To me, the most disappointing of the many electoral results this Tuesday was the relatively narrow (54-46) defeat of California Proposition 19, the marijuana legalization initiative that I and and many other VCers endorsed. I’m not disappointed because this proves that law professors have little electoral clout. We knew that already. Rather, the disappointment is because Prop 19 was the best opportunity in many years to deal a serious blow to the War on Drugs. Early polls showed that it had a decent chance to win.
At the same time, it is notable that such a broad legalization measure could get 46% of the vote in the nation’s largest state despite the near-uniform opposition of the political establishment in both parties, ranging from President Obama to Governor Schwarzenegger and many others. Such a result would have been almost unthinkable a decade ago.
The CNN exit polls on Proposition 19 contain lots of interesting data. They reveal that the initiative lost in large part because of its weakness among two groups: the elderly and self-identified “conservatives.”
I. The Age Gap.
People over the age of 65 voted against Prop 19 by a 68-32 margin. Had the electorate been limited to people under the age of 50, Proposition 19 would probably have won, albeit narrowly (by about 51-49). But people over the age of 50 formed a whopping 54% of the California electorate, which reflects the much greater of propensity of the elderly to vote and participate in politics. Using the data collected here, I calculated that people age 50 and above are actually only about 37.5% of the voting-age population in the state.
The interesting question about the age gap on this issue is whether it is a cohort effect or a generational effect. In other words, do people start out favoring legalization in their twenties, but turn against it as they age (a cohort effect)? Or are more recent generations generally more favorable to drug legalization, a difference that persists as they age (a generational effect)? My tentative conclusion is that its probably more of a generational effect. This is not just a difference between the very young and the rest. Rather, each successive age group is much more pro-legalization than those older than them. Even 50-64 year olds were 12 points more favorable to Prop 19 than the over-65s. Moreover, much social science data suggests that political attitudes tend to be fairly consistent with age, solidifying for most people when they are in their twenties. Winston Churchill notwithstanding, if you were a socialist at twenty, that implies a high probability you will still be one at forty. In addition, an important recent study suggests that the elderly actually become more socially liberal as they age, not less so.
II. The War on Drugs and Conservatism.
Self-identified conservatives were even more opposed to Prop 19 than the elderly, with 73% voting against. Unlike the generation gap, legalization advocates cannot expect this problem to get better on its own. I don’t expect conservatives to quickly change their views on this issue. Adherents all political ideologies are slow to change longstanding beliefs, and tend to dismiss opposing evidence out of hand, while overvaluing any evidence that supports their preexisting views.
But I hope conservatives will at least consider the following points. First, the case against the War on Drugs and other “morals” regulations is very similar to the standard conservative critique of economic regulation, a point I made in greater detail in this article and here. Indeed, the War on Drugs is one of our biggest examples of economic regulation, since it bans the sale of a product and creates a vast illegal market that stimulates violence and organized crime. It is in fact quite similar to left-wing proposals to ban products such as cigarettes or fatty foods, both of which pose greater health risks than many currently illegal drugs do. Ironically, Proposition 19 was opposed by 67% of those voters who said in the same survey that government is currently doing “too much,” probably because of the large overlap between this group and ideological conservatives.
Second, the War on Drugs severely hampers two cherished conservative goals: winning the War on Terror and promoting family values. Even if you think that drug prohibition is on balance a worthy objective, is it really worth the price of greatly exacerbating the terrorist threat and undercutting the ability of poor African-Americans to form intact families? Few can do so so long as a very high percentage of poor black males are either in prison or cycling in and out of custody, in large part as a result of the War on Drugs.
Every ideology sometimes faces difficult tradeoffs. The War on Drugs poses several particularly important ones for conservatives. Over time, I hope that more conservatives will come to agree with William F. Buckley’s conclusion that “it is outrageous to live in a society whose laws tolerate sending young people to life in prison because they grew, or distributed, a dozen ounces of marijuana.”
zuch says:
Bad news for Tea Partiers. Similar demographics there (as there are for such as Prop. 8).
Cheers,
November 3, 2010, 3:02 pmA.W. says:
Ilya
You seem to set this up as a simple contest of freedom v. control. But you forget that prop 19 also would have banned employers from discriminating on the basis of pot use, EVEN ON THE JOB. as long as they aren’t impaired, you can’t discriminate. that’s not exactly libertarian.
Mind you, this was pointed out to me by patterico, and full disclosure, i am a guest blogger there.
November 3, 2010, 3:11 pmmillard says:
I don’t regard 54-46 as a “relatively narrow” margin–more like a sound defeat, although not a landslide. I expect that a lot of “no” voters, while recognizing the downsides of the war on drugs felt very uncertain about the consequences of full legalization. California has recently decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, and it’s possible that a few years of experience with that law might relieve a lot of concerns. Finally, I think there is a lot of cohort effect in the age gap (although, probably some generational element as well). I know a number of people who would have been all for legalization 20 years ago but have very different views now that they have teen and pre-teen kids.
November 3, 2010, 3:16 pmrumpelstiltskin says:
Putting Prop 19 on the mid term ballot was a ridiculous mistake. Young people don’t turn out for midterms. If this had been on the ballot in 2012 it would have had a much better change of passing, as more younger voters would have turned out to vote.
November 3, 2010, 3:17 pmrumpelstiltskin says:
Yeah, forget all those studies. Let’s just go with some anecdotes.
November 3, 2010, 3:20 pmDilan Esper says:
You are making more of this than you should. California’s law is already “anti-libertarian” in this regard– we have a law that prohibits employers from firing people for ANY legal off-premises activities that don’t affect their work. Prop. 19 would have simply been consistent with existing law in that regard.
You can argue that this whole regime is a violation of freedom of contract, but I don’t see why Prop. 19, by following that existing scheme, should get the blame for it.
November 3, 2010, 3:20 pmStrict says:
“You seem to set this up as a simple contest of freedom v. control.”
Prop 19 would have resulted in an increase in personal freedom.
The control on employers from discriminating against non-impaired people who comply with the statute is indeed non-libertarian, but the impairment exception seems broad enough that any employer who really wants to fire his employee would be able to do so easily and legally.
Prop 19 was never intended to be a free-for-all, and still had many elements of “control” (no smoking in public, no smoking with minors nearby, no selling unless licensed, must pay taxes on transactions). One of Ilya’s points, I think, was that it still would be a net benefit to freedom.
November 3, 2010, 3:21 pmrumpelstiltskin says:
I’m trying to understand the problem with this. What’s the point of firing people who aren’t impaired? If I could drink vodka at work instead of water without being impaired, why should anyone care or react to it?
You’re making this about the weed itself and not the effect of it, which doesn’t make any sense. Marijuana is a plant. There is nothing inherently evil about it.
November 3, 2010, 3:24 pmRoscoe says:
What AW said. I am a conservative (with libertarian leanings) and a former narcotics prosecutor. In my opinion, marijuana is a fairly innocuous drug. In my time, I saw plenty of people knocking over banks to get money to buy crack or speed, but this never happened with marijuana. (To be clear, I think marijuana is harmful to the user, but that harm doesn’t spill over to society at large. As such, it should be a matter of individual choice.)
I voted against Prop. 19 because it overreached, by mandating that a private employer couldn’t fire a stoner unless it could show the dope actually interfered with his job performance.
Maybe next time the sponsors will give us a cleaner proposition.
November 3, 2010, 3:27 pmJust Dropping By says:
Since it’s not uncommon for ballot measures in general to go down by 50%+ margins, I’d say holding the margin of defeat to under 10% is “relatively narrow.” If a measure is within 10% of passing, that’s generally a pretty good sign that within a couple electoral cycles it could be passed.
November 3, 2010, 3:27 pmAJ says:
I am not a hard-core keep-it-legal type but those I know that are want to keep the “costs” of pot high so its presence in the neighborhood is reduced. Parents with high schoolers view pot as just one more thing they have to watch out for (in addition to booze and prescription drugs that the kids steal from the medicine cabinet).
Certainly legalization would still not make pot available to minors (like cigarettes), so you will have the trifecta of older siblings/friends having socially accepted access to pot, the cost of pot will be even lower than it is today, and there will be little criminal penalty — probably similar to minor in possession of alcohol. That would lead me to conclude much higher use for teens and pre-teens, especially when kids will learn that driving while stoned is no where as “bad” as driving drunk.
The arguments about the black family don’t ring persuasive to me, though I can appreciate that the incarceration rate is much higher. Illegitimacy plays a big role in the breakup of the black family and it is totally unrelated to the war on drugs. High school dropout rates and high rates of violent crimes and the resultant incarceration also feed into high unemployment rates for young black men and their inability to head families. This one just sounds like rationalization to me….let me have my pot so we can all protect the black family….puhlease, does Jesse Jackson subscribe to this narrative?
November 3, 2010, 3:35 pmStrict says:
“I voted against Prop. 19 because it overreached, by mandating that a private employer couldn’t fire a stoner unless it could show the dope actually interfered with his job performance.”
First, the “mandate” covered all employees who comply with the statute, meaning anybody involved in the marijuana business (etc), not just drug users.
Second, someone explained above that this provision is nothing new and simply restates existing law.
Third, I would assume the employer could just fire the employee. He would only have to show cause only if the employee files a lawsuit challenging the termination. (I would guess that most stoners who get fired, probably from low-level jobs, aren’t filing lawsuits?) The impairment exception seemed to be pretty vague and I don’t know if the employer would have to say much more than “Yeah, his job performance was bad. He came in late on this date and that date…”
Finally, are you an employer? If so, do you have employees who use marijuana or would engage in the business had Prop 19 passed?
November 3, 2010, 3:39 pmrumpelstiltskin says:
So you’re basically saying employers should be able to fire their employees for their hobbies and what they do with their free time.
Incredible. I guess I should be able to fire someone for watching American Idol or whatever.
November 3, 2010, 3:46 pmHumboldter says:
Despite where I live, I am not a pot user. Non-the-less, I would favor some sort of legalization. However, the initiative system in California is a poor substitute for the legislature doing its job. The main problem I see is that once it is in the state constitution, it is very hard to adjust once the problems appear. If the legislature actually worked, then they could adjust it as needed.
November 3, 2010, 3:46 pmGov98 says:
So you’re basically saying employers should be able to fire their employees for their hobbies and what they do with their free time.
Incredible. I guess I should be able to fire someone for watching American Idol or whatever.
Yes actually I do think I private employer should be allowed to fire anyone for any reason (other than certain prohibited bases like race, religion, etc.) including because he’s a fan of the Padres or Giants, a job isn’t an entitlement.
November 3, 2010, 3:52 pmGlen says:
As a Bay Area resident who also attended several pre-election “Prop Parties,” I was somewhat surprised that so many otherwise steadfastly progressive liberal Democrats under 65 were against Prop 19. Most parroted Democratic Party spin.
Do not underestimate the power of institutional party control, particularly when it’s exercised by the party of the public sector.
November 3, 2010, 3:52 pmSk says:
“Second, the War on Drugs severely hampers two cherished conservative goals: winning the War on Terror and promoting family values. Even if you think that drug prohibition is on balance a worthy objective, is it really worth the price of greatly exacerbating the terrorist threat and undercutting the ability of poor African-Americans to form intact families? Few can do so so long as a very high percentage of poor black males are either in prison or cycling in and out of custody, in large part as a result of the War on Drugs.”
I’m confused by these arguments. The link above references the war on terror’s impact on the opium trade. Was Prop 19 about legalizing marijuana, or legalizing opium? And your mention of the impact of African-American families: someone else has already deflated that balloon.
Were these real arguments or nonsense fillers? Maybe you should mention its ‘for the children’-it wouldn’t be any sillier than the above.
sk
November 3, 2010, 3:53 pmgrumpyguy says:
Although I’m against legalization of pot, I was actually hoping this would pass.
A state full of more potheads would have simply added to the social dead weight, quickening the demise of California already burdened by public debt, bad government, illegal immigration,and high unemployment.
Sure, you might be right and the legalization of pot wouldn’t lead to more bad habits, but I doubt it.
November 3, 2010, 3:55 pmgeokstr says:
The proposition would have easily passed, but for those 7.36532 million stoners who didn’t get to the polls on time because were only going 5 miles an hour on the freeway.
November 3, 2010, 3:57 pmRoscoe says:
Strict – It’s not correct that Prop 19 just restates existing law. California is an “at will employment” state, meaning that, barring discrimination against some protected category, an employer can fire an employee for any reason or none at all. And sure, the employers can come up with excuses for the firing, but can they prove them in Court when the inevitable lawsuits come in?
