Marijuana measure rejected in California
Californians rejected a ballot measure Tuesday that would have made their state the first to legalize marijuana for recreational use.
The spirited campaign over Proposition 19 pitted the state’s political and law enforcement establishment against determined activists seeking to end the prohibition of pot.
It was by far the highest-profile of the 160 ballot measures being decided in 37 states. Other topics included abortion, tax cuts, and healthcare reform.
In Oklahoma and Arizona, voters approved proposed amendments aimed at nullifying the segment of the new federal healthcare law requiring people to have health insurance. A similar amendment was rejected in Colorado.
Colorado voters also defeated a pro-life “personhood” amendment—similar to one rejected in 2008—that would have given unborn babies human rights in the state constitution.
California’s marijuana proposal would have allowed adults 21 and over to possess up to an ounce of pot, consume it in nonpublic places as long as no children were present, and grow it in small private plots. It would have authorized local governments to permit commercial pot cultivation, as well as the sale and use of marijuana at licensed establishments.
Proponents pitched it as a sensible, though unprecedented, experiment that would provide much-needed revenue for the cash-strapped state, dent the drug-related violence in Mexico by causing pot prices to plummet, and reduce marijuana arrests that they say disproportionately target minority youth.
But every major newspaper, both political parties, the two candidates for governor, and all but a handful of leading politicians came out against it.
White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske said that legalizing marijuana wouldn’t solve any problems, but instead would lead to more addiction, driving accidents, and emergency room admissions.
Federal officials also said they would have continued enforcing laws against marijuana possession and sales had the measure passed.
Prop 19 supporters blamed the outcome on the older, more conservative leanings of voters who participate in midterm elections and pledged to try again in two years.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
See WORLD’s interactive national map for complete election results from across the country.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top16 Comments to “Marijuana measure rejected in California”
I’m rather surprised this time around, but there’s always 2012. It’s only a matter of time for enough people come to believe the Bible as a ‘living document’ (the same way the SCOTUS views The Constitution) and they ‘discover’ new meaning in verses such as ICor 6:12 : “All things are lawful unto me, … all things are lawful for me… .” Pay no heed to those ellipses. They simply aid context. The SCOTUS has been doing this for generations as Americans tacitly approved by doing nothing.
Report comment to moderator
Surprised the Cheech and Chong dope bill got as far as it did. The big money drug peddlers fought this bill tooth and toe nail. For understandable reasons
Report comment to moderator
Yes the medical dispensaries that sell pot for $400 and ounce in conjunction with big beer, wine, and liquor distributors joined with…I guess…Citizens for Wasting Money, Empowering Drug Cartels, and Incarcerating Young People and Minorities to defeat a bill whose time had come.
And there IS always 2012, and they are promising to qualify the effort again.
And hopefully they learned from the wealth of operational criticism they got this time around and can write a better bill next time, i.e. some people voted against 19 because they didn’t like 19 not because they didn’t want to legalize pot.
Report comment to moderator
On the upside 19 did scare the Governator into signing a fairly progressive pot bill that basically makes it not a misdemeanor but a civil infraction to possess less than 1 ounce, meaning getting busted with that amount will not appear as a conviction on anyone’s police record or send anyone to jail. It will more closely resemble a parking or speeding ticket than a criminal action. So yay for that!
Report comment to moderator
I learned over at the Volokh that this law had it been enacted would have meant that an employer would have had to tolerate a marijuana smoker or it would have been discrimination.
Who wants a pothead working for them?
Report comment to moderator
Like wow man. That’s like a total bummer man.
Report comment to moderator
This has been a topic out here all day. I keep coming back to StuBob’s brilliant point–how can the government discourage legal tabacco smoking on all fronts and then allow for pot smoking?
Report comment to moderator
#5: How is an employee smoking pot on his day off any different than an employee getting drunk on his day off?
If it’s not illegal (and had this law passed it would not have been) and doesn’t affect job performance, why is it the employer’s business?
Report comment to moderator
#7: What’s brilliant about that? The government discourages, but does not ban, tobacco smoking. Making pot legal would take a great deal of power away from the drug lords, without requiring the government to encourage it.
I’m not a pot smoker — I tried it twice in college and never since, and that’s been decades ago — but even as a non-user I can see that prohibition really makes no sense.
Report comment to moderator
I suggest you go to the Volokh to learn more about it. It has nothing to do with being off work.
Report comment to moderator
MICHELLE (7): I keep coming back to StuBob’s brilliant point–how can the government discourage legal tabacco smoking on all fronts and then allow for pot smoking?
Frank: That’s not a “brilliant point” but rather a sadly ironic observation.
You can’t justify certain abuses of government power (the ill-conceived drug war) by citing other abuses of government power (no smoking on public sidewalks, in the park, around your own children, etc.).
You keep up that kind of “reasoning” and they will soon sell you on the legitimacy of government-enfoced tooth brushing and criminalization of gluttony.
Report comment to moderator
#11 “You keep up that kind of “reasoning” and they will soon sell you on the legitimacy of government-enfoced tooth brushing and criminalization of gluttony.”
Wasn’t there a case where obese kids were considered child abuse? And we already have government enforced water fluoridation. Obama’s science advisor even considered mass sterilization through the water supply writing about it in his college textbook.
I was traveling today in a state that bans cell phone use. What is funny is that it is not yet illegal to eat giant hamburgers, guzzle supersize drinks, change clothes, shave, put on makeup and even have sex while driving. Doesn’t a law against reckless driving cover all of that?
Why do we need government to start itemizing all the freedoms we must give up for “the people’s” good? As much as I oppose pot smoking, esp. for my own children, I love liberty more. The government is almost completely inept. Our legal system is a joke. Parents are better enforcers than our broken government.
Report comment to moderator
The results were interesting; the prop lost by roughly 55-45. Net result is that some people will spend time in jail for something 45% of the population thinks should not be a crime. I can’t think of a lot of other crimes like that…
It’s funny how conservatives selectively lose all respect for “freedom”, democracy and rights when it comes to the state locking people up.
Report comment to moderator
Whoops! Just read Xion’s post just above mine.
If he and I both agree on something, it’s gotta be the law.
Report comment to moderator
It’s funny how conservatives selectively lose all respect for “freedom”, democracy and rights when it comes to the state locking people up.
So there shouldn’t be any selectivity in whom to imprison and for what?
Report comment to moderator
Did the proposition say anything about regulating what was in the pot? Anyone concerned with safety and minimizing medical costs to the general public would not want to open another can of worms to cause MORE health problems beyond what cigarettes (which are extremely regulated), alcohol and casual sex already cause.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!