(Cross posted at Living in the O.)

This was a particularly depressing article from the Sacramento Bee:

All three leading guv hopefuls oppose legalizing weed for recreational use.

“I’ve already indicated that that’s not a provision I am likely to support,” Attorney General and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown told a gathering of law enforcement officials in Sacramento this week. “I have been on the side of law enforcement for a long time, and you can be sure that we will be together on this November ballot.”

GOP candidate Meg Whitman’s spokeswoman, Sarah Pompei, said Whitman is “absolutely against legalizing marijuana for any reason. … She believes we have enough challenges in our society without heading down the path of drug legalization.”

Steve Poizner’s communications director, Jarrod Agen, said Poizner “feels we need an across-the-board tax cut to reignite our state’s economy, not an attempt to smoke our way out of the budget deficit.”

These statements are damning evidence of just how disconnected from California public opinion these three candidates are – 56% of Californians support legalizing and taxing marijuana, according to the Field Poll from April 2009. Support for legal marijuana is an idea fully in the mainstream of the state’s electorate, especially in the tightly regulated forms proposed in the legalization initiative that qualified for the November ballot last week, or in Assemblymember Tom Ammiano’s AB 390.

It also suggests a certain lack of seriousness about exploring all reasonable options to deal with the state’s budget deficit. Jerry Brown is particularly disappointing on this, even if his stance isn’t at all surprising. Brown has gone around the state pointing out, correctly, that we spend too much money on prisons at the cost of other core services, such as schools. Brown also signed a bill in his first year as governor in 1975, sponsored by then-State Senator George Moscone, decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Unfortunately, in recent years Brown has been totally unwilling to revisit the sentencing policies that produce those high prison costs. He opposed Proposition 5 in 2008, which would have provided sensible sentencing reform and was widely supported by drug treatment professionals. That didn’t move Jerry Brown then and doesn’t appear to move him now.

Brown’s framing of his opposition to legalization – that he’s “on the side of law enforcement” – is both inaccurate and profoundly unhelpful. Groups such as Law Enforcement Professionals Against Prohibition (LEAP) are strongly supportive of legalization. Many local police agencies and county prosecutors would welcome the ability to shift their attention away from pot and toward actual threats to public safety, especially at a time when police budgets are under stress.

Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner are no less out of touch for their opposition, even if it is also unsurprising. Both Whitman and Poizner apparently believe they must hold the line against ANY new tax, in order to justify their reckless plans for massive new tax giveaways to their wealthy friends.

All three candidates are turning down what could be as much as $1.4 billion (according to the Board of Equalization study of AB 390) in desperately needed budget savings, coming from new taxes on marijuana.

In the absence of leadership from the gubernatorial candidates, Californians will have to lead the way themselves this November by voting to approve the legalization initiative.

Yesterday Richard Lee of Oaksterdam University announced that he has gathered over 680,000 signatures to place an initiative to legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana on the November 2010 ballot:

The petition drive, which was run by a professional signature-gathering firm, collected more than 680,000 signatures, 57% more than the 433,971 valid signatures needed to put it on the ballot, said Richard Lee, the measure’s main proponent.

“It was so easy to get them,” Lee said. “People were so eager to sign.”

The initiative would also allow cities and counties to adopt their own laws to allow marijuana to be grown and sold, and the localities could impose taxes on any aspect of marijuana production and sales. It would make it legal for adults over 21 years old to possess up to an ounce of marijuana and to grow it in a 25-square-foot area for personal use.

Because this particular initiative creates a “local option” for taxation, on top of a statewide legalization, it is hard to quantify exactly how much money this would raise. Initiative proponents cite the Legislative Analyst who says it could generate up to $1.4 billion in new revenue, in addition to an unknown but likely significant amount of savings in prison and court costs.

Although some other legalization initiatives are floating around out there, this is the only one that’s expected to make the 2010 ballot. And despite some earlier debate over whether 2010 or 2012 was the best time to go the ballot, other marijuana legalization advocates plan to support this initiative fully and work to pass it.

They may be joined by the rest of the state:

Polls have shown that a majority of California voters support legalization. A Field Poll taken in mid-April found that 56% of voters in the state and 60% in Los Angeles County want to make legalize and tax pot as a way to help solve the state’s fiscal crisis. In October, a poll taken by a nonpartisan firm for the Marijuana Policy Project found 54% support in the county.

A poll taken for the initiative’s proponents by EMC Research, an opinion research firm in Seattle, found that 51% of likely voters supported it based on language similar to what will be on the ballot, but support increased to 54% when they were read a more general synopsis.

Those numbers are no slam dunk. But they also show that this is clearly an idea whose time has come. California has proven that the costs of the war on drugs are unacceptably high, and that we need to bring that stupid and pointless conflict to an end before it bankrupts the state.

There’s still 11 long months to go between now and the November 2010 election. But I’m hoping that Californians are ready to take the national lead in legalizing and taxing marijuana as part of a more rational and sensible approach to drug policy, prison reform, and the budget crisis.

