimed at resolving Mexico's drug violence, and questioned RAND's assumptions about marijuana use and sales.
"Can a state facing a $19 billion dollar deficit casually pass up a chance to tax a product that escapes taxation only because it is illegal?" he asked.


Source: Associated Press (Wire)
Author: Martha Mendoza, Associated Press 

Cannabis should be sold in shops alongside beer and cigarettes, doctors' journal says

An editorial in the British Medical Journal suggested that the sale of cannabis should be licensed like cigarettes because banning it had not worked. Photo: PA

An editorial in the British Medical Journal suggested that the sale of cannabis should be licensed like alcohol because banning it had not worked.

Banning cannabis had increased drug-related violence because enforcement made “the illicit market a richer prize for criminal groups to fight over”.

An 18-fold increase in the anti-drugs budget in the US to $18billion between 1981 and 2002 had failed to stem the market for the drug.

In fact cannabis related drugs arrests in the US increased from 350,000 in 1990 to more than 800,000 a year by 2006, with seizures quintupling to 1.1million kilogrammes.

The editorial, written by Professor Robin Room of Melbourne University, said: “In some places, state controlled instruments - such as licensing regimes, inspectors, and sales outlets run by the Government - are still in place for alcohol and these could be extended to cover cannabis.”

Prof Room suggested that state-run off licences from Canada and some Nordic countries could provide “workable and well controlled retail outlets for cannabis”.

Prof Room suggested the current ban on cannabis could come to alcohol prohibition, which was adopted by 11 countries between 1914 and 1920.

Eventually it was replaced with “restrictive regulatory regimes, which restrained alcohol consumption and problems related to alcohol until these constraints were eroded by the neo-liberal free market ideologies of recent decades”.

The editorial concluded: “The challenge for researchers and policy analysts now is to flesh out the details of effective regulatory regimes, as was done at the brink of repeal of US alcohol prohibition.”

Campaigners criticised the editorial. Mary Brett, a retired biology teacher, said: “The whole truth about the damaging effects of cannabis, especially to our children with their still-developing brains, has never been properly publicised.

“The message received by children were it to be legalised would be, ‘It can't be too bad or the Government wouldn't have done this’.

“I know - I taught biology to teenage boys for 30 years. So usage will inevitably go up - it always does when laws are relaxed.

“Why add to the misery caused by our existing two legal drugs, alcohol and tobacco?”

Earlier this year, Fiona Godlee, an editor of the Journal, which is run by the British Medical Association, endorsed an article by Steve Rolles, head of research at Transform, the drugs foundation, which called for an end to the war on drugs and its replacement by a legal system of regulation.

Dr Godlee said: “Rolles calls on us to envisage an alternative to the hopelessly failed war on drugs. He says, and I agree, that we must regulate drug use, not criminalise it.”


Source telegraph..co.uk

A Dopey Measure on Marijuana

From Sacramento -- The state Capitol is pathetically dysfunctional. One in eight workers statewide is out of a job. UC Berkeley is arrogantly eliminating baseball. Things are not going well in California. What can we do?

Well, if Proposition 19 passes on the Nov. 2 ballot, we can all go get stoned. Legally. Buy some joints down at the corner convenience store. We can become an even bigger laughingstock to the nation.

It was tempting here to write again about the Capitol's broken governing system that resulted in another bumbling, bleary-eyed, all-night legislative session needed to pass a 100-day-late budget Friday.
But there's little left to say about this never-ending clown act. Besides, the adopted budget wasn't all that important. The hard decisions were left for the next governor and Legislature.
Prop. 19 is more interesting and would have a greater long-term impact on California.

The ballot initiative, bankrolled primarily by a prospering entrepreneur of the pot industry, would permit local governments to regulate and tax commercial cultivation and retail sales of marijuana. And it would permit all Californians at least 21 to grow and possess their own weed for personal use.
Such activity, however, still would violate federal law.

