15 responses to “Paul Emery on Proposition 19”

1. 

   Bob Hobert

   30 October 2010

   Thank you Paul for your lucid endorsement of Prop 19. The track record for legislation by proposition suggests years of legal wrangling with its enactment into law as well as the side issues encased in this proposition. I would hope that Californians’ desire to square off against the federal government on marijuana would grow to encompass other more serious federal encroachments on our states’ sovereignty. Smoking pot is far from the most serious freedom that unrestrained federalism has trampled. Perhaps we could start with marijuana and then demand the state legislature and Congress restore the liberties usurped by nationalizing healthcare and education, just for a beginning. Thanks for your piece and your clear points – I almost changed my vote. But I want the bigger perspective when confronting the feds.

   LikeLike

2. 

   George Rebane

   30 October 2010

   Cogent and well put arguments Paul. Given our history with and current pursuit of marijuana offenders, any broad-based proposal to legalize it is going to be difficult. California makes things even more difficult by allowing lawmakers to duck ALL difficult public policy decisions. They simply throw a hard choice back to the voters, and then pander them accordingly while secure in the knowledge that however it comes out, they get a political pass.
   I want to append the notion of “rights” that you raise in regard to the use of marijuana. It is clear that, as you state, 46% of American adults favor legalizing the drug in some TBD form. But does that mean that keeping the current laws on the books violates the ‘rights’ of this cohort. To me today’s gratuitous use of ‘rights’ has made this important idea almost useless in the ongoing American narrative.
   A ‘right’ in a democratic republic should be an acknowledged reserved word – one to be used with precision and care. From the gitgo in the 1770s we have spilled much blood over fighting for rights, so that the correct definition and use of that word should in some way be hallowed in our discourse. Its injection into every level of conversation about social behavior as a placeholder for ‘want’, ‘need’, ‘privilege’, ‘craving’, ‘requirement’, ‘desire’, … has almost made it akin to the teen-agers’ constant sprinkling of ‘like’ and ‘you know’ in their attempts at conversation.
   We don’t yet have a word to express ‘the desire by a significant cohort of some population to legitimize something’. Most certainly, as they arise, such desires do not automatically join our nation’s assemblage of legally recognized rights. (Here is my attempt to shed light on this notion http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/03/rights-and-privileges.html ).
   My own hope is that we reject the flawed Proposition 19, and use it as a baseline to fashion a more workable legal framework for decriminalizing marijuana that can be returned to the voters in 2012.

   LikeLike

3. 

   Paul Emery

   30 October 2010

   For purposes of discussion lets change the wording to “But it does put the power in the hands of the voter to change the system when it’s obvious our elected officials are unwilling to respect the freedom of choice of nearly 50% of our citizens.”
   Ron Paul calls he choice to use marijuana a personnel liberty. “If drugs are legal and people misuse them, then they do it at their own risk,” he recently said. “I do trust individuals to make their own decisions.”
   So since we seem to agree in principal on the idea that marijuana should be legalized we can discuss in detail the Pro’s and Cons as to whether Prop 19 is so deeply flawed that is should be rejected, Here are a couple of links to interviews I conducted with Nevada County District Attorney Cliff Newell opposing Prop 19 http://audio.kvmr.org/podhawk/index.php?id=545 and retired Superior Court Judge and federal prosecutor James Grey http://audio.kvmr.org/podhawk/index.php?id=522
   They both present informed and passionate opinions on the subject. Judge Grey expresses the opinion that these issues will sort themselves out and DA Newell calls it a nightmare for law enforcement as you have expressed. First of all, the 21st Amendment allowed as a compromise to temperance supporters, for a state or municipality to prohibit alcohol within its borders. Some communities chose that route. But nationwide prohibition was a thing of the past. It seemed to work out well enough to allow local and state jurisdictions the authority to make these decisions. As to the influence of law enforcement in this matter let me remind you of one of Einsteins most famous quotes “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.”
   For years law enforcement has had the opportunity to reform these laws and has done nothing but obstruct and complain about every attempt to do so. It is their job to enforce laws not to make them and their unwillingness to take part in meaningful reform has, by their choice left them out of the process we are going through today. They could have at any time contributed to the solution but chose business as usual. That means billions of dollars spent enforcing laws that a near majority of citizens don’t support. Our District Attorney, much to his credit, recognizes the impossibility of enforcement of current laws and seems open to meaningful change.
   So I don’t accept your argument that because it is inconvenient for law enforcement to deal with the rough details of the proposition that we should not support it. Again, they did not support the end of Prohibition and if they had their way it would still be a law today.
   Bringing up the support of George Soros as a reason to oppose the proposition is a bit silly and has nothing to do with the question at hand.
   Finally, what coalitions do you imagine would participate in the crafting of a proposition that would gather your support? Can you imaging Democrats Republicans and law enforcement getting together in the public interest to solve this mess? That is for sure a “Pipe Dream” The TP’s never mention it in their expostulations. The Greens and Libertarians do seem interested and could form an interesting coalition in the future but rest assured any reform would never have the support of law enforcement. Here’s Ron Paul’s take on the issue
   http://stash.norml.org/rep-ron-paul-r-tx-on-cnn-legalize-marijuana-to-reduce-crime
   So why not support Prop 19 and let it fly. It will force meaningful reform and resonate throughout the country that States do not want the Federal Government involved in tis matter.