But you are missing the basic point. I think that the law should permit people to smoke dope, if that is what they want to do. I also think that employers shouldn’t be forced to employ these people, if they don’t want to. (And, to be clear, I am not saying that employers should fire users, any more than I think people should use marijuana. To me, neither of these things are the proper concern of the government).
November 3, 2010, 3:57 pmStrict says:
” And your mention of the impact of African-American families: someone else has already deflated that balloon.”
Not at all. Someone merely pointed out that there are other factors in the disintegration of black families.
This does not counter Ilya’s point that surely drug-related arrests & incarcerations (and, for that matter, Department of Child and Family Services taking away custody of children for drug-related offenses) are a factor. If California incarcerates 100,000 black males (see, I just made that up) for drug offenses, surely that is a factor in the disintegration of families (because see, these males are members of a family but are not with their families).
November 3, 2010, 3:59 pmMDT says:
Dilan Esper,
You are making more of this than you should. California’s law is already “anti-libertarian” in this regard– we have a law that prohibits employers from firing people for ANY legal off-premises activities that don’t affect their work. Prop. 19 would have simply been consistent with existing law in that regard.
Is that accurate? My understanding was that compliance with Federal DOT rules required random alcohol and drug tests for people with commercial driver’s licenses, employees of mass transit, and a few other categories of workers, and that failure of such tests meant suspension from work. The language of Prop. 19 suggests that no suspension could occur unless actual impairment were shown.
November 3, 2010, 3:59 pmStrict says:
“Strict — It’s not correct that Prop 19 just restates existing law.”
Ok, thanks. I don’t know existing law.
November 3, 2010, 4:02 pmM. Gross says:
Yeah, it was kind of mind-boggling that this was on the mid-term election cycle, rather than in 2012. Well, guess they can try again then.
November 3, 2010, 4:06 pmWybz says:
Well said.
November 3, 2010, 4:07 pmNickM says:
It’s not just employers – and even if it were, the legal regime would prevent California companies with federal contracts that are required to maintain a drug-free workplace from being able to keep those contracts.
Any private membership organization would not be able to exclude marijuana users. That means the Boy and Girl Scouts would be required to allow marijuana users as scout leaders. Colleges would not be allowed to have prohibitions on marijuana for their student-athletes (at least regarding those 21 and over). Even student clubs at colleges would not be allowed to enforce a rule barring membership to marijuana users.
California has already made marijuana a slap-on-the-wrist offense (infraction, with $100 fine).
Nick
November 3, 2010, 4:08 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
Both today, and back in the day, we all knew who the stoners were in high school. I don’t trust the thin evidence that weed is harmless or innocuous, especially for young adults. Regular weed use does seem to change people, but no one is able to quantify it. A glass of wine or a beer doesn’t have the same behavior effect (unless the young adult becomes addicted to either, a very likely outcome, which is why we don’t sell to minors). The precautionary principle counts for something.
Second, there is thin data on driving while impaired, so there’s no sobriety check protocol in place, except the old-style walk the line with your eyes closed and touch your nose. Legalization would bring risk to the roadways.
Finally, here’s the subtle point. Look at the chaos already in SoCal with all the pot stores springing up. The local governments are so incompetent that they can’t regulate weed, and keep the gangsters out, and keep it away from minors. Legalization of weed would super-size the chaos. Our feckless governments would operate like just another set of gangsters, shaking down the sellers for cash, and then wasting the revenue on every kind of bs expenditure. Our governments, while making occasional noises about working for the public interest, are incapable or unwilling or both in regulating the weed commerce. How do I know this? Because the government types said “it’s all good, we’ll collect all this new revenue to solve our budget problems”. They never talked about the additional expenses that would incur in regulating weed commerce. They just wanted free money.
And it would turbocharge the smuggling from Mexico, making the malevolent gangsters there even more powerful, and extend their reach into SoCal, corrupting or terrorizing our people.
You want it legalized? You have to address these issues in advance. Fundamentally, the governments of California have lost or thrown away the confidence of the people. It won’t pass here until all the good people have left. Which won’t be long now.
November 3, 2010, 4:09 pmMDT says:
Strict,
This does not counter Ilya’s point that surely drug-related arrests & incarcerations (and, for that matter, Department of Child and Family Services taking away custody of children for drug-related offenses) are a factor. If California incarcerates 100,000 black males (see, I just made that up) for drug offenses, surely that is a factor in the disintegration of families (because see, these males are members of the family that are incarcerated and not with their families).
Well, all too often “these males” aren’t “members of the family” in the ordinary sense of the phrase, as you know. But the other thing is that it’s basically impossible to get yourself locked up just for possessing marijuana for personal use in CA. You pretty much have to have done something else — either had on hand amounts that make it a practical certainly that you’re selling as well as (or even instead of) smoking, or gotten caught with it on you when you were committing some other crime, in which case the charge gets thrown in as a sentence-stiffener. Just buying and smoking and nothing else simply doesn’t rate prison time.
(Said w/o firsthand knowledge, because I think I’m the only person ever to spend 10 years at UC/Berkeley without so much as nibbling a weed brownie.)
November 3, 2010, 4:12 pmStrict says:
“My understanding was that compliance with Federal DOT rules required random alcohol and drug tests for people with commercial driver’s licenses, employees of mass transit, and a few other categories of workers, and that failure of such tests meant suspension from work. The language of Prop. 19 suggests that no suspension could occur unless actual impairment were shown.”
I’m not sure if this is true.
First, Prop 19 says that it does not affect “any law prohibiting the use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety.
Second, it also says that it does not permit “consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator.”
Third, I don’t think it purported to or actually would preempt any federal rules.
Fourth, I think employers could just fire someone. They would only have to show impairment if that firing was challenged in court, and even then, I don’t think (I could be wrong?) the burden would be very high (see what I just did there?).
November 3, 2010, 4:13 pmStrict says:
Fleming: “And it would turbocharge the smuggling from Mexico”
Why? Why take all the risks and costs of international smuggling when you could just grow it, openly and honestly, right there in the target area?
I would assume it would have the opposite effect.
November 3, 2010, 4:16 pmMDT says:
rumpelstiltskin,
Putting Prop 19 on the mid term ballot was a ridiculous mistake. Young people don’t turn out for midterms.
And this is, what, a law of nature? Why shouldn’t they? Anything short of a Presidential election just isn’t sufficient to hold their attention?
Seriously, I don’t understand this.
November 3, 2010, 4:19 pmER says:
As one of the commenters stated, if the proposition had simply been designed to create a statute decriminalizing marijuana possession, it might well have succeeded. Perhaps that is what Prof. Somin thought it was. But the proponents overreached. They made it a constitutional provision and inserted a bunch of anti-discrimination provisions, gave people an absolute right to grow a pot plot in their front yard, and created direct conflicts with federal law, e.g. creating a ban on drug screening in the workplace. If they want to win next time, they will need to keep it simple, stoner.
November 3, 2010, 4:23 pmDilan Esper says:
California Labor Code Sections 96(k) and 98.6(a) prohibit firing or punishing employees for “lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer’s premises”. So you are just wrong on this. Prop. 19′s provisions were completely consistent with existing California law.
November 3, 2010, 4:23 pmShelbyC says:
All states are at-will to some degree, but none are completely at-will. California has many exceptions, and one is that you can’t fire somebody for legal, off the job activity. Prop 19 would just have put mj use under that umbrella.
November 3, 2010, 4:24 pmShelbyC says:
I owe Dilan a Coke.
November 3, 2010, 4:25 pmpete the elder says:
There was also that simpsons episode where the anti-medical marijuana referendum passes because they hold the rally against it the day after the election. “Hey, wait a minute. (Sniffs) I smell marijuana! That better be medicinal! If Phish don’t see a prescription sheet we are out of here!”
Also how many old people vote against all propositions?
November 3, 2010, 4:25 pmSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
do they do market research before they (whoever “they” are) offer these initiatives?
November 3, 2010, 4:27 pmI know this is Monday morning quarterbacking, but it would have made more sense to offer an initiative that, say, reduced simple possession up to 1 oz to a civil infraction.
AJ says:
78,000 arrests for pot in CA in 2009 (17,000 felony arrests). Those that go to jail are the dealers. Will the dealers stop dealing when pot is legalized…maybe go back to school….help out at the YMCA…take their kids to the park. If only we can legalize pot and turn those lives around….I didn’t realize prop 19 was so noble.
November 3, 2010, 4:28 pmChris Travers says:
Well, it’s good news for SSM proponents, those who want to end the war on drugs, and so forth.
It’s probably bad news for the pro-choice crowd.
November 3, 2010, 4:28 pmA.W. says:
Dilan
> we have a law that prohibits employers from firing people for ANY legal off-premises activities that don’t affect their work. Prop. 19 would have simply been consistent with existing law in that regard.
Well, except for the fact that the proposition would have allowed it on the job, too. i mean there is that.
but yes, california is liberal, not libertarian. that is for certain.
November 3, 2010, 4:29 pmMark Field says:
No, it’s just a statement of fact: whatever the reason, younger voters don’t vote as often as older ones, and they vote less often in off-year elections. Fact of political life.
November 3, 2010, 4:32 pmMark Field says:
That’s already the law in CA.
November 3, 2010, 4:33 pmEdward A. Hoffman says:
I think marijuana should be legal. But there are good ways to legalize it and there are bad ways, and Prop 19 struck me as a bad way. It left too many decisions about how to regulate pot for the future, where they would be made (differently) by municipal governments instead of by the state. It also contained no objective way to decide whether a user was too impaired to drive or to engage in other hazardous activities. I would have supported Prop 19 if it had addressed these issues. But I couldn’t support it the way it was written.
November 3, 2010, 4:35 pmChris Travers says:
Actually I’d be inclined to allow firing at will but strongly restrict what sort of off-hours restrictions could be in an employment contract or employee handbook. Preventing official policies and agreements makes it harder to say “if you vote Republican, I’ll fire you” etc. but continues to make it easy to get rid of folks who are a problem on the job.
November 3, 2010, 4:36 pmBen says:
A small point, but it’s actually 72% of people who voted against Prop 19 say that government is doing too much. Of the 38% who said government should do more, 38% voted no on 19 (14.44% of everyone). Of the 56% who said government is doing too much, 67% voted no on 19 (37.52% of everyone). 37.52/(37.52+14.44) = 72% of people who voted against Prop 19 say that government is doing too much.
And I don’t understand this debate about the negative impact of the protected class clause. The clause clearly does something or the Prop 19 authors wouldn’t have put it in. People who think government is doing too much will clearly oppose the government doing more at the margin, so clearly this clause in Prop 19 contributed at least some to its failure to pass. It would have been better for Prop 19 supports to omit that clause, as doing that would have encouraged voters such as Aaron, Roscoe and myself to vote for it. If only 6.4% of the people who voted no on 19 who said the government is doing too much would have switched their votes absent the protected class clause, 19 would have passed without that clause.
November 3, 2010, 4:39 pmGordo says:
In 1972 a proposition to legalize marijuana in California was on the ballot. It was defeated with 33% of those voting in favor.
Today’s 46% vote in favor suggests that Professor Somin’s generational analysis is correct.
November 3, 2010, 4:43 pmGordo says:
You are expecting standard conservatives to behave rationally and consistently. The stance of the Tea Party morons, who espouse all government actions except when they can use government to impose their religious views on us all, are the prime current example of this phenomenon.
November 3, 2010, 4:47 pmHouston Lawyer says:
Does anyone know how you measure whether is impaired when he has been smoking pot? Is there a medical definition or even a bogus one like the .08% number used for alcohol?
Many employers prohibit drinking on the job even if you don’t get hammered at lunch. Would this proposition have prevented employers from having a similar policy for weed? Do non-smoking ordinances cover weed or just tobacco?
November 3, 2010, 4:48 pmDilan Esper says:
This isn’t true either. Section 11300 of the statute permitted you to consume cannibis on your own property or on someone else’s property with that person’s permission. Section 11304 said that no person can be discriminated against for engaging in the conduct permitted by 11300, provided, however, that employers retain the right to punish employees for conduct that impairs job performance.
Opponents certainly put out the argument that this would allow pot use on the job, but it pretty clearly would not without employer approval.