In California, selling marijuana for non-medicinal use is a felony. But possessing less than one ounce — about a sandwich baggie-full — is a low misdemeanor punishable by a fine.
Starting Jan. 1, pot smoking will be even less of a state crime. Under a bill recently signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, it will be deemed an infraction, equivalent to a traffic ticket.
Since 1996, when voters approved Prop. 215, it has been legal in California to grow, sell and smoke marijuana for medical purposes, subject to local control. A "patient" needs only a doctor's "recommendation," not a prescription.

Merely a quarter of buyers at medicinal pot shops "are truly in need of it because of a medical condition," says attorney George Mull, president of the California Cannabis Assn., which advocates "reasonable regulation of medical marijuana."
Mull opposes Prop. 19, illustrating a split in the marijuana community.
"We think it's kind of goofy to jump ahead to recreational marijuana when we haven't done medical marijuana correctly yet," he says.

"We'd like to see medical marijuana truly made legal. In many areas, you can grow your own but can't sell it. There should be a more incremental approach."
He adds that "this whole [initiative] was set up by folks trying to make millions."
That would be primarily Richard Lee of Oakland, founder of "Oaksterdam University," the nation's first marijuana trade school. Lee says his medical marijuana dispensary, nursery and other pot-related merchandising generate up to $7 million a year, according to a Times article by reporter John Hoeffel.
Lee is in a good position to make a bundle off marijuana legalization. So far, he has spent $1.5 million to qualify Prop. 19 for the ballot and pitch it to voters.
The pitch basically is this: Cops currently waste many millions chasing down nonviolent pot smokers. There's a $14-billion industry that could be taxed to help the debt-ridden state. And marijuana "prohibition" has created killer drug cartels.

Opponents counter that relatively little, in fact, is spent nabbing or prosecuting marijuana users. "There's nobody in jail for possessing less than one ounce of marijuana," says Fontana Police Chief Rod Jones.
State prison data show that fewer than 1% of inmates have been sentenced for marijuana crimes of any kind.
"Long, long ago in the John Lennon era, people got thrown in prison for possession of marijuana," says Cassandra Hockenson, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

"Not so much today."
Opponents also point out that there's no marijuana regulation or taxing provisions in the initiative. That would be left to local governments, and there'd be a confusing hodgepodge from county to county.
But Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) last week introduced legislation to create a uniform statewide regulatory system. "If 19 passes, we'll be ready," he asserts.
Prop. 19 supporters are united behind the belief that what someone inhales or ingests in the form of muffins or brownies ought to be his business only.
"Let the criminal justice system control people's actions, but not what they put into their bodies," says James P. Gray, a retired Orange County Superior Court judge, who describes himself as a libertarian "flame thrower."

And he adds: "Along those lines, it makes sense to me to strictly regulate and control heroin. It makes as much sense to put Robert Downey Jr. in jail for heroin addiction as it would have putting Betty Ford in jail for alcohol addiction."
Gray has long advocated the legalization of all drugs. "But let's start with marijuana," he says. "Each drug should be decided on its own merit."
Such talk scares Dr. David Sack, a psychiatrist and chief executive of Promises celebrity rehab centers. "Drugs cause tremendous hardships to children and families, and the risk of addiction goes up with exposure," he says.
"Marijuana is clearly addictive, impairs judgment and increases the risk of motor vehicle accidents and interferes with brain development, particularly in adolescents….
"The biggest concern I have is that legalization will create a societal validation that marijuana is not harmful."

Legalizing "recreational" dope would create yet another problem for the state.
Prop. 19 is a crackpot idea. Therefore, California voters just might pass it.
Note: California has enough problems without legalizing pot.


Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)
Author: George Skelton, Capitol Journal
Copyright: 2010 Los Angeles Times
Contact: letters@latimes.com
Website: latimes.com

Weed Reform Would Benefit All

Florida -- Nearly all of us have done it, everyone from Lil Wayne to President Barack Obama. Yes, we're talking about marijuana, pot, reefer, Mary Jane, whatever you want to call it.
Next month, California will vote on Proposition 19 - the Regulate Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 - and if it passes, it will decriminalize marijuana in the state of California. If the proposition passes, only a federal agency - such as the Drug Enforcement Administration - would be able to arrest pot smokers, but the odds of that happening are highly unlikely.

California has been a forerunner in marijuana reform laws.

