Medical Marijuana Wins in California and Arizona

By 55.7% to 44.3%, California voters passed Proposition 215 to allow medical use of marijuana. Arizona voters passed Proposition 200 by a much larger margin, 65.3% to 34.7%. The Arizona measure is broader than California's; in addition to allowing medical marijuana, it may lead to release of persons already in prison for certain nonviolent offenses. It is much less well known than the California initiative, because supporters in Arizona did not want outside help, due to sensitivity of Arizona voters to interference in their affairs.

Californians for Medical Rights, the official sponsor of the 'Yes on 215' campaign, is preparing a brochure for patients and doctors "who need to know what Proposition 215 means to them. By the same token, we will help to inform people who are NOT sick as to why Propositions 215 will not apply to them. We don't want anyone to get the wrong idea about this new law, and end up putting themselves at risk unnecessarily." To leave your name and address to receive a copy of the free brochure, call the Proposition 215 Patient Information Hotline, 1-888-YES-4-215 (toll free).

No county in California had less than 40% of voters supporting the medical marijuana measure, according to a voter survey of over 2,000 voters published the day after the election (we do not have the final official figures, which would include absentee ballots and may differ somewhat from the survey). The highest support was in San Francisco, with 78% of voters interviewed. Los Angeles supported Proposition 215 by 56%. See the SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER, November 6, page A-24, for a vote breakdown for all counties, and statewide by demographics, political beliefs, etc.

Comment

Despite exaggerated statements from both sides suggesting that California marijuana laws are now unenforceable, we suspect that the main immediate effect of Proposition 215 will be to create a limited legal defense in court. A state proposition cannot overrule Federal laws against marijuana for medical or other use. It will be necessary to build a national campaign to change Federal laws.

The biggest ultimate impact of these votes may be to open doors to rational discussion about the war on drugs. And here it is clear that the country desperately needs other policy options besides prohibition or official indifference. This writer has strongly supported Proposition 215, but would never want to see massive television and billboard promotion of marijuana. Today with tobacco, companies sanctimoniously agree to help keep it from children, while knowing full well that their future centrally depends on getting children and teenagers to smoke, since few smokers begin as adults -- leading to highly sophisticated, lavishly financed corporate promotions to children, cleverly designed to stay mostly under the radar of civil society.

We need a new category between legal and illegal, for activities where adults are clearly allowed to make their own decisions, but where public policy is not neutral, discouraging an activity by other means than by making it a crime (such as by prohibiting routine or large-scale promotion). The Supreme Court has made such policies difficult, by defining advertising as Constitutionally-protected "speech" -- making it hard to regulate promotion of products such as alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana, without first making them a crime and invoking all the deadly baggage of prohibition, for no public purpose.

The Proposition 215 demographic breakdowns in the EXAMINER survey are fascinating. Sex made little difference, with females slightly more supportive of medical marijuana. There were big differences by race, with Black most supportive of proposition 215, Asian least supportive, and White in the middle. By age, support was lowest among voters over 60. Voters who currently were paid full-time workers were considerably more supportive than those who were not.

But what may be most important was the breakdown by whether the voter has children under 18. There was almost no difference in support -- only a 2% difference, and the survey had a margin of error of 3%. We would have thought that the basis of opposition to this proposition would have been parents worried that their children could get in trouble with drugs. But that is not what happened.

What, then, IS the basis of the opposition to medical marijuana, or to this particular initiative? Polls have repeatedly shown strong support for the right to use marijuana for legitimate medical needs; in view of this consistent support, the 55.7% vote in California seems disappointing. Supporters should ask the 44.3% who voted against Proposition 215 what was on their minds. Addressing their objections will be an important part of making this initiative work well enough to be an effective national model.