November 3, 2010, 4:52 pmRoscoe says:
Dylan and ShelbyC. Labor Code 96(k) is limited to firing someone for exercise of a constitutional right. Take a look at Grinzi v. San Diego Hospice Corp. 120 Cal.App.4th 72, 86, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 893, 903 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.,2004). And Labor Code 98.6 just ties back into 96(k). So unless you are arguing that smoking dope is a constitutional right, right now an employer can fire an employee for smoking dope off the job (in fact, this happens all the time) but, if the Prop. passed he wouldn’t.
November 3, 2010, 4:52 pmfwb says:
The commerce clause existed when the 18th was brought forward and ratified. If the commerce clause allowed Congress to ban/regulate things such as drugs, why was it necessary to even consider the 18th? Or is it that the current legal decisions are wrong and Congress needs another amendment in order to ban/regulate other things?
Just a rhetorical question! The truth is so readily apparent that even a blind man can see it.
November 3, 2010, 4:53 pmMDT says:
Mark Field,
No, it’s just a statement of fact: whatever the reason, younger voters don’t vote as often as older ones, and they vote less often in off-year elections. Fact of political life.
Yes, I realize that. I still don’t understand it. Has it been ever thus, or is this younger generation just exceptionally bored with politics? It sure didn’t seem bored two years ago, and it showed up to Washington a few days back in great quantities.
Enh. I voted in every election I was able to all my life. (Except — ironically — this one; I moved from CA to OR, and missed the deadline for re-registration by about 12 hours. Not that it mattered much, because I would’ve sat out most of the contests anyway. I don’t vote where I haven’t a reasonably informed opinion, and I haven’t been up here long enough to know OR politics.)
November 3, 2010, 4:53 pmIspep Teid says:
Something must be done about the Boomer Menace.
November 3, 2010, 4:57 pmMDT says:
Dilan Esper,
Section 11300 of the statute permitted you to consume cannibis on your own property or on someone else’s property with that person’s permission. Section 11304 said that no person can be discriminated against for engaging in the conduct permitted by 11300, provided, however, that employers retain the right to punish employees for conduct that impairs job performance.
Opponents certainly put out the argument that this would allow pot use on the job, but it pretty clearly would not without employer approval.
What about public property? Could you not smoke as many joints as you liked on the sidewalk outside your employer’s establishment on your break? Provided, naturally, that you weren’t sufficiently “impaired” that your employer could prove it in court?
Granted that many municipalities aren’t keen on smoking on the sidewalk. But that’s tobacco smoking. This might be different.
November 3, 2010, 5:01 pmChris Travers says:
As someone who occasionally smokes legal non-tobacco stuff (mostly mullein which I use against croup, asthma, and bronchitis, but will probably experiment with henbane for asthma control sometime soon) for medicinal reasons, I’ve wondered if they are limited to tobacco too.
Of course the stuff I’m smoking isn’t even considered a controlled substance….
November 3, 2010, 5:02 pmJames Gibson says:
Then don’t! The prof wrote his thread as if he was filing a brief to a court. The studies that he wants given weight to are called “An important Recent Study.” Or he gives you a link to a specific data set that allows him to prove that the over 50 group isn’t the major demographic in the State. Thus, the threat is not to induce discussion, but demand ascent.
November 3, 2010, 5:04 pmAJ says:
My understanding from other VC posters is that it would be a standard field sobriety test that one would use if someone was impaired by prescription drugs or cold medicines. Some studies show that driving on pot is far less dangerous than being over tired, distracted, or clearly drunk. Certainly, an equivalent to a breath-a-lyzer is not available.
November 3, 2010, 5:07 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
Strict asks why I think legalization will turbocharge illegal smuggling.
1. The governments will try and tax the hell out of the legal stuff. They’re desperate for free money.
2. The governments Fed/State/local are barely capable of policing the border and commerce now. With increased demand, the smugglers have a window of opportunity: get rich quick, establish the distribution network ahead of the regulators, and bribe/corrupt/intimidate the regulators. There aren’t too many people that can resist the alternative of accepting the gangster’s big money, or seeing your wife and kids gunned down and decapitated. By the time We the People realize there is a problem, the cartels will have corrupted too many people, and the system will be unable to stop the illegal smuggling.
Oh, it can happen here. California governments are weak and corrupt. The Fed’s can’t or won’t control the border now, they spend just enough to keep the smuggling at a dull roar. They even now have to continuously monitor their Border and Customs agents, who are tested by the cartels. It’s in the short-sighted interests of California politicians to keep the border porous, because it enables illegal immigration that preserves and enhances their political power.
November 3, 2010, 5:08 pmDon M says:
Heck, legalize all the drugs. It would thin out the herd nicely.
Just be sure that the only legal place to buy it is at the DMV, and you get to use the drugs rather than drive or vote.
That way drug users would still have to deal with the sterling personalities at the DMV, and their purchases would be registered so that they wouldn’t have driver’s licenses, and could be removed from the voting registers.
Looking at the CA results, entirely too many CA voters are smoking something.
November 3, 2010, 5:12 pmAJ says:
Which Tea Party candidates were going on and on about social issues? Their theme seemed to about spending and limited government.
November 3, 2010, 5:14 pmzuch says:
… because that’s just what happened when Prohibition ended.
Cheers,
November 3, 2010, 5:15 pmfalse seriousness says:
Whaaa…
I’m not remotely a “conservative” (whatever that is these days), and yet everything I believe is hinged on promoting “family values”.
You are the libertarian who objects to government helping the poor, the old, the sick, and children – people who can’t compete. I have contempt for libertarians precisely because they would willingly destroy these people on an alter of dubious political theory.
It’s laughable you try to adopt that mantle, and more laughable you claim it’s a “conservative” value.
And progressives don’t want to win the war on terror? It’s too stupid to explore further.
Somin has said some silly things, but this is amazingly silly.
November 3, 2010, 5:15 pmA.W. says:
dilan
> Section 11304 said that no person can be discriminated against for engaging in the conduct permitted by 11300, provided, however, that employers retain the right to punish employees for conduct that impairs job performance.
Not quite. It says any act made legal by the act, or 11300.
> Section 11300 of the statute permitted you to consume cannibis on your own property or on someone else’s property with that person’s permission.
I am looking at the proposed language. I see nothing about permission. And it says private or non-public property. Now I guess if you are on the floor in Target, smoking a joint, that goes against the law. But what if you are in the back, in the warehouse? Is that public property? Doesn’t sound like it to me.
Not to mention that the law doesn’t cover showing up for work high.
Not to mention that the law doesn’t seem to deal with situations where the second-hand smoke gets OTHER PEOPLE high, except for children.
Bluntly (no pun intended), if an employer wants to have a no-potheads-allowed rule, that should be his right. and of course, this will expose employers to even more likely to be held liable. When the pothead on duty at target knocks over a pallate onto a non-pothead employee, you can be sure that target will be held responsible for that negligence. California is already doing its damnedest to drive out business, why should we do even more?
you want to be a pothead? then live with the consequences.
November 3, 2010, 5:16 pmChris Travers says:
Who cares? A very large number of illegal drugs have perfectly legal (if little known) equivalents. Who needs meth or cocaine when you can buy pure caffeine? Wild lettuce (or even garden lettuce that goes to seed) instead of opium? And thats before we get to drugs like henbane, mistletoe, and potato leaves.
November 3, 2010, 5:17 pmgab says:
“Any private membership organization would not be able to exclude
marijuanabeer users. That means the Boy and Girl Scouts would be required to allowmarijuanabeer users as scout leaders. Colleges would not be allowed to have prohibitions onmarijuanabeer for their student-athletes (at least regarding those 21 and over). Even student clubs at colleges would not be allowed to enforce a rule barring membership tomarijuanabeer users.”Looks pretty lame now, doesn’t it?
November 3, 2010, 5:18 pmJames Gibson says:
The other issues not discussed is that the advocates can afford to spend 40 million dollars to tie the taxation laws up in court (as they already are against Los Angeles) instead of spending the 4 billion they proposed in taxes in the run up to Prop 19. And if they loose those cases, the 30% tax will result in an increase in the price of legally grown Canabis, just as it increases the cost of gasoline, alcohol, etc. Thus, like alcohol, illegal suppliers will still exist, producing product in a continuing black market that undercuts the price of the legal stuff. People think legalization of alcohol ended moonshining. Check out the number of illegal stills being found today in the US.
November 3, 2010, 5:18 pmClayton E. Cramer says:
Prof. Somin tries to cast this as a disaster for black families, but neglects the destructive effects that intoxicants (including legal ones, such as alcohol) have with respect to murder, rape, and child molestation. Marijuana, being something of a disinhibitor, doubtless creates similar problems in this area. I would be very surprised if many people are going to prison in California for simple possession–it is usually sale that gets you prison time, even in places like Idaho.
I am also troubled that otherwise intelligent people refuse to face the large number of recent studies that strongly suggest a causal relationship between regular marijuana use and schizophrenia, with weekly use corresponding to a doubling of rates of schizophrenia as an adult. Some of the longitudinal studies have successfully controlled for pre-existing mental health problems–and the connection is still apparent.
Now, you can argue if you want that doubling the rate of schizophrenia (a disorder that has enormous social costs because it is usually a lifelong disability) is a small price to pay for getting rid of the clogging and corrupting effects on the criminal justice system of having marijuana illegal. But there seems some unwillingness to acknowledge that many people have seen the effects of marijuana use in their own lives, or those of loved ones, and are not prepared to send the whole society down that path.
I was one of the weirdos of my generation who did not smoke pot, but I have many friends who did, and are now among the strongest advocates of keeping it illegal. I suspect that many of those who think it should be legal today, in their 20s, will be sounding like us old fogeys in their 40s.
November 3, 2010, 5:21 pmdr says:
I seem to be having trouble posting. Is it a me problem?
November 3, 2010, 5:23 pmdr says:
That explains the vibrant black market for alcohol and tobacco.
November 3, 2010, 5:25 pmChris Travers says:
Can the Temperance Society ban beer users?
November 3, 2010, 5:26 pmClayton E. Cramer says:
And to make pot legal. You and I probably don’t agree on much, but I suspect that we do agree that the government has duties to look out for those who are weak and in need of protection. Libertarianism is a great approach for those who are smart and strong–but not everyone is.
November 3, 2010, 5:30 pmJames Gibson says:
Clayton, you forgot the Prof has already concluded absolutely that once you take a political view point at age 20, you will hold it forever (quoting Churchill no less). Infact, the prof I believe is stating that those who want decriminalization of canabis today will, by their fifties, be advocating the legalization of Cocaine (like Stossel on Fox news) as part of their growing liberalization.
November 3, 2010, 5:31 pmChris Travers says:
I tried smoking pot about five times when I was in college. I found it boring. I know many people who used to smoke pot and quit when it interfered with things they wanted to do. I would never smoke it now but I’m happy to use other mind-altering substances (but those that I use are quite legal and relatively non-addictive).
I’ve been a consistent advocate of legalization since I was in my early 20′s. I think the ban serves very little useful purpose except to enrich narcoterrorists and criminals, and this is one drug where I think folks are perfectly capable of recognizing when they have problems and stopping. Heck, I’d make tobacco illegal before I’d make cannabis illegal.
I have kids (2, to be 3 next year). I don’t care if they dry cannabis. I trust they can determine what the problems are and adjust their behavior accordingly.
November 3, 2010, 5:32 pmgecko says:
This is trivial compared to the Democratic sweep of nearly all major offices in California and the passage of several propositions which will allow the Legislature an even freer hand in driving the state’s economy into the crapper. All this rewarding of the far left despite the fact that California like an abused spouse…has suffered for decades under unchallenged liberal rule. Talk about Stockholm Syndrome!
Weed is going to be a poor escape from the financial chaos from oppressive environmental boondoggles and fat government pensions.
November 3, 2010, 5:36 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
zuch thinks the example of the repeal of Prohibition, which caused a loss in power to Joe Kennedy’s gang and the Sicilian mafias, as a good argument for why legalization would not empower the cartels.
:-) Maybe because it was all those Canadian cartels were too nice, they weren’t willing to go big against the Italians.
Different situation. We had a long tradition of beer breweries and distilleries everywhere before Prohibition (Whisky Rebellion anyone? John Adams and his daily hard cider?). Legal producers quickly filled the distribution channels, and the Federals already had their hooks in all the legal producers. And the moonshiners never stopped. Many breweries stayed in business making soda pop, so it was a quick changeover.