In 1996, it was the first state to legalize medical marijuana, and since then, 13 other states and the District of Columbia have done the same.
Last week, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made a major stride by reducing the penalty for an ounce or less - about 30 joints - to an infraction, resulting in a small fine and no criminal record.
In Florida, if you are found with 20 grams or less - about 25 joints, or slightly less than an ounce - you may be forced to pay a $1,000 fine or spend a year in prison, along with a misdemeanor being added to your criminal record.
We think California should pass its marijuana mentality this way.
In the past, many have regarded marijuana as a gateway drug and have cautioned against its adverse health effects, but recent studies show that mind set is starting to burn out.
The Journal of Health and Social Behavior published a study last month which found that marijuana had very little to do with whether an individual eventually moved on to harder drugs.
Instead, the study contributed hard drug use to life factors such as employment status and stress.
According to the American Council for Drug Education, when smoking marijuana, one may experience dry mouth, impaired coordination, lack of balance, delayed reaction time and other mild symptoms associated with the high, many of which are similar to the effects caused by alcohol consumption.
As for long-term medical side effects, frequent marijuana users can experience chest colds, bronchitis, emphysema, bronchial asthma and, at worst, lung cancer.
These side effects are nearly identical to those caused by cigarette smoking, which is legal in the U.S.
A recent poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 52 percent of likely voters favor Prop. 19, and only 41 percent oppose it.
Really, this means the vote next month could go either way, but we're hoping to see the proposition pass.
We think that if passed, the proposition could generate much needed revenue through taxation and it would allow law enforcement officers to concentrate on more serious offenders.
A study by the Cato Institute found that if marijuana were legalized, regulated and taxed, it could potentially save $8.7 billion in law enforcement costs and generate $8.7 billion in revenue nationwide.
This sounds like a good idea to us.
We say that if people want to unwind and indulge in a little herbal therapy, they should be allowed to; we see no societal harm in people getting stoned and eating Twinkies.
We'll be keeping our fingers crossed and hoping that California voters decide to embrace their inner-hippy and vote to pass Proposition 19 in the upcoming election.
If history repeats itself, this proposition may pave the way for other states to adopt similar laws.
We can only hope that Florida will eventually jump on the bandwagon and decide to spark up.

Source: Central Florida Future (Orlando, FL Edu)
Published: Sunday, October 10, 2010
Copyright: 2010 Central Florida Future
URL: http://drugsense.org
Website: http://www.centralfloridafuture.com/

Future of Legalized Pot Hazy in California

Laytonville, Calif. -- The man in brightly colored tie-dye frowns when he grabs a pruner from his work shed and heads to his garden. James Taylor Jones approaches a bushy marijuana plant, 6 feet tall and almost as wide. The pruner's blade grabs hold of the stalk, and Jones squeezes the handles together. Snap.

He walks to another plant and does the same. "This one is Headband," Jones says, naming the variety. "Don't tell me that as you're cutting it," his wife, Fran Harris, pleads. Thus ends the Peace and Love Medical Marijuana Collective.

Here in Mendocino County — where generations of mom-and-pop outlaws have made a living growing pot and dodging the cops — who could have predicted that legality would be more uncertain than illegality?
For the first time in their lives, Jones and Harris expected to be completely legit pot entrepreneurs this year. But spooked by federal raids of other northern California growers, scared about the risks even though they said they followed state and local laws, they decided to shut the collective down midway through the growing season.
"We don't want to go to jail," Jones says. "It's that simple."
"It's such a huge gray area right now," Harris says. "What appears to be legal now might not be legal next year."
Stories like Jones and Harris' offer a reminder that marijuana legalization — if ever it comes — likely won't be a smooth process. Predictions of what a world of legalized marijuana would look like are based on assumptions that can't be verified and expectations that may prove slippery.
Pundits and some politicians extol the tax money legal marijuana could bring in. But if legalization sends prices plunging, so, too, would the revenue.
Others argue legalizing marijuana would cripple the black market. But if new regulations and taxes encourage growers and users to remain underground, the black market — and the drug cartels that feast on it — would continue to thrive.
Individual states may legalize marijuana first — California voters will decide this year on limited legalization. But if the federal government doesn't go along, does any of it really matter?
In short, all the things that make medical marijuana such a complicated and contentious issue would likely only intensify with full legalization.