   LikeLike

4. 

   George Rebane

   30 October 2010

   Well put Paul. Let me address some individual points.
   • Re Soros. Of course his support does not change the reasonableness of the arguments, nor did I imply that. His name enters only in that he has chosen to back causes, organizations, and movements that are anti-American in the eyes of conservatives and libertarians. That he also chose to visibly give $1M to support Prop19 and then wrote two published articles in the world’s largest newspaper to argue his case, invites a ‘taint by association’ reaction. Sort of like the leftwingers automatically rejecting anything out of the mouth of a Beck or Limbaugh, even if they claim that the sun will rise tomorrow.
   • Our Rotary hosted a Newell/Grey debate on Prop19, and the DA’s arguments tipped my opposition to the initiative. But I have retained all the caveats you voice so well. And as readers know, side with local over state/federal control at every (reasonable, to me) opportunity.
   • Re law enforcements opposition. I take that as an operational assessment, and I take it at face value. As an institution, I don’t consider their views about the cultural, workplace, childrearing, legal, states’ rights, … impact any more or less than that of any other association of professionals. I do agree that, as an ‘industry’, they have financial interest in the various forms of narcotics decriminalization. Their past calls legalizing liquor and pot notwithstanding, I don’t think that the nature of those interests are always that easy to understand (at least for me).
   • Re conflicts with federal law. I definitely don’t believe that passing Prop19 and then going into a multi-level, years-long legal battle with the feds while having every local jurisdiction draft its own laws and set up an enforcement apparatus is not going to cost any less than what our current drug-related enforcement activities cost. No one has made a credible case that the net effect in the short term will be saving money. Perhaps after the debate and redraft of the Prop19 law that will be the case. I’m saying let’s do the redraft first.
   • Re coalitions that would back a redraft of California’s marijuana laws. I do believe that there are plenty of politically diverse Californians of good will who would join together to draft a workable legalization of marijuana law. (You and I would volunteer.) And I believe that from an issues point of view, tea partiers would join with capitalists and conservatives and other rightwing organizations to work with the left in coming up with what works. That the TP movement has not mentioned this or many other specific initiatives is a red herring. They (we) have enough problems pushing out the message on our simple core principles.
   But to put a bow on it, I don’t think the arguments for or against Prop19 are clear-cut by any means. It’s a trade-off between starting to enforce and adjudicate a messy law now, versus taking the risk that absent Prop19 the impetus to continue work to draft a better law will die for lack of a definite burr under our collective blanket.

   LikeLike

5. 

   Paul Emery

   30 October 2010

   My concern is that it will die because the inability to enforce the laws that do exist will continue to profit the Black Market financial institutions that have no interest in legalization because they can absorb and accept the risk factors that provide for increased profits at little risk. That, by the way, is free market capitalism in it’s purest form. You grow it, you sell it and you pay no taxes and have no regulation. Already in Nevada County Marijuana farming is recognized as our biggest cash influx and industry though it is not recognized by the Agricultural Dept as even in existence. That makes government look even more ridiculous.
   Imagine the taxable income that would be gathered if growers were required to pay state and federal taxes as independent business. That would of course require legalization on a federal level something I doubt I will see in my lifetime.
   The workarounds that Medical Marijuana allows and the impossibility of enforcement creates a quasi legalization that will continue to allow the industry to thrive. If Prop 19 fails it’s no disaster to the growers and cartels,
   For example, the Ridge bust that I referred to discovered evidence that the accused was structuring deposits in three local banks under 10,000 in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid scrutiny. He then bundled up payments in the form of cashiers checks made out to a well known local mortgage firm that had given him hard money loans with high interest with short payback times. There is evidence that he made the payments but what happened to the money then? It seems to have been absorbed by the system and used to payback investors in the loans that were made to him. At that point that money becomes legitimate because there was no attempt to reclaim it by law enforcement because that would involve finding out where the money went.
   Pretty simple transactions. A bag of pot sells for cash, gets deposited in local banks then distributed to investors in mortgage companies. There were arrests made but what happened to all the money? It’s now legitimate and will never be recovered because that’s a very messy thing. That is the perfect black market scenario that I refer to.
   http://www.theunion.com/article/20100929/NEWS/100929699
   If Proposition 19 loses it’s a lost opportunity that I doubt will emerge again.
   We didn’t learn our lessons after prohibition so here we go again.