Instead, now we have a porous border, the cartels operate nearly with impunity now in SoCal and Phoenix, they are beyond American law, and they control the distribution network. They’ve got more dough than the Mafia did, and they are much more ruthless. And our governments are weak. Our producers are small and hidden, and it takes time to grow the stuff and expand the operation. While the Mexican cartels can move product now, in any quantity desired.
November 3, 2010, 5:36 pmAnthony says:
Prop 19 didn’t lose because it was weak among conservatives and the elderly. It lost because it performed poorly even among groups who might be expected to support it, and that’s probably because it overreached. Simple decriminalization might well have passed.
November 3, 2010, 5:36 pmMDT says:
James Gibson,
Then don’t! The prof wrote his thread as if he was filing a brief to a court. The studies that he wants given weight to are called “An important Recent Study.” Or he gives you a link to a specific data set that allows him to prove that the over 50 group isn’t the major demographic in the State. Thus, the threat is not to induce discussion, but demand ascent.
I wish I could demand ascent. I’ve always wanted to fly. Sans aircraft, I mean.
Again, I’m not saying I deny that “young people” don’t bother to vote in midterms; I’m just questioning the view that as it has ever been thus, so shall it always be. It makes very little sense to me.
November 3, 2010, 5:37 pmClayton E. Cramer says:
The difficulty here is that for those who develop schizophrenia several years later, it’s a bit late to adjust their behavior. There’s not an undo for schizophrenia.
Bipolar disorder, while not as clearly caused by marijuana, does seem to have some connections. I have two relatives for whom marijuana seems to have been the activator from mild, unrecognized bipolar disorder to acute bipolar disorder. One of them recovered (tens of thousands of dollars and enormous amounts of grief later); the other has been disabled by it for more than twenty years.
I’m glad that you have confidence that your kids will make the same good decision that you did. That won’t be a very satisfying position to take if one of them starts down the path, and ends up permanently incapacitated.
November 3, 2010, 5:38 pmThorley Winston says:
Good point, I’m sympathetic to arguments for (re)legalization but that provision would have been a deal-breaker for me.
November 3, 2010, 5:41 pm1040 says:
Winning the war on terror is now a conservative goal? So, what is the liberals’ goal vis-a-vis the war on terror?
November 3, 2010, 5:43 pm1040 says:
Well, if prop 19 had been legalized, you could have had your desire. I mean, isn’t that the entire point?
November 3, 2010, 5:45 pmmillard says:
Which studies? The ones finding that “political” attitudes harden early? I’m suggesting those aren’t very applicable to the question of pot legalization, but maybe there are some studies on-point. Know of any?
Really? Is there literature on this? Examples? Isn’t it equally likely that within a couple of election cycles a measure could lose by twice as much?
November 3, 2010, 5:48 pmMDT says:
1040,
Well, if prop 19 had been legalized, you could have had your desire. I mean, isn’t that the entire point?
“If prop 19 had been legalized”? Sounds as though someone is in flight already ;-)
Besides, I don’t live in CA any more.
November 3, 2010, 5:50 pmEH says:
Likewise a law degree.
Man, there are a ton of nanny-staters in this thread. It’s very unusual to me for the VC comment box to justify bringing the hammer of The Man down on the populace. Was Carrie Nation a Libertarian?
November 3, 2010, 5:51 pmFub says:
Thanks for pointing out the truth, Dilan. I was about to, until I saw your comment.
Unfortunately, as with many drug policy issues, the fervently believed falsehood gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on.
November 3, 2010, 5:52 pm1040 says:
heh. well, i’ve never inhaled nor engaged in the precursor to inhalation, so my flight must indeed be completely unaided.
November 3, 2010, 5:54 pmClayton E. Cramer says:
What substance would that be? It isn’t alcohol. Perhaps you mean that it is relatively non-addictive for you. If it was relatively non-addictive, we would never have had the Noble Experiment.
I have been drunk once. I can’t imagine why anyone would do that intentionally twice. But many people do, and a fair number can’t seem to stop.
November 3, 2010, 5:56 pmNo Comment says:
It failed because old people and conservatives love police, and illegal mj means more police.
November 3, 2010, 5:56 pmMDT says:
1040,
Winning the war on terror is now a conservative goal? So, what is the liberals’ goal vis-a-vis the war on terror?
Judging by liberal-to-Left bloggers/commentators, there is no such thing as the “War on Terror,” in the literal sense that the phrase itself is gibberish. Therefore the liberals’ goal is to stop people using this phrase.
As to what they want to do to prosecute the campaign-formerly-known-as-the-war-on-terror, what liberals want isn’t clear; but what the Obama Administration wants seems to be rather close to what the previous administration was doing. Guantánamo remains oddly open, for one thing.
November 3, 2010, 6:00 pmjack osborne says:
An interesting discussion showing how closely held your views are, and almost in line with the vote on the proposition.
I can not compare the war on drugs with the war on terror, or any other wars on things.
You want to get rid of evil things you control harshly, not gently!
Apparently, and I know not the facts on this, China has some success with drug control, and perhaps their solution should be adopted by the USA for major violators. But, then we get into the major violator terminology, and that leaves the door open for weakening of the laws.
It is always easy to say the War on Drugs doesn’t work, when there is little strict enforcement of the rules of engagement.
Just like the War on Terror will not work as long as people don’t want to be bothered with the details of how it should be handled.
As long as people believe that people should not be harmed in the enforcement of laws, then things will go to hell in a short while.
think about how you would have the Mexican government handle the problems they are facing, and then think about what you would want the US government to do, if faced by the same problems.
All related to, or caused by, the usage of drugs for personal enjoyment.
November 3, 2010, 6:02 pmMDT says:
Clayton E. Cramer,
If I had one guess, I’d say Chris Travers was talking about caffeine.
November 3, 2010, 6:03 pmFub says:
Except, as Dilan already pointed out, it’s false.
November 3, 2010, 6:07 pmClayton E. Cramer says:
Caffeine is definitely physically addictive. There is a saying that a software engineer is a device for converting coffee into software. I’ve had a couple of times in my life when I had to withdraw from it over a period of a couple of weeks, because going cold turkey was so unpleasant.
I now drink coffee very infrequently. Bad for my blood pressure.
November 3, 2010, 6:07 pmgab says:
“Can the Temperance Society ban beer users?”
Can your employer?
November 3, 2010, 6:09 pmClayton E. Cramer says:
It does not even occur to you that it failed because a lot of people regard the social costs of having it legal were too high?
November 3, 2010, 6:09 pmgab says:
“The difficulty here is that for those who develop schizophrenia several years later, it’s a bit late to adjust their behavior. There’s not an undo for schizophrenia. ”
Do you have any scientific evidence that cannabis causes schizophrenia?
November 3, 2010, 6:11 pmMatthew Carberry says:
You completely decrim possession and growth of personal amounts but make sale a crime, as Alaska did into the ’80s. The folks who grow now for themselves and a few friends will continue to do so, no net gain in use.
Growers larger than personal use must be licensed and their products tax-stamped just like tobacco/alcohol is now. Folks without a buddy who will share a personal use stash will buy from the store. Most folks don’t choose to take the time or trouble to make their own beer/wine/spirits or grow their own tobacco for personal use, they pay the cash to buy taxed products at well-lit safe establishments. There’s no reason to assume that would change just because it’s pot. We wouldn’t see a huge growth in personal growers, as all who want to do so already are.
Use whatever sale and usage rules as states determine, just as they do now for alcohol/tobacco. (yes, Fed. DOT et.al. should quit dictating age limits to the states on all such products)
The argument about kids increasing use is bogus; anyone who wants any drug, legal or otherwise, in this country can already get it, pot is no different. Net increase in usage among minors is likely to be statistically nil.
The existing big growers, once they license and go legit, can more than outsupply/outprice the Cartels if only due to fewer logistical hurdles. It isn’t as if drug enforcement efforts would completely stop, they would just become more focused on tax and import fee evasion issues than on busting users.
November 3, 2010, 6:16 pmMDT says:
Clayton,
Caffeine is definitely physically addictive. There is a saying that a software engineer is a device for converting coffee into software. I’ve had a couple of times in my life when I had to withdraw from it over a period of a couple of weeks, because going cold turkey was so unpleasant.
Oh, I know, I know. But quitting a heavy coffee habit is not like quitting a heavy alcohol habit. Only one of those two is liable to kill you. (Though the other might make you wish you were dead.)
November 3, 2010, 6:17 pmClayton E. Cramer says:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c0n4h34416904t14/ is a start. Or http://www.springerlink.com/content/a321772xw6056h34/
Or http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WFG-4N3P08D-2&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1526246120&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4fac1332c9d4bafcd50a0ba8b5fc45da&searchtype=a
And http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=schizophrenia+marijuana&as_sdt=200000&as_ylo=2005&as_vis=0 will get you a stack of recent studies. But I rather doubt that anyone told you about any of this during the campaign.
November 3, 2010, 6:22 pmgwinje says:
Clayton,
I’d be interested to read the study(ies?) linking marijuana use to schizophrenia. Do you have a link? [edit: Never mind. Just saw your above comment]
As for the all the “we knew who the stoners were” and “it’ll cull the heard” commenters, the fact that pot use is intrinsically harmful, or is prohibitive to living a productive life, would be a surprise to (among others) my parents (a professor and a pastor), several of my teachers and professors, Ahnold, (likely) Bill Gates, Francis Crick, Douglas Ginsburg, and the last three Presidents.
November 3, 2010, 6:22 pmlimaxray says:
Clayton – I’m afraid you are completely wrong about marijuana causing schizophrenia. Studies suggesting a causation relationship have been largely discredited. I think the key point is that while marijuana use has been increasing, the rates of schizophrenia remains the same. The only real relation between the two is marijuana tends to calm schizophrenia patients, but triggers even worse symptoms when not using the drug, thus creating a significant addiction potential. There is no evidence that it actually causes schizophrenia though.
Honestly though, I have yet to see a signal rational reason for not legalizing marijuana. I don’t think I’ve ever seen so much ignorance and misinformation in the comments on the VC.
November 3, 2010, 6:22 pmMarkV says:
Misuse of Buckley’s quote. The quote was to the point that the punishments are irrationally harsh, not that they should completely cease to exist! That would be analogous to twisting the sentiments of those opposed to the death penalty to mean that they are actually for murder. That would be an obsurdity, and so is your concluding statement misrepresenting Buckley.
November 3, 2010, 6:27 pmMDT says:
Matthew Carberry,
We wouldn’t see a huge growth in personal growers, as all who want to do so already are.
You think? You suppose that if (say) growing heirloom tomatoes for personal consumption were illegal in CA, and then the law was changed so that such growing was legalized, the number of people growing them would remain exactly the same?
What you’re saying is that no one interested in consuming pot cares about the law. I mean, we did kind of know that; still …
November 3, 2010, 6:31 pmDilan Esper says:
I don’t deny that you can be fired for smoking dope off the job now. It’s ILLEGAL, and 96(k) by its terms does not apply to illegal activities.
The point of Prop. 19 was to treat dope smoking like any other LEGAL activity.
November 3, 2010, 6:32 pmgwinje says:
Damn. “It’ll cull the herd.” And my brain is (extrinsic) cannabinoid free.
November 3, 2010, 6:34 pmDilan Esper says:
The fact that you use the term “pothead” over and over again kills your credibility on this issue.
Look, if you don’t like the dirty ****ing hippies, that’s your right. But the law shouldn’t reflect your prejudices.
November 3, 2010, 6:35 pmNo Comment says:
It does not even occur to you that it failed because a lot of people regard the social costs of having it legal were too high?
It occurs to me that most people who voted against it wouldn’t be able to pick out a stoned person in a double blind test, but do understand that they want lots of police officers and lots of their tax money spent in that manner.
November 3, 2010, 6:35 pmDilan Esper says:
Or maybe they all forgot to vote.
November 3, 2010, 6:36 pmMark Field says:
Twas ever thus, at least since 18 year olds got the vote. I don’t know what 21 year olds did prior to that.
November 3, 2010, 6:44 pm1040 says:
i don’t think gitmo is a good indicator, given that host countries are unwilling to accept a bunch of the prisoners there who were put there in the first place, and nimby is preventing relocation. what is a better indicator is the extension of the patriot act, drone bombings all over the place, and so on.