Snipped


Complete Article: http://denverpost.com/
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Author: John Ingold, The Denver Post
Published: October 10, 2010
Copyright: 2010 The Denver Post Corp
Website: http://www.denverpost.com/
Contact: openforum@denverpost.com

If California Legalizes Marijuana, How Will Obama React?

California will vote in a few weeks on Proposition 19, which would ( if it passes ) effectively legalize the recreational use of marijuana in the state.  Chances of it passing seem to be growing, if you’ll excuse the metaphor, like a weed.  Right now, the poll numbers for Proposition 19 are better than the numbers for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown or Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer against their respective Republican opponents, for instance.

Meaning California could become a “test case” state in challenging federal laws on the matter.

But what would this mean, practically? Well, a lot of it hinges on how President Barack Obama reacts.

Which is impossible to say right now, but at least we can examine the possibilities, now that California legalizing  marijuana seems to have moved from the “pipe dream” category ( sorry about that, I couldn’t resist ) to a very real political possibility, if the polling trend continues.

The polling on Proposition 19 still does fluctuate, but appears to be getting better on average.

Eight of the last nine polls have shown Yes on Prop.  19 with a 4-11 point lead ( average lead: 7.1 percent ).  The best of these is less than a week old, and showed a 52-41 split.

In four of these, Yes on Prop.  19 scored at 50 percent or better.

Now, this doesn’t mean passage is a sure thing, at this point.

Seasoned supporters of state propositions don’t really begin to breathe easily until the polling for the proposition hits 55 percent or better ( which is usually seen as pretty much unbeatable ).  The highest poll yet in favor of Prop.  19 has been 53 percent, in comparison.  And, although probably an aberration, the most recent poll showed a stunningly different story with Prop.  19 losing 43-53.  Measuring it against the other polling, though, this Ipsos poll is likely an outlier.

Polling on the proposition is in itself questionable, for the simple reason that after 100 years of the “Drug War,” most citizens may have problems answering questions about drugs honestly when an absolute stranger calls them up and asks them.  But, overall, the polling is much better than it was even a few months ago, and the movement seems to be towards the Yes side.  The battle’s far from won, but it is looking more and more winnable, to put it another way.

If California does go ahead and legalize marijuana, the entire Proposition 19 campaign could bear some very interesting offspring, as soon as 2012.  Even the staid Wall Street Journal just pointed out the fact that a whole bunch of Democratic strategists are watching this race very, very closely.

This is because it could become a dandy “hot button” issue on the Left, in much the same way that banning gay marriage has been a successful political tool on the Right.  These hot buttons on both sides energize the base of the party and increase voter turnout among some normally-apathetic groups.

The way this thinking goes is: California’s youth may surprise everyone and buck the general trend for any midterm election ( where young voters mostly skip voting ), and vote in droves precisely because a pet issue of theirs is on the ballot.

This means it may behoove Democrats to put marijuana legalization initiatives on state ballots in order to drive up turnout in 2012, and beyond.  Democratic politicians, however, are going to be a lot more reluctant to join this bandwagon, but one assumes they’ll certainly be thankful for the benefits of a bigger Democratic turnout.

Both Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer are officially against Proposition 19, but I bet in private they’re thanking their lucky stars that it made the ballot this year.

“Yes on 19″ spokesman Tom Angell, when contacted about this possibility, was optimistic about the prospect of Democrats having a change of heart politically, if Proposition 19 wins in November: “The pervasive political thought among Democrats is that supporting marijuana reform is politically dangerous — but eventually they’ll realize that supporting such reform means that they won’t be punished at the polls as a result, but that they may in fact be rewarded.” Angell is currently “on loan” to the Yes on 19 group, and is normally Media Director for a group which has endorsed Proposition 19, “Law Enforcement Against Prohibition” ( or L.E.A.P.  ), which is made up of current and former police officers, judges, and others from the law enforcement field.