   LikeLike

6. 

   George Rebane

   30 October 2010

   “That, by the way, is free market capitalism in it’s (sic) purest form.” Paul, everything else you say makes plausible sense, except for this statement. You here imply that ‘free market capitalism’ would in and of itself become a criminal enterprise. That is patently false. Free market capitalists are the most fierce proponents of enforced contract law and reasonable regulation. They want a stable and, in the classical sense, liberally constructed playing field. They are not rogues seeking to ply their trade in a ‘Mad Max’ world as your statement implies. Don’t lose your established high ground by casually casting the FMCs as insipient criminals just because they oppose the looney tunes and merrie melodies of socially engineered progressive governance.

   LikeLike

7. 

   Michael Anderson

   30 October 2010

   George,
   Let’s look at these two statements of yours, side by side:
   “Free market capitalists are the most fierce proponents of enforced contract law and reasonable regulation. They want a stable and, in the classical sense, liberally constructed playing field.”
   “Don’t lose your established high ground by casually casting the FMCs as insipient criminals just because they oppose the looney tunes and merrie melodies of socially engineered progressive governance.”
   I realize that you know the difference in your own mind, but “socially engineered progressive governance” sounds an awful lot like a “liberally constructed playing field” to me. Both activities seek justice and fairness in a social and economic construct as far as I can tell. Perhaps the differences are only in degree.
   This is why we have a fairly highly evolved political system that provides us the opportunity to discuss these degrees, boundaries, and rules on the playing field. And then we cast our ballot and let the rule of law carry out the will of the people.
   Michael A.

   LikeLike

8. 

   Michael Anderson

   31 October 2010

   Regarding Proposition 19, I am voting for it. My mind was made up early on this one, it happened this past June when we drove up Highway 101 to watch my son’s commencement at HSU. We were listening to a public radio station that is much like KVMR, hosting a debate on the proposition. The growers were adamantly opposed. They liked the high profits brought about by prohibition, and openly admitted it.
   This did not set well with me. I would much prefer socially constructed playing fields that are leveled by democratic governance, than black markets and ill-gotten gains rising from nascent corruption.
   I say “yes” on Proposition 19. It’s a process–we can fix that which doesn’t initially work correctly. If not now, when?

   LikeLike

9. 

   RL Crabb

   31 October 2010

   Tuesday’s election will be interesting to watch. If the Republicans win and can get through the next two years without self-destructing, it will give them a big advantage going into the 2012 cycle. (As in gerrymandering districts in swing states to favor the GOP.)
   So let’s say they manage to recapture the White House and Congress. Right now, Eric Holder has indicated that the Feds will enforce current drug laws if Prop 19 passes. I imagine you might see a few high profile busts just to make the threat look good, but in general they’ll probably ignore California.
   A Republican administration would use it as a club to beat us into submission. (Remember the energy crisis when Gray Davis begged the Feds for help while the energy companies made jokes about freezing grandma?) A lot of politics is about vengeance, so why not beat up on Jerry Brown, one of the GOP’s favorite boogiemen? Withhold federal funds to the state…send a DEA army into Humboldt County…vehicle searches at state borders.
   This is all idle speculation at this point. Real events have a way of squewering predictions of the future.

   LikeLike

10. 