November 3, 2010, 6:46 pmA. Criminal says:
According to The Lancet, alcohol’s the worst rec drug, followed by heroin, then crack:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2807%2960464-4/abstract
For non-Lancet subscribers, their chart via Reason:
November 3, 2010, 6:50 pmhttp://reason.com/assets/mc/jsullum/2010_11/drug-harms.jpg
Strict says:
“I have yet to see a signal rational reason for not legalizing marijuana.”
There are many reasons to criminalize marijuana. It causes harms. Usage can cause physical harm to pulmonary, cardiovascular, and immune systems. Usage can cause intoxication, and most other intoxicating substances are regulated. Usage can cause forgetful or negligent behavior like bad driving, leaving the stove burner on, etc.
There are many reasons to decriminalize marijuana. Criminalization causes harms. House fires have been caused by marijuana growers who utilize homemade electrical systems (to evade suspiciously high electrical bills, to evade getting caught). Millions of people people get harassed by police or arrested. Violent gangs profit from prices which are inflated due to criminalization. Criminalization prevents companies and consumers from taking advantage of the many beneficial uses of industrial hemp.
In my opinion, the reasons to decriminalize make a stronger case than the reasons to criminalize.
November 3, 2010, 6:58 pmNo Comment says:
btw, the good strategy would be to have all mj tax monies collected go automatically to the police. That would change the underlying dynamic more than anything else.
November 3, 2010, 7:03 pmBleh says:
It would be oh-so-nice if people actually read the Proposition before making assumptions about it.
Section 11300( c)(ii) states:
Section 11301(h-j) reads:
These would seem to clearly take away any “absolute” right to either smoke or grow in public or in your front yard.
November 3, 2010, 7:04 pmGordon Langston says:
Could it be also that people saw how immigration laws were being ignored and figured why make pot legal, just let it join the other laws that are not enforced.
November 3, 2010, 7:17 pmlimaxray says:
Strict – I don’t agree that ‘X can cause harm’, in and of itself, is a rational reason to make anything illegal as we are surrounded by dangerous things every day. There are plenty of things that are far more dangerous (motorcycles, skydiving, bungee jumping, coffee, etc) than marijuana, yet no one would ever seriously consider banning them.
What do you mean by ‘decriminalization’? As in legalization like alcohol, or as in the decriminalization schemes currently in place in CA and other states? Judging by your reasoning, I’m guessing legalization since decriminalization does little to mitigate – and perhaps exasperates – those problems with criminalization.
November 3, 2010, 7:24 pmFub says:
Actually, there was a fifth column effort to derail Prop. 19, begun by Dennis Peron and the late Jack Herer. They argued, falsely by my reading of the law, that Prop. 19 would limit medical patients’ rights to use and to grow their own. They succeeded in convincing a large number of medical marijuana users both to vote against it and to enlist their non-using friends who were sympathetic to medical use.
I think that effort had a significant effect, though not necessarily decisive. That is, Prop. 19 might have won, or it might have lost by a lesser margin, had the fifth column effort not occurred.
I also think that many undertaking that effort were “medical” providers who were either illegally selling to recreational users, or who were simply protecting their business profits.
November 3, 2010, 7:28 pmNickM says:
No, it doesn’t. There’s a difference between not agreeing with a group’s ethos and wanting to ban them from acting in accordance with it.
And as for your question to Chris Travers, your employer can refuse to hire alcohol users unless there’s a specific law against it.
Nick
November 3, 2010, 7:32 pmChris Travers says:
That’s far more likely with alcohol than with pot.
November 3, 2010, 7:34 pmChris Travers says:
My employer could fire me just because of my race and religious beliefs and I wouldn’t have standing to sue him. (I’m self-employed. I don’t think there’s a jurisdiction in this country that would grant me standing to sue myself.)
My question was whether, if we assume that legal off-premise activity cannot be the basis for discrimination (as California law apparently states) then whether a political group advocating the ban of a practice can choose not to associate with people who do that practice off premises.
November 3, 2010, 7:39 pmChris Travers says:
I think it would have, actually. If Eric Holder states that they will not prosecute individuals operating within a state’s medical marijuana laws, and California enacts a general legalization, then it would seem to me that it would move it outside of the discretion that Holder has pledged to abide by.
That’s a lousy reason to oppose the law though.
November 3, 2010, 7:42 pmmillard says:
On the MJ-schizophrenia link, from a review of literature:
I think that both Clayton Craymer and limaxray overstate their positions (that Time article limaxray cites doesn’t say the studies finding a link were discredited) and that the truth is there is some evidence of a link, but it isn’t firmly established. More important, even if there is a causal link between smoking and schizophrenia, very few pot smokers will develop psychosis. That risk is well within the scope of risks people accept when they use many legal products (like alchohol, tobacco, automobiles, fatty foods, etc.)
November 3, 2010, 7:43 pmgab says:
Yeah it does – your saying it doesn’t, doesn’t make it so.
My employer can’t even ask that question in an interview and can’t test for it (beer), so your second point is totally incorrect.
November 3, 2010, 7:43 pmAnatid says:
Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia are both psychotic disorders. Bipolar disorder is also a mood disorder so it’s often not classified as a psychotic disorder.
Propensity towards psychosis has a major genetic component. If you control for family history of psychotic disorders, you will see a much clearer pattern on the relationship between psychosis and use of psychedelic or pseudopsychedelic drugs.
If psychosis runs in your family, steering clear of marijuana is a good idea. If psychosis does not run in your family, you’re not at any substantial risk. If you’re at-risk for psychosis, you’d also do well to avoid any psychedelic drug, long-term sleep deprivation, or long-term stress – all known activators.
In one study that sought to examine psychosis, they had to give the rats six times the therapeutic dose of LSD every day for a month in order to produce psychotic symptoms in a majority of the rats. Rats aren’t humans, but for them at least inducing psychosis was hard. I wonder if anyone’s gotten around to producing a psychotic rat strain to use in studies.
The other group that should avoid marijuana are individuals with certain cardiovascular complications, which the drug can aggravate, but individuals without cardiovascular problems are not at elevated risk for developing them if they become users.
November 3, 2010, 7:57 pmAnatid says:
Propensity towards psychosis (schizophrenia, some types of bipolar, etc) has a major genetic component. If you control for family history of psychotic disorders, you will see a much clearer pattern on the relationship between psychosis and use of psychedelic or pseudopsychedelic drugs.
If psychosis runs in your family, steering clear of marijuana is a good idea. If psychosis does not run in your family, you’re not at any substantial risk. If you’re at-risk for psychosis, you’d also do well to avoid any psychedelic drug, long-term sleep deprivation, or long-term stress – all known activators.
In one study that sought to examine psychosis, they had to give the rats six times the therapeutic dose of LSD every day for a month in order to produce psychotic symptoms in a majority of the rats. Rats aren’t humans, but for them at least inducing psychosis was hard. I wonder if anyone’s gotten around to producing a psychotic rat strain to use in studies.
The other group that should avoid marijuana are individuals with certain cardiovascular complications, which the drug can aggravate, but individuals without cardiovascular problems are not at elevated risk for developing them if they become users.
(Sorry if this double posts, first one didn’t go through.)
November 3, 2010, 8:02 pmDilan Esper says:
And if your erection lasts more than four hours, you took the wrong drug.
November 3, 2010, 8:04 pmChris Travers says:
That second clause is incorrect. The vast majority of intoxicating substances are not regulated at all. It’s only the popular ones that the government cares about.
November 3, 2010, 8:06 pmAnatid says:
That third sentence is incorrect. The vast majority of popular, intoxicating substances are not regulated at all. It’s only the ones that have been politically, socially, or (rarely) scientifically labeled as harmful that the government cares about.
November 3, 2010, 8:13 pmAnatid says:
That second clause is incorrect. The vast majority of intoxicating substances are not regulated at all. It’s only the popular ones that the government cares about.
That third sentence is incorrect. The vast majority of popular, intoxicating substances are not regulated at all. It’s only the ones that have been politically, socially, or (rarely) scientifically labeled as harmful that the government cares about.
November 3, 2010, 8:14 pmMDT says:
Dilan Esper,
And if your erection lasts more than four hours, you took the wrong drug.
Dude, do not joke about this. There’s risk of serious harm here. Harm as in a lot of pain, and permanent loss of sexual function. But it’s so totally amusing.
November 3, 2010, 8:14 pmChrisTS says:
I had to call my 22 year old and remind her to vote. “Is it important?” she asked; “Didn’t we just vote?”
And, no, she is not a dummy (self-absorbed, yes). However, she redeemed herself and came up by train to vote.
November 3, 2010, 8:25 pmChrisTS says:
Dilan:
I hate to seem unexperienced, especially at my age, but wouldn’t, say, two hours be pretty unusual? (Ducking.)
November 3, 2010, 8:27 pmAnatid says:
Let’s not forget that marijuana is currently legally classified as being more harmful than methamphetamine or cocaine, which is patently false.
For perspective, there are currently no regulations whatsoever requiring food and beverage manufacturers to list how many milligrams of caffeine are in their products. They have to list calories, calories from sugar, calories from fat, and the like … but they don’t have to breathe a word about caffeine. Some energy drinks contain more than a gram of refined central nervous system stimulants, and they don’t have to tell you that.
And that’s just food. Since herbal/dietary supplements are legally considered neither food nor drugs, they don’t have to comply with any medicinal standards at all. Even though, say, combining 5-HTP and St John’s Wort could be lethal.
(Sorry for the rant. Our current substance regulation systems are not consistently-applied. This aggravates me. End rant.)
November 3, 2010, 8:28 pmChrisTS says:
Anatid:
I see a movie …no, a series!
November 3, 2010, 8:29 pmAnatid says:
I’d watch it.
I dutifully submit the pertinent PBF strip: http://www.pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF189-Keep_on_Truckin.jpg
November 3, 2010, 8:33 pmJohn A. Fleming says:
As the above discussion thread is showing, there seems to be equivocal or little data on whether it is personally harmful. As a result, I don’t have an opinion worth much on this aspect. In this respect, I remain an Alaskan: you want some, you’re an adult, grow it and blow it yourself, no crime, it’s a God-given plant and it’s a free country. If it damages you and your family, deal with it, don’t come crying to We the People for a bailout.
However, I do think that legalization as defined in Prop 19 would bring too many harmful unintended consequences to an already weakened civil society. We have enough to deal with right now, and our governments are unable and or unready to deal with yet another set of troubles. Let’s fix some current problems first, before we start adding new ones.
November 3, 2010, 8:45 pmMark Field says:
I voted for Prop. 19, but this argument doesn’t impress me. Motorcycles, for example, have lots of beneficial uses even if they pose dangers. That’s not true for marijuana since CA already legalized medical use and Prop. 19 really only affects recreational use. I’ll give you skydiving and bungee jumping, though I doubt the harms are truly comparable. AFAIC, the real comparisons are to tobacco and alcohol.
At least you got yours to vote. I didn’t. No harm, no foul in this case, fortunately.
November 3, 2010, 9:07 pmFrank says:
I’m not sure why Clayton Cramer proving that marijuana might cause some bad results for some people leads instantly to the conclusion that it should be illegal. Among the many things he doesn’t account for are the net health and safety benefits of people substituting marijuana for alcohol.
(Say, don’t guns, which Cramer likes well enough, kill some innocent people? But I would imagine he thinks, and I agree, that it’s much better on balance for people to have them.)
November 3, 2010, 9:17 pmStill need a new handle says:
Did not read most of the comments. Three points:
1. I am 35 and have never supported marijuana legalization.
2. My understanding is that much of the northern California pot industry opposed Prop 19 because it would have interfered with their business.
3. To what extent did Prop 19 fail because it was a “no” year?
November 3, 2010, 9:25 pmAJ says:
I’m still uncomfortable with the argument that black families are benefited by legalizing pot. If one says that poor neighborhoods will have more crime and thus more police. Those police through normal police action will find more people carrying pot and make more arrests. Then it follows that the impact on the poor family should be the same independent of race, unless you assume that black neighborhoods are always more crime infested because poor black people are more immoral than poor white people — which is racist. I suppose one can say that there are more poor black neighborhoods because of the legacy of institutional racism but I still find this argument a bit of a stretch because no poor neighborhood will benefit from having more intoxicants readily available. Instead it sounds like a bunch of rich suburbanites rationalizing their dirty habit on the back of the black man….but then again, I need to take a break and get a beer…while I’m still allowed!
November 3, 2010, 9:27 pmShelbyC says:
Of course, we don’t ban the recreational use of motorcycles either.
November 3, 2010, 9:29 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Excepting of course the real life examples in Spain where there is far less criminalization and yet teen usage is lower than in the US.