Turning back to my main point, though, let’s just assume for the sake of argument that Proposition 19 passes on Election Day California ( which, for those of you on the East Coast, will happen three hours later than you expect it to…  ).  Glassfuls of bubbles will be raised across the state in victory salutes; although these won’t be the traditional Dom Perignon champagne served in Waterford flutes, but rather glass bongs bubbling merrily away.  Marijuana legalization is approved by the voters 54-46, and everyone lives happily ever after, right?

Well, no.  Marijuana is still quite illegal under federal law.  And federal law always trumps state law.  At least, unless the United States Supreme Court rules against the federal law or Congress decides to change it.  So what would the passage of Proposition 19 actually mean for Californians?

It depends.

It all depends on President Barack Obama, at least for now.  Because Obama has a number of choices open to him as to how the federal government is going to react to this development.  And it’s impossible to say exactly what form this reaction would take.  But we can at least outline the possibilities, at this point.

From worst to best, here’s how I see these possible options:

Crack Down / Escalate

Obama could instruct his Justice Department to crack down unmercifully.  This includes both the “Law” and “Order” parts of the Justice Department, to borrow a television metaphor.

Federal agents ( such as, but not limited to, the D.E.A.  and the F.B.I., just for starters ) could be mobilized and the feds could start busting everyone in sight for blatantly violating the federal Controlled Substances Act ( with a Schedule I narcotic, no less ), and the federal prosecutors could start jamming these cases through with a passion.

Remember, even though President Obama admits he smoked a little weed in his own day, he has been consistently against any and all hints of legalization.  In fact, it was one of the first Lefty issues he not only dismissed, but actually ridiculed ( Obama was forced to address the issue because it wildly outpolled all other questions for his first “online town hall” meeting, very early in his term, and he turned the whole thing into a joke ).

This is probably pretty far-fetched, though, I have to admit.

Such an overreaction would require an immense amount of manpower and court time, and likely wind up being pretty futile in the end.  But you never know.  This could also be an option later on, after Obama leaves office, but we’ll get to that in a bit.

Make Some Examples

The second route the Obama administration could take is to “make an example” of a few people.

Crack the whip on some high-profile arrests and court cases, but leave the low-level stuff alone.

This could go a number of different directions, depending on which scapegoats the feds choose to go after.

The Obama team has, for instance, said that they will not target medical marijuana shops that “are legal under state law” but will continue to bust those that fall afoul of the law ( mostly by not checking the paperwork of who they sell to ).  Which they indeed have continued to do.

But that kind of all goes out the window if it’s legal for everyone.  Assumably, the Obama people would refrain from sending in thousands of new D.E.A.  agents to the state, but also go after some big-time busts, just to make a legal point.

Which leads us to the next option.

Fight It Out in the Courts

Whether the Obama folks use a test case via a big bust, or they just sue the state directly, this battle may get fought out in the court system.  Which doesn’t exactly bode well for Proposition 19, for the exact same reason Obama is suing Arizona over their recent immigration law — federal law always trumps state law.  Unless California can convince the Supremes that there is a constitutional right to smoke pot, which should be seen as somewhat of a longshot, at least in the legal realm.

Blackmail the State

This one may come from Congress, but it may also get Obama’s support ( again, Obama himself is on record as being against legalization ).  Congress could cut off a whole bunch of money for the state of California.  This would not be limited to “funds to fight the Drug War,” most likely.

There are all sorts of things in the federal budget which could be used to make California pay a serious price for legalizing marijuana.  This sort of congressional “blackmail” happens all the time, I should point out, and was the mechanism used in the 1980s ( with highway funding ) to force all the states to raise their drinking age to 21.  Again, though, this would likely come from Congress itself, rather than the White House.

Do Nothing

There’s a long history of standing back and letting states be the “laboratories of democracy” in situations like this, which Obama could indeed take.  Call it the laissez-faire option.

Or, if you prefer non-French terminology, call it the free market option.