    George Rebane

    31 October 2010

    Gentlemen, your arguments for supporting Prop19 are well-stated and reasonable. I cannot fault any of you. I believe that mine for opposing Prop19 are equally reasonable. This is another illustration of how reason in service of different utility functions can lead to opposing decisions. I have attempted to clarify in more detail how this is possible here – http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2009/11/why-reason-fails.html
    MichaelA, re your “… but “socially engineered progressive governance” sounds an awful lot like a “liberally constructed playing field” to me.” They are as different as night and day. I did attempt to communicate that I was using ‘liberal’ in the classical sense – Bastiat, et.al. – but your quote left out the defining context, i.e. “…in the classical sense, liberally constructed playing field.”
    Progressive governance claims to work from the collective and to the collective. Liberal (now also libertarian) governance and social actions focus more on the salutary behaviors by and to the benefit of the individual exercising his liberties in the context of an established culture (also think Adam Smith). Now, of course, any such culture arises and evolves through the workings of the leaderless collective that makes up the society. As a result, the two playing fields we get are quite distinct and significantly more different than “only in degree.”
    As an example, I would suggest that today’s American ‘playing fields’ are a great distance displaced from the ones envisioned by classical liberals and libertarians. When our progressive brethren complain about the failures of free market capitalism, they know not of what they speak. We have had highly regulated markets for most of the twentieth century. The failures of such mangled markets can be laid directly at the feet of the successive ruling classes of both parties. It’s the same old tactic – first you break it, then complain that it doesn’t work right, so you can exert more control to ‘fix it’. And the sheeple fall for it every time. Keep your eyes on Obamacare and California’s AB32.

    LikeLike

11. 

    George Rebane

    31 October 2010

    [The following came via email from an RR reader who asked me to post his comment as from ‘An RR reader’.]
    I concur with Paul’s opinion. Legalize pot. CA and many other states are wasting taxpayer dollars by nabbing small-time growers and users and throwing them in jail. Jail costs alone are staggering. We should be spending our $$ on heavy-duty drug prevention programs and some kind of border “fence” that will actually work. The battle on marijuana pales in comparison to the recent aviation “events”. Here’s where our tax dollars might be better used to detect and prevent the real threats to America.

    LikeLike

12. 

    Paul Emery

    01 November 2010

    George
    I think this is the most important question that demands consideration and has has largely been ignored in this discussion.
    “If a government’s legitimate use of state power is based on the consent of the governed, then at what point does marijuana prohibition — in particular the federal enforcement of prohibition — become illegitimate public policy?”
    You cannot enforce a law that nearly 50% of the population do not support, clear and simple. 850,000 arrests nationally in 2008 is no small matter and it’s time for the people of the States to make a statement and Prop 19 does just that.
    To quote you on this “After years of teetering about the legalization of drugs and going through many ‘but on the other hand’ arguments, I have finally climbed down on the side of legalization.”
    The only argument you offer against Prop 19 is that it’s a messy legal solution but since there is no chance that reform will come from the Repubs, Dems or TP newcomers it’s the best option we have to shake things up and encourage other States to make similar moves.
    I find your position puzzling on this. It sure strengthens the hands of the illegal institutions and continues to divert millions of tax dollars to enforce a law that lacks public support.

    LikeLike

13. 

    George Rebane

    01 November 2010

    Paul, you’re half right on my arguments. It will be an unnecessarily messy law to enforce, and it will also be a very expensive one on local jurisdictions – the accounting comes directly into our home town or county. And now when local jurisdictions are financially on their collective butts, this is not the time to foist one more legal furball on ourselves.
    While the legitimacy of public policy was not the focus of my post, in principle I would agree with you. And I believe that government should follow the ‘public mind’ of the governed as it did when it repealed prohibition. So therefore, should Prop19 fail, I will work with you to put a better version of it in front of the voters.
    And while we’re talking about the legitimacy of laws, I would bring up Obamacare as a poster child of such illegitimate laws. Before it was passed (“to (finally) see what is in it.”), over half the country did not like it from more points of view than one could count. Now that the lies about the law are being exposed daily, more people than ever want it repealed and/or rewritten. I would naturally expect your social philosophy here to encompass that little issue also.

    LikeLike

14. 

    Paul Emery

    01 November 2010

    I knew that was coming so I’m prepared. Health Care reform does seem to be an issue that has inspired widespread concern and, in this case, has become a signature issue in tomorrow’s election. In the case of the marijuana laws, neither party is willing to touch it so we cannot expect meaningful reform to come from our legislature so it requires a more grass roots movement such as the Proposition process to bring it up for a vote. 890,000 arrests is not a trivial matter yet it is ignored byboth parties that cannot even support legalization of hemp as an industrial product.
    I think you greatly exaggerate the expenses of reform in this case. If the State of California just said “no thank you” to Federal funds imagine the message it would send. I agree with RL Crabb when he says “I imagine you might see a few high profile busts just to make the threat look good, but in general they’ll probably ignore California.”

    LikeLike

15. 

    Paul Emery

    01 November 2010

    Just a reminder- The Proposition process was intended to be a way for their to be a popular vote to change the law when the the Legislature fails to answer to the will of the people. Even if there is not a clear majority of support for legalizing marijuana there is enough dissent that the law cannot be fairly and economically enforced. For that reason alone is should be legalized.

    LikeLike