November 3, 2010, 9:32 pmShelbyC says:
No, ’bout normal.
November 3, 2010, 9:34 pmChrisTS says:
S/he would have voted in opposition to you? :-)
November 3, 2010, 9:42 pmChrisTS says:
I was thinking more of alternatives to the rash of zombie/vampire/werewolf blood fests. You know: lab-induced psychotic rats rampaging and slaughtering every human in sight – as well as cute kittens and puppies.
I just think we have drifted too far from the mad/atheist scientists plus [icky]super-non-humans meme.
Let’s get back to the basics.
November 3, 2010, 9:51 pmChrisTS says:
Have I said that I love you?
More seriously: seriously? I’m no virgin spring, but I don’t think I have encountered this, umm, phenomenon outside of the “Babe, I was’nt really asleep” situation.
November 3, 2010, 9:55 pmAnatid says:
Where did you guys’ kids go to school?? I’m in that age range and pretty much every conversation with a friend I had yesterday began with “did you vote.” Not voting is treated like a great social sin.
I’m all too much in agreement. Especially in this day and age of special effects. A swarm of bloodthirsty rats sounds terrifying.
Query: How does Aliens fit into all this?
November 3, 2010, 10:18 pmThe Awful Truth says:
With appologies to Winston Churchil “If a man is sober under 30 he has fun. If he stoned at 40, he has no job”.
The Dems have figured out that putting pot legalization on the ballot is the only thing that will get stoners out to vote. Some polling places in Berkeley and San Francisco looked like a Walking Dead episode yesterday.
I think the forumula works like this: Have the public employee unions gather enough signatures to get pot legalization on the ballot, then have them vote against it, allowing the Dems to goose stoner turnout every two years.
November 3, 2010, 10:49 pmFub says:
For some insight on that issue, see this webpage. (NORML.org)
November 3, 2010, 10:56 pmFub says:
You’re absolutely right.
Except for the fact that signatures were gathered by the sponsoring organization (Richard Lee and Oaksterdam University) or by professional signature gatherers paid by them.
Except for the fact that the Democratic party didn’t endorse it. And every Democrat on the state ballot opposed it.
But besides that, you’re absolutely right.
November 3, 2010, 11:06 pmRicardo says:
Before accusing others of misuse and misrepresentation, it pays to do a little research. Buckley repeatedly spoke out in favor of legalizing marijuana.
Link
Link
November 3, 2010, 11:21 pmAMcA says:
I’ve heard from someone who was at one time in a position to maybe know that Bill Buckley was a HUGE pot smoker.
November 3, 2010, 11:24 pmleo marvin says:
Sure, you joke.
You laugh.
You lie.
And as you said to me yesterday, you mock.
But I’d like all of you to meditate on this little nugget of irony. The drug most often implicated in the causation of priapism has been used successfully to treat exhibitionism.
November 3, 2010, 11:25 pmleo marvin says:
(BTW, the comment function seems to get twitchy with more than two links, so here’s the one I left out.)
November 3, 2010, 11:33 pmMark Field says:
On Prop. 19? I don’t know, but her sister was planning to vote against it. I’m not sure if I convinced her with my last ditch arguments.
This seems to be true for one of my kids, but the other just doesn’t care. Hard to say why, since her parents care a LOT.
November 3, 2010, 11:42 pmMDT says:
leo marvin,
[me:] But it’s so totally amusing.
[you:] You laugh.
Context, leo, context. As in, please read the previous three sentences in my comment, and then look up “sarcasm” on Wikipedia or something. Jeez.
November 3, 2010, 11:46 pmleo marvin says:
Context, Michelle, context. As in, please read my whole comment, and then look up “sarcasm” on Wikipedia or something. Jeez.
November 3, 2010, 11:55 pmHm says:
this tells me that in another 20 years or so, marijuana will hopefully become legalized because all those cranky old coots will be dead.
November 3, 2010, 11:57 pmDiversityHire says:
The prop 19 folks missed their number, “Vote for 20″ is a sure win.
…advocating the legalization of Cocaine…
I look forward to double half-caff coca macchiatos from the corner Starbucks. Maybe in the first Sheen administration. After the next recall. Cocaine is more of a boom-times deal, anyway.
November 4, 2010, 12:00 amRicardo says:
It’s time to get a new theory. 54% of people with a full-time job voted in favor of Prop. 19. The vote was split 50-50 for people who earn between $100,000 and $200,000 (my guess is that this demographic is heavily concentrated in the Bay Area).
What I would like to see is the vote split by marital status and whether or not one has children. My guess is that there is a large discrepancy there just as there is along partisan lines: the marriage gap is one of the largest dividing lines in partisan politics with married people at least 15% more likely to vote Republican.
November 4, 2010, 12:38 amRicardo says:
The exit poll data is very interesting to anyone who studies voting patterns and suggests why marijuana legalization cannot get traction in any party.
Democrats especially in California depend heavily on racial minorities for votes and yet minorities voted decisively against Prop. 19. African-Americans, Latinos and Asians each voted against it while these same groups overwhelmingly vote (or at least the first two — don’t know about Asians in California) for Democrats. Democrats cannot support it as long as an important part of their base rejects it.
As for Republicans, the data show that white males split 50-50 on the initiative and this is an important demographic for Republicans. High earners were also more likely to favor it — another key Republican constituency. However, these groups are outweighed by the Tea Party, conservative faction of the Republicans who overwhelmingly reject marijuana legalization.
So neither party can afford to embrace it for fear of alienating a small but important part of their base. That’s the value of the proposition system.
November 4, 2010, 12:56 amJeff@WMD says:
I can’t tell whether you are saying that cigarettes and fatty foods pose a greater health risk to a user of such substances, or to society in general. My sense is that if cigarettes and fatty foods pose a greater health risk to society in general than do many currently illegal drugs, that could be taken as evidence that the War on Drugs is achieving one of its purposes. There may, of course, be explanations other than the War on Drugs.
On the other hand if you are referring to an individual user of such substances, I will defer to someone with more, ahem, experience.
November 4, 2010, 1:00 amChris Travers says:
That’s what? 10 cups of coffee…. That’s scary.
November 4, 2010, 1:32 amElemenope says:
That’s what? 10 cups of coffee…. That’s scary.
End the scourge of trimethylxanthine!!!
No, but seriously, the Red Bull I’m drinking right now (because I’m doing a back-to-back night to morning shift) has, according to packaging, 114 mg caffeine/12 oz. That puts it in strong-cup-of-coffee territory. I was unaware that other “energy drinks” had substantially more (as in, enough to immediately induce toxic symptoms, as one gram certainly would).
November 4, 2010, 7:51 amElemenope says:
I expect in 2012 or 2014, especially given that Prop 19 perhaps pushed Jerry Brown in to a comfortable lead (despite he himself opposing the measure), that there will be a blitz of MJ ballot initiatives akin to the 2004 anti-gay marriage initiative blitz. All major democratic candidates will come out against them, but will still ironically be the beneficiaries of them, and some will inevitably pass.
November 4, 2010, 8:21 amdll111 says:
If only marijuana was illegal when your two relatives did it, maybe it all could have been avoided?
November 4, 2010, 9:44 amDaniel Conti says:
The whole argument as to the “libertarian-ness” of the proposition seems settled by this proviso:
“Prop. 19(B)(7) Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.”
November 4, 2010, 10:17 amI know that revenue enhancement was one of the Prop’s strongest arguments, but libertarians might not have pulled the lever just because of this provision, which requires taxation for legalization.
OrenWithAnE says:
Ricardo, can you provide a link.
November 4, 2010, 10:33 amOrenWithAnE says:
Why in blazes would marijuana be the only thing exempt from taxation?
November 4, 2010, 10:41 amClayton E. Cramer says:
You are assuming marijuana replaces alcohol and does not become an addition.
If the only reason for owning guns was recreation, they would not be worth the social cost.
November 4, 2010, 10:50 amFub says:
With that change, the prior condition for that speculation on libertarians’ choices is correct.
Note that the proposition’s text provision quoted above specifically permits possession and consumption, and permits all currently legal medical cannabis activity, even though a city decides not to tax and regulate. That legalization would occur regardless of a city’s decision. Only sales would remain illegal without a city’s decision.
But perhaps libertarians who were unable to read and comprehend plain English became confused about the provision.
November 4, 2010, 10:53 amClayton E. Cramer says:
With respect to schizophrenia risk, marijuana and alcohol appear to be neck and neck. They are both pretty risky, and yet another reason why young people should be prevented access to either. Your solution to the inconsistency of having one dangerous drug legal and the other not is to make two dangerous drugs legal and readily available?
November 4, 2010, 10:54 amClayton E. Cramer says:
The first part of the statement is clearly correct: if you have family history of mental illness, steering clear of marijuana (and alcohol) is a good idea. The second claim–that if it does not run in your family, “you’re not at any substantial risk” is merely an assumption on your part. We really don’t know yet if it elevates risk for those without a family history. But heck, as a society we can afford an increase in the number of mentally ill people disabled for life.
November 4, 2010, 10:57 amCarl N. Brown says:
Prop 19 sounded like over-regulation of what is supposed to be, after all, a counter-cultural statement. Decriminalize, not commercialize, would have had more traction.
November 4, 2010, 10:58 amClayton E. Cramer says:
The social costs of schizophrenia (whether alcohol or MJ induced) are higher than for most of the other problems you mention. Cancer, heart disease–they are expensive for the last several years of someone’s life, and do not produce decades of disability and dependence.
November 4, 2010, 11:00 amFub says:
Well, either you’re closing your eyes
November 4, 2010, 11:05 amTo a situation you do not wish to acknowledge
Or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated
By the presence of a pool table in your community.
…
Elemenope says:
Did *everyone* on this thread miss the news about decriminalization? It’s a *done deal* in California, signed into law by the Governator himself, like two weeks ago.
As for the libertarian nature of the proposition, obviously it is not doctrinaire libertarian, since it includes taxes and regulation, but with due respect only an idiot could find a tax-and-regulate regime less significantly free than a police-and-incarcerate regime. Period.
November 4, 2010, 11:05 amOrenWithAnE says:
But why is recreation (which is, in essence, happiness) not worthy of the same consideration as other concerns?
I don’t mean insult, but to me this seems entirely backwards. Things like self-defense, political liberties, constitutional government — those are all quite dear to my heart but they are not ends unto themselves. I don’t think, for instance, that we should have a Constitution simply to have a Constitution for the sake of having a Constitution. Nor do I own a gun simply to have a gun for the sake of gun ownership. Rather, I hold these things dear as a means to the greater end — they might be essential to those ends (i.e. I cannot conceive of a good life without political liberty) but those are still just ends.
So when you say that mere recreational use of marijuana is not as worthy a concern as the various structural (e.g. RKBA) rights, it seems to me that you are putting the cart way out in front of the horse. The purpose of all these rights is to preserve our life, liberty and happiness. Those are the ends and the freedom to use marijuana recreationally fits in just as much so as the right to armed self defense.
As a society, we cannot afford to start injecting ourselves in the private decisions of our citizens.
We do, by the way, sanction such silly activities are car/motorcycle racing, horseback riding, snowmobiling and ATV riding, both of which undoubtedly increase the number of people physically disabled for life.
November 4, 2010, 11:31 amMDT says:
OrenWithAnE,
Why in blazes would marijuana be the only thing exempt from taxation?
Well, it is now, since depending where you get it, it’s either a prescription medicine or a black-market item.
November 4, 2010, 11:41 amFub says:
This is the second iteration of the “magic ounce” law. The first, in the 1970s, was also a move to counter attempts at legalization. It reduced to misdemeanor the possession of an ounce or less. Previously any amount was a felony.
The tactic is apparently “See, now it’s not so bad, so stop this all this legalization talk. Legalization will destroy Western Civilization ™.”
If you acquire it by purchase, gift, or cultivation, you have committed a felony of participating in a sale, or trafficking or cultivation. But if it magically appears in your possession out of nowhere, then it is a civil infraction.
Yes, I have seen people charged with felony trafficking for passing a single joint at a concert. It was, and likely will remain, a prosecutorial “pile on” or overcharge, at police and prosecutors’ discretion.
November 4, 2010, 11:48 amElemenope says:
If you acquire it by purchase, gift, or cultivation, you have committed a felony of participating in a sale, or trafficking or cultivation. But if it magically appears in your possession out of nowhere, then it is a civil infraction.