This option would consist of sitting back, and then waiting to see what happens.  Obama could tell the Justice Department to only enforce the federal marijuana laws in 49 states, since California has shown it wants to try something new.  There is lots of precedent for doing so, most notably up in Oregon, where they have an assisted-suicide law.  This law was passed by Oregon residents, and at first the feds were very heavy-handed and threatened doctors with the loss of their D.E.A.  approval to write prescriptions, but has since calmed down ( since Obama took office, at least ) into the feds “looking the other way.” Civilization in Oregon has not noticeably collapsed in the meantime.

This would be the best thing Californians are likely to hope for from Obama.  If Obama came out and gave a speech on “the will of the voters” and all of that sort of thing, and then announced a new “hands off CA” policy, then we would have a little laboratory-of-democracy experiment which could be very instructive to the rest of the country.

I have no idea what the chances of this outcome happening are, though, I freely admit.

Jump on the Bandwagon

And I have to put this last one as just as unlikely as the first one.  President Obama could see the error of his ways, not only announce his “hands off CA” federal policy, but also become an advocate for full legalization of marijuana nationwide.

As I said, I really don’t expect or even hope for this to happen, because it seems so farfetched, but I mention it here for completeness’ sake.

Those are the options as I see them.  Which path the federal government takes ( assuming, once again, that Proposition 19 passes ) is largely if not entirely up to Barack Obama.  Now, I’m positive that Barack Obama knows at the center of his being that locking people up for possessing marijuana is not the brightest idea America has ever come up with.  I don’t think anyone’s ever asked him point-blank: “How would your life be different today if you were busted with an ounce of pot and sent to jail for a few months, back when you smoked it?” But maybe he should reflect on that question before he decides what to do.  As Tom Angell from “Yes on 19″ put it when I spoke to him, “If the president wants to further demoralize his base, stepping in and overturning the will of the voters of California on marijuana reform would be a great way to do that.”

What path Obama chooses will be important.

Because we are assured of at least two more years of a Democrat running the White House ( and possibly six ).  And even two years is long enough for the dust to settle politically in the state.

Proposition 19 allows individual local governments to decide what they’re going to do on the issue ( whether they’ll allow liquor stores to start selling packs of joints, for example ).  There will be many discussions at the local level on how to proceed, and towns and counties will take diverse paths, leading to experimentation with how best to implement the law.  Two years of this will allow people in the state to get comfortable with the idea on a statewide basis, while still keeping local control of the implementation.  Six years would allow the issue to fade completely into the background, and for the battle to move on to other states elsewhere in the country ( especially if California reaps a bonanza of tax dollars as a result ).

But at some point there’s going to be a Republican in the White House.  And things could get a whole lot nastier on the whole state/federal front lines of this battle as a result.

Which is why it is so important to see how Obama’s going to handle it now.  If Obama starts in with a heavy hand, it’s going to make it a lot easier for a Republican president to later ramp up a federal crackdown.

If Obama gives the California experiment legal room to succeed or fail on its own merits, then it’ll be a lot easier to make the argument later: “it’s working, leave us alone.”

Politically, at least in today’s conventional wisdom, Democrats are terrified to support any commonsense drug policy change, for the most part.  This comes from 30 years of being demonized by the Republicans as being “soft on crime,” so it’s understandable ( but not really excusable ) for Democratic politicians to be timid in this area.  No statewide Democratic candidate in California has come out in favor of Proposition 19.  In fact, not only have they all come out against it, but Senator Dianne Feinstein ( who isn’t even running this time around ) is co-chair of the “No on 19″ effort.

This is going to be a political movement where ( to paraphrase the old bumpersticker ) the people are going to have to lead, and the political leaders will reluctantly follow, eventually.

But maybe, just maybe, if Proposition 19 passes and California doesn’t descend immediately into anarchy as a direct result, and if Democrats see that they held a governorship and a Senate seat that they could easily have lost, and if the offspring of Prop.  19 starts appearing on ballot initiatives in other states in the near future…  maybe the Democrats will start to see marijuana legalization in a different light.  I could see a day not too long in the future where Democrats are actively promoting legalization state laws in an effort to boost their own popularity among the ranks of voters ( especially young voters ), because it is smart politics to do so.

Source: Huffington Post (US Web)
Copyright: 2010 HuffingtonPost com, Inc.
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com
Author: Chris Weigant