Yes, I have seen people charged with felony trafficking for passing a single joint at a concert. It was, and likely will remain, a prosecutorial “pile on” or overcharge, at police and prosecutors’ discretion.
Given that, I don’t see how a constitutional measure towards decriminalization would have any salutary effect. If police and prosecutors routinely circumvent the intent of the law (to reduce simple possession to an infraction), then regulation pursuant to an amendment is likewise likely to be circumvented/ignored. I agree that the political purpose of each decrim movement was to undercut legalization measures, but that’s neither here nor there when it comes to actually enforcing the resulting rules.
People here (with few exceptions) have been talking as if the decrim rule that was just past never existed, saying that Prop 19 was “overreach” and “should have gone for decriminalization”. This strikes me as intensely counter to reality.
November 4, 2010, 11:58 amChris Travers says:
Alcohol is still far more dangerous. You are more likely to be maimed, killed, or have severe liver damage from alcohol than pot.
Also I don’t know how it is in your state but here in Washington, there are exemptions to the state drinking age big enough to sail a tanker through. In my opinion, this is a good thing, and none of these exemptions have caused any major problems.
November 4, 2010, 11:59 amChris Travers says:
Trying again due to spam filter (it ALWAYS marks edited files as spam)….
Alcohol is still far more dangerous. You are more likely to be maimed, killed, or have severe liver damage from alcohol than pot.
Also I don’t know how it is in your state but here in Washington, there are exemptions to the state drinking age big enough to sail a tanker through. In my opinion, this is a good thing, and none of these exemptions have caused any major problems.
November 4, 2010, 12:01 pmAnthony says:
Strict said:
Ha!
While the restriction on employers is the sort of issue that academics and the sort of people who read every page of every proposition might care about, that’s probably less than 1% of the voters; not nearly enough to swing the election against Prop 19.
There were two big issues which might have induced people otherwise inclined to vote for legalization in general to vote against Prop 19 in particular:
First, and foremost, the remaining conflict with federal law. The feds have been pretty content to look the other way with regards to medical marijuana, but Eric Holder came out to say that the Feds would continue to enforce the marijuana laws regardless of Prop 19; it was a legitimate fear that had 19 passed, Federal enforcement would be stepped up and endanger medical marijuana. The LA County Sheriff also said he’d continue to enforce federal marijuana laws
The second reason was that Governor Schwarzenegger approved a law which made possession of one ounce or less an infraction instead of (potentially) a misdemeanor, which was a big step towards decriminalization, without being outright legalization.
California voters are, more so than most states, sheep driven by the Democrat Party, and every major Democrat candidate came out against Prop 19, which contributed to the defeat, as well.
Dennis Peron’s campaign against Prop 19 was rather amusing, decrying the “WalMartization” of the marijuana business, among other things. But I doubt it changed enough votes to kill Prop 19.
November 4, 2010, 12:05 pmChris Travers says:
Being paralyzed after a drunk driving accident (whether or not the injured party was the drunk driver) certainly leads to decades of disability and dependence, no?
November 4, 2010, 12:06 pmElemenope says:
Of course, the drug with by far the highest co-morbidity with Schizophrenia (at 80%+ use among afflicted) is nicotine.
Given that THC doesn’t interact directly (or, it is thought, even indirectly) with the D2 receptor system, and empirically increased usage rates of cannabis do not correlate with increased incidence of schizophrenia, it is likely that, like tobacco, cannabis use is correlated with schizophrenia in a reverse causative chain, probably as an attempt by schizophrenics to self-medicate either to eliminate side effects of D2 antagonist anti-psychotics, or to manage symptoms directly.
November 4, 2010, 12:09 pmAnthony says:
Clayton – right now, access to marijuana in California is restricted only by its general illegality, which isn’t very restricting. People who sell marijuana outside of medicinal marijuana channels aren’t going to card their potential customers, and while people over 21 generally have more money than people under 21, there are plenty of high-school and college students with lots of their parents’ money to spend, so there’s no real incentive for a marijuana seller to avoid selling to people under 21. If Prop 19 had passed, overall access to marijuana would increase, but access for people under 21 would be significantly different, as legal sellers (who would likely run the underground sellers out of business) would have strong incentives to not sell to minors or 18-20-year-olds. So the main source of supply for people in those groups would be the same as the sources of alcohol – friends and parents and storekeepers fooled by fake IDs.
Are there studies on the relative use of alcohol among minors during and after prohibition?
Anecdotally, while I know people who’ve never tried marijuana, I’m not sure any of them refused to try it only, or even largely, because it was illegal. I know people who don’t care for mind-altering substances at all, or who’ve seen marijuana’s effects and aren’t interested, or who don’t like to inhale smoke, but nobody has told me that they never even tried it because it was illegal.
November 4, 2010, 12:21 pmOrenWithAnE says:
OK, but that’s a perversity of prohibition.
My point is that if libertarians want to attack, e.g. the sales tax, they are free to do so (heck, I’ll vote with em!). In fact, here in MA we had a 2 ballot initiatives on precisely that. But to complain about MJ being taxed in the context of a larger scheme of taxation is just weird — it smacks of misplaced specificity.
Indeed. The correlation of mental problems and various drugs is often mistaken for a forward causation instead of a backwards one. Or at least there’s strong evidence that there is back and forth in this respect.
November 4, 2010, 12:27 pmMDT says:
Anthony,
Anecdotally, while I know people who’ve never tried marijuana, I’m not sure any of them refused to try it only, or even largely, because it was illegal. I know people who don’t care for mind-altering substances at all, or who’ve seen marijuana’s effects and aren’t interested, or who don’t like to inhale smoke, but nobody has told me that they never even tried it because it was illegal.
May I be the first? Didn’t drink until I was 21, either. Such a rube!
November 4, 2010, 12:31 pmElemenope says:
I know people who don’t care for mind-altering substances at all, or who’ve seen marijuana’s effects and aren’t interested, or who don’t like to inhale smoke, but nobody has told me that they never even tried it because it was illegal.
I do know one or two people who refuse to try it, not because of illegality exactly, but because of strict regular employment drug-testing (they’re pharmacists and pharmacy students, by-and-large). That level of caution may be over-strong, but completely understandable given how (ridiculously) serious that industry takes any drug use.
November 4, 2010, 12:39 pmMDT says:
OrenWithAnE,
Oh, I know. It’s just that I suspect part of the, er, reluctance from current MJ users to vote for Prop. 19 might have stemmed from the sales tax issue. Sales tax in CA is nontrivial. (I didn’t understand just how nontrivial until I moved to Oregon a few months ago. Here there is no sales tax, and by God, you notice it.)
What the passage of Prop. 19 would have done to the dispensaries and the black market I don’t know, but given that one of the arguments for the proposition was that now CA would be collecting a lot of revenue from buyers, people might not irrationally have assumed they’d be paying more for their pot if it passed.
(Actually, does anyone here know what it would have done to the dispensaries? Now that I’m not in CA, I didn’t follow this closely. Would medically-prescribed MJ have been tax-free still, or would MJ, being now effectively OTC, have been taxed everywhere?)
November 4, 2010, 12:43 pmMDT says:
Elemenope,
I do know one or two people who refuse to try it, not because of illegality exactly, but because of strict regular employment drug-testing (they’re pharmacists and pharmacy students, by-and-large). That level of caution may be over-strong, but completely understandable given how (ridiculously) serious that industry takes any drug use.
I don’t find that “ridiculously serious”; no one is in a better position (OK, “better” is not the right word) to fall into addiction than someone whose day job involves dispensing, among other things, addictive drugs. But marijuana is also more dangerous for people subject to drug tests than many more dangerous drugs are, because it persists in the system a lot longer. IIRC, there’s no trace of alcohol or cocaine or meth in tests about three days after last use. For marijuana, it’s more like a month.
November 4, 2010, 12:49 pmChris Travers says:
Dude, I was brewing beer by age 16, and not even breaking any laws doing it….
November 4, 2010, 12:53 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Living in Oregon was paradise. One of the few States to concurrently have decrim MJ and shall-issue CCW (AK, NE, NV as well). I regret leaving.
I would imagine that the net price would be lower because there would be less money spent on evading the law and other inefficiencies.
November 4, 2010, 1:03 pmStrict says:
Of course it would conflict with federal law.
I said it didn’t purport to pre-empt federal law. For example, if a federal law requires an employee to be suspended for drug use, and Prop 19 says an employee cannot be suspended for drug use, then federal law prevails. Federal law wins in the conflict.
Nothing you said indicated that Prop 19 would preempt federal law.
November 4, 2010, 1:13 pmFloccina says:
My strategy to get conservatives to support ending the war on drugs is to remind them that it is on part why you cannot your meds at a pharmacy without a doctors prescription. Secondly to point out that the WOD is destroying parts of Latin America.
November 4, 2010, 1:22 pmElemenope says:
I don’t find that “ridiculously serious”; no one is in a better position (OK, “better” is not the right word) to fall into addiction than someone whose day job involves dispensing, among other things, addictive drugs.
I mean to say that testing for drugs and weeding out pharmacists who smoke marijuana specifically (which is not available from the pharmacy, generally; even synthetic cannabinoids can be distinguished from herbal use by the presence or absence of certain tertiary cannabinoids) is taking drug use ridiculously seriously. There is a certain level of unwarranted equivalency present in that sort of policy between using one drug and using another which is *particularly* silly in an occupation filled with people who know better.
November 4, 2010, 1:22 pmChris Travers says:
Does it always though?
What if the federal law says “any contractor of the federal government must suspend employees for drug use” while the state law says “no employee can be suspended for drug use.” Does this just mean no state businesses can be federal contractors?
November 4, 2010, 1:24 pmElemenope says:
What if the federal law says “any contractor of the federal government must suspend employees for drug use” while the state law says “no employee can be suspended for drug use.” Does this just mean no state businesses can be federal contractors?
Wouldn’t it be a tolerable conflict unless and until it actually came up in a case or controversy? Can you envision a case in which the fed would have standing to sue in which they wanted a specific contractor fired that had violated the federal rule that would get glossed by the state rule? How would they ever even know unless the case was egregious?
November 4, 2010, 2:02 pmIsaac says:
Moreover, much social science data suggests that political attitudes tend to be fairly consistent with age, solidifying for most people when they are in their twenties. Winston Churchill notwithstanding, if you were a socialist at twenty, that implies a high probability you will still be one at forty. In addition, an important recent study suggests that the elderly actually become more socially liberal as they age, not less so.
Aren’t these two sentences directly contradictory with one another, or am I missing something?
November 4, 2010, 2:19 pmElemenope says:
Aren’t these two sentences directly contradictory with one another, or am I missing something?
I think the implication is that the first point, the general stability of political views, is the dominant effect, and the second sentence, about the increasing social liberality of the elderly age cohort, is a weaker dependent effect that describes deviations in the data from the stability model in that cohort.
November 4, 2010, 2:31 pmIsaac says:
Very well put. Thank you!
November 4, 2010, 2:48 pmI am Awsome says:
November 4, 2010, 3:03 pmChris Travers says:
And moreover, even if such a rule pre-empt only those with government contracts?
November 4, 2010, 3:05 pmMark Field says:
As I pointed out above, CA has already decriminalized possession of less than 1 oz.
November 4, 2010, 3:27 pmwhit says:
WA has shall issue CCW, no permit required to open carry, NO income tax (soundly defeated again this election). we don’t have decrim MJ. technically. But it’s de facto decrim. We can also pump our own friggin’ gas. We also have something that imo is very important on the subject of self defense and the 2nd amendment, but is often glossed over – a burden on the state in re: self defense.
regardless of what the status of CCW’s (or guns in the home are) in your state, if and when you do get in a “good shoot” you still have worries about rogue prosecutors, public pressure, etc.
WA state places the burden on the state to DISPROVE self-defense. and if the you are found not guilty AND the jury subsequently rules you acted in self-defense, the state must pay lost wages, lawyer fees, etc. this creates a powerful disincentive for the state to try people when there is a reasonable belief that they acted in self-defense. imo, the burden is placed where it should be.
even if found not guilty, the expense and stress of a trial can be a major hazard.
November 4, 2010, 3:52 pmAnatid says:
A triple-sided Rockstar comes close to a gram and so do some of the larger bottles of Noz. I don’t have the exact numbers because the manufacturers have declined to put detailed product information on their websites …
For someone with a caffeine tolerance (as we might suspect if you’re chugging a triple Rockstar in 20min) a gram won’t produce toxic symptoms, it’ll just make you feel terrible.
Also don’t forget that when we say “a cup of coffee” we’re talking about a standard cup of black drip coffee. An espresso-based mixed coffee drink from Starbuck’s, such as a latte for example, will have (IIRC) 300+ mg in a small and 600+ mg in a large cup.
Scary. And totally unregulated.
Let’s see what happens when it goes into effect.
November 4, 2010, 4:19 pmAnatid says:
Theoretically, anyone could be driven psychotic by severe enough circumstances. In practice, a very large majority of the world’s population continues to endure massive stressors and still remains non-psychotic. The probability appears to be nonsignificant.
I’m at risk for getting struck by lightning every time I step outside, but I’m only going to worry about it when I’m standing next to the only tree in a field during a thunderstorm.
Do you actually care about this? Then become an advocate against early-morning school and work times for teens and young adults. A wide spectrum of mentally illnesses, especially mood disorders and psychotic disorders, are most likely to develop during those crucial formative years of adolescence and young adulthood.
And one known, proven, tested aggravator of developing these disorders is sleep deprivation. Folks in this age group need 9 hours of sleep a night on average, don’t go to bed before 11pm-1am, and are still expected to be at school or work at 8am five days a week. Chronic sleep deprivation at this age is a predictor of all kinds of lifelong disabilities, not just mental illnesses.
By comparison to sleep deprivation, marijuana’s tendency to precipitate psychosis is vanishingly small. (And even then, if you don’t have a family history, your likelihood of developing a psychotic disorder after sleep deprivation is still very small.)
So, out of curiosity, when you hear of a teenager who doesn’t want to get up in the morning, how do you judge him? As lazy and irresponsible, or as wisely protecting his brain, mind, and future?
My point here is that there is a huge gap between actual sources of harm and our social judgment of these sources of harm. Since we are primed to believe “drugs are bad” and that “getting up early is good” it becomes very difficult for us to place the two on the same scale.
November 4, 2010, 4:31 pmSammy Finkelman says:
I think the terms cohort effect and generational effect are the same thing. A cohort effect should mean it is related to the date someone was born and the experienmces someone went through and a generational effect would mean that it is related to teh generation someone is in.
The opposite would be an age effect.
This is of course a cohort and generational effect not an age effect. Older people in some communities may speak a foreign lanageg but you don’t start speaking a foreign lanague as you get older.
Now the cohort/generational effect may change. opinions about marijuana may change.
November 4, 2010, 4:32 pmAnthony says:
As far as the arguments that people voted against it because it would tax marijuana, that’s clearly not a major factor, since local initiatives to tax medical marijuana passed handily in multiple areas.
November 4, 2010, 4:36 pmChris Travers says:
I’m guessing the hypertensive crisis I had as a teenager induced partly by caffeine was at around the 1.2 gram mark. It’s hard to know since I made my own espresso that day.
Like all drugs, mind altering or not, caffeine deserves the utmost respect. Failing to do so can have serious consequences.
November 4, 2010, 4:40 pmChris Travers says:
I can also tell you my attention deficit disorder gets much worse with both a) sleep deprivation and b) early mornings (even with enough sleep!).
Healthy minds need to sleep in.
November 4, 2010, 4:41 pmwhit says:
our wonderful statists in WA are already proposing banning those alcoholic energy drinks (that combine alcohol and caffeine) partially because a bunch of people got REALLY drunk at a party (with BAC’s in many cases exceeding .30) but of course it was the fault of the alcoholic energy drinks. seriously. like college students need caffeine to binge drink
i don’t think they will go as far as to ban bars from mixing red bull w/vodka or coffee with brandy, but after all… this is WA.
November 4, 2010, 5:04 pmChris Travers says:
I’m not saying we should ban these sorts of drinks, though I think disclosure requirements might be a good idea.
However, the point remains. People think of caffeine as a “safe” drug and never worry about overdoses. The fact is, it’s easy to get your hands on pure caffeine, and that stuff is dangerous.
The fact is that any medication of any sort should be treated with respect.
Also, didn’t Red Hook make a coffee stout for a while? Would the proposed ban affect that sort of beverage? Or is the result that you have to make your own (*thank goodness for the Washington home brew exception to just about the entire totality of state liquor laws!*)?
November 4, 2010, 5:12 pm(Required) says:
‘Tony’s Law’ Would Require Marijuana Users To Inform Interested Neighbors
November 4, 2010, 5:23 pmElemenope says:
@Anatid
Some of these are just crazy.
November 4, 2010, 5:42 pmLike. Damn.
Scott says:
Thank you for this post, Ilya.
November 4, 2010, 6:20 pmwhit says:
almost anything in excess is dangerous. that even includes water, which most people don’t consider a drug. i once marshalled at an ultra marathon where i guy died from excess water intake. hypernatremia iirc (or hypo… i forget which). electrolytes get too diluted and sweated out, you drink only water. you die.
an ancient greek d00d said “all things are poison in sufficient dose”
the real issue is what is the LD50 dose amount RELATIVE to the common therapeutic amount? with caffeine, it’s pretty darn high. with insulin, not so much. with alcohol, not so much.
etc.
caffeine’s a stimulant. of COURSE any stimulant in massive quantities is dangerous. that’s not rocket science. fwiw, i’ve bought bulk caffeine before (it makes a great stack with ephedrine, for weightloss prior to weight-classed events). to some extent, you just have to go caveat friggin’ emptor
we had tons of hysteria over ephedrine years back. with a bunch of bogus AER’s and congress banned it for sale as a supplement. and were then overturned.
yes, excess caffeine is bad for you.
November 4, 2010, 6:27 pmMDT says:
Anatid,
If kids need to be out of bed early for school, and are nonetheless staying up really late, and hence are sleep-deprived, isn’t the obvious thing to get them into bed early?
You need to be out the door by 6 a.m., you get to bed by 9 p.m. I realize that the Really, Really Cool World doesn’t keep such hours, but you can and do get used to it if you have to. I have. Sort of. (The going-to-bed part is OK, but the getting-up-at-5 part is still, shall we say, problematical.)
November 4, 2010, 6:58 pmChris Travers says:
Hyponatremia, if the guy is drinking too much fresh water. Hypernatremia if he was drinking too much sea water, which is unlikely. (Hint: Na in NaCl stands for Natrium, so hyponatremia would be “low sodium”.)
That analysis starts to fall apart quite quickly when we see purified drugs being sold (for example NoDoz is far more dangerous than coffee, and pure, powdered caffeine is far more dangerous than NoDoz). The reason is that it becomes easier and easier to unintentionally overdose. It’s far easier to consume 10 grams of powdered caffeine than it is to drink 100 cups of coffee (before which point you’d probably die of hyponatremia anyway).
November 4, 2010, 7:07 pmChris Travers says:
In case that post is misunderstood, my main point is that people should generally be aware that as one moves to more and more concentrated forms of a drug, the dangers generally increase. Coca leaves are far less dangerous than cocaine, for example.
I don’t think the drugs should be banned. I think education and teaching people to be CAREFUL when it comes to highly concentrated drugs is a good idea.
November 4, 2010, 7:10 pmAnatid says:
Some people’s Circadian clocks are more malleable than others. Teenagers are naturally shifted to stay up later, and the tendency to wake up earlier and earlier comes gradually with age. Some individuals can easily shift to an earlier sleep schedule. Some individuals find it near-impossible. This latter category represents a very substantial portion of teenagers.
If you wanted to go to bed every day at 6pm, could you? How about 3pm? How about 11am? Although a sleep cycle can be trained, for environmental reasons (starting with “the sun is up during the day”) there are practical limits on how far it can be adjusted before quality of sleep and time spent sleeping start to suffer.
November 4, 2010, 7:19 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Make it de jure and we’ll talk. Until then it’s a nonstarter.
November 4, 2010, 7:38 pmJSinAZ says:
I think the still-pending results of the Arizona medical MJ ballot proposition 203 belies the notion that the result in California was driven by the old fogey / reactionary conservative vote. Both of those demographies are well represented in Arizona, and yet the vote against leads by less than %0.5 of the vote (658,389 yes vs. 665,300 no – “). As I understand it, the Sec. of States’ office is still counting.
Personally, I’m actually quite surprised and pleased that the vote in Arizona is so close. That also gives me some measure of hope that prop 19 in CA was rejected for sound reasons (even if I disagree with them).
November 4, 2010, 7:44 pmwhit says:
yes, that’s a good point.
fwiw, in my state Humulin R (insulin) is over the counter, as are syringes. a lot easier to #$(#$ yerself up w/THAT drug if you take too much but not a lot of recreational use.
November 4, 2010, 7:47 pmMark Field says:
This has always been my view, but I got responses like Anatid’s above. Funny thing, though. When my younger daughter, who wanted to stay up late and sleep in, began working, she gradually shifted to an earlier bed time. Makes me skeptical of the claims regarding high school kids.
November 4, 2010, 7:53 pmChris Travers says:
When I went to college and stopped getting up early, suddenly taking prescription medication for my attention deficit disorder became remarkably optional.
Like all things, depends on the person.
November 4, 2010, 8:09 pmChris Travers says:
Things change to some extent as well when you do that. For a year I worked a graveyard schedule doing tech support at Microsoft. I got four hours of sleep a day (because I went to bed at about 8am and got up at about noon). I suspect I was half-asleep for at least a few hours (i.e. only nominally awake during the midnight to 3 section).
Similarly when I was in Indonesia for only a week and didn’t want to be jet lagged when I got back, I slept for 4 hours during PST night time and 4 hours during local standard night time (afternoon nap, midnight nap). Worked great.
Sleep is not fungible to the extent people think it is.
November 4, 2010, 8:14 pmElemenope says:
When I went to college and stopped getting up early, suddenly taking prescription medication for my attention deficit disorder became remarkably optional.
Like all things, depends on the person.
I had the same experience. I think also the shift to college from high school removed many of the incidental stressors that contributed to the treated condition.
Still, it is silly to adopt what is essentially a farming schedule for school. While I understand some of the social and practical pressures why (such as fighting truancy by having kids go to school before parents go to work) it can’t be optimal.
November 4, 2010, 8:46 pmRicardo says:
Sure. Page 1 has all the demographic information.
November 4, 2010, 10:34 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Thanks!
November 5, 2010, 1:06 amOrenWithAnE says:
Wow, the correlation between favorable impressions of the Tea Party and wanting to tread all over marijuana users is striking.
November 5, 2010, 1:08 amwhit says:
i guess i am an outlier. i have a favorable impression of the tea party. i want mj legalized nationwide.
November 5, 2010, 3:01 amOrenWithAnE says:
If you click the link, you’ll see the correlation is not 100%. That said, there is no doubt that TP supporter is statistically more likely to have voted against P19 than someone with a negative impression of the TP.
This (broadly speaking: social conservatism) generally prevents me from crossing party lines to support the GOP and now constrains my ability to speak kindly of the TP supporters.
November 5, 2010, 12:32 pmwhit says:
i am sure the TP is bereft about this :)
both parties suck imo. so, i feel your pain
November 5, 2010, 2:55 pmHan Solo says:
I could not support Prop 19, because of the provision that FORCED employers to not be able to fire someone if they used.
“Prop 19 Section 11304 (c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301. Provided, however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.”
In other words, non-libertarian activists for drug-legalization are hoping to create a protected class of drug users, who cannot be fired or discriminated against solely because of their drug use.
THAT is not very libertarian at all.
A truly libertarian legalization measure would not further abridge an employer’s right to discriminate on any basis. Many libertarians are not willing to swallow this pill, especially when it comes to immutable characteristics like age, sex or race.
November 6, 2010, 8:33 amOrenWithAnE says:
This is the status quo in California, where no employee can be fired for any legal off-the-job activity. There is nothing special about drug users, except that the proposition sought to ensure that they are not made into a special class of people excluded from such protection.
November 6, 2010, 11:50 amChrisTS says:
Yes, Mark, but your daughter got older. Of course, we can push ourselves to adapt. But neuroscience has pretty clearly evidenced that the average person aged 14-19 is going to be a night-owl (and need more sleep than us old folks).
It has always seemed inane, to me, that we send the teenagers off to school earliest and the kindergartners and elementary school kids off later. This means we drag the exhausted adolescents out of bed before they are ready and have to find something to do with the little kids – who were up and raring to go at 5am – until the bus comes.
November 6, 2010, 3:21 pm