Major policy changes often happen as a result of a sudden shift that is, in fact, not so sudden at all. Public attitudes and behavior steadily change over time, but a political system whose practitioners have made up their minds on a topic years ago, before that change became apparent, are typically unwilling to accept the new reality. Until something changes – a new generation of leaders takes power, a financial crisis causes people to become more open to new ideas. Or perhaps it’s just as simple as an idea whose time has come, an idea whose wisdom can no longer be denied.

We’re at such a turning point with marijuana. One of the state’s main cash crops, the economic base of many small towns in the North Coast (and of a growing but hard to track number of metropolitan households), marijuana is already widely available in California, whether on the black market or at a quasi-legal dispensary. As more and more Californians are comfortable with the use of marijuana, even if they do not partake of it themselves, the decades-old drug war has become seen as more and more absurd when it comes to marijuana.

When an April Field Poll found 56% of Californians back marijuana legalization, it became only a matter of time before the topic became a fully mainstream subject, deemed appropriate for “serious” conversation at everything from public policy summits to the dinner table.

And so this week California is witnessing a fundamental shift in marijuana policy, where for perhaps the first time it really is a question of “when,” and not “if,” the sale and use of marijuana will become legal in California.

The biggest news comes from the federal government, where Attorney General Eric Holder has followed through on his early signals and announced the Justice Department will no longer prosecute people for using medical marijuana in accordance with their state’s laws. Holder is not yet embracing full legalization, of course. But this is a significant shift that recognizes states do have a right to innovate when it comes to drug policy. Whether the Obama Administration intends it or not, the new policy will be further evidence that a strict federal “War on Drugs” is no longer desirable or viable.

Here in California, more fundamental changes are under way. As a judge rules LA DA Steve Cooley’s attack on dispensaries to be invalid, the movement for full legalization is well under way. Tom Ammiano’s bill to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana, AB 390, will get its first hearing in the Assembly next week.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, speaking at a bill signing ceremony in Merced yesterday, said he is “basically opposed” to legalization but believes it’s time to have a debate about the issue. In Arnold-speak that says he doesn’t see legalization as a political loser, even if he’s not quite willing to go there himself. His comments show that legalization has gone from being a sensible idea on the fringes of our political discourse to something we can debate as easily and naturally as, say, water policy.

Meanwhile, armed with the Field Poll results – as well as the recent Gallup Poll which found support for legalization was highest in the Western US, with moderates and independents nationwide about split on the matter, California activists are not waiting around for the legislature or the governor to act.

Instead they’re going directly to the ballot. TaxCannabis.org is the headquarters for the effort to put an initiative on the November 2010 ballot to treat marijuana much like alcohol. The initiative would legalize possession of up to one ounce for all adults over 21, and give local governments the ability to determine whether to more broadly legalize and tax marijuana themselves. It would essentially create a “local option” instead of a statewide free-for-all.

It’s not yet clear if they have the money or the volunteers to put this on the ballot. And the fact that local governments would be the ones implementing the policy, instead of a single statewide standard, might limit the savings in prison spending and the overall tax revenues created. But it’s a clear step forward for sensible drug policy, one whose time has clearly come.

We have less than 50 days until the special election in the 10th Congressional District to replace Ellen Tauscher, who resigned to take a job at the State Department.  The candidates include local members of the legislature, the state’s Lieutenant Governor, and several candidates with interesting resumes.  There’s even word that New Age guru and Oprah pal Marianne Williamson may get into the race, although she doesn’t have much time to make her decision.  The 2nd quarter fundraising totals revealed some interesting outcomes, and the campaign staffs have debated who has the most local support and the most endorsements.  There’s even a burgeoning controversy about Ellen Tauscher’s presence on Sen. Mark DeSaulnier’s mailers, which may violate the Hatch Act now that she works in the State Department.

We’ve heard a lot about strategies, funding and endorsements, but a little less so about where the candidates stand on the issues.  So I’m making an effort to interview all the Democratic candidates in the race, to discuss their views on the type of vexing problems that the country faces which they would be expected to deal with in Congress.  The first candidate to respond was Adriel Hampton, the former Political Editor at the San Francisco Examiner and an investigator in the SF City Attorney’s Office.  What follows is a paraphrased transcript of the interview I conducted last week.

DD: Thanks for taking some time to talk with me.

Adriel Hampton: Thank you for contacting me, this is great.

DD: How are things going with the campaign?

AH: Things are good.  I kind of feel on the razor’s edge here, where I could either do really well or crash out.  Obviously, (Anthony) Woods and I are the underdogs, while the elected officials are duking it out.  Woods focused on fundraising and did a pretty good job, while I focused on building a volunteer organization.  I’m working on voter ID in a distributed way using volunteers, and I’ve dropped 8,000 pieces of literature, half of it myself.  I have two little kids, and I’ve been canvassing basically every night after they go to sleep since April.  I got a designer in Los Angeles to deliver sharper literature, with a better printer, and I’m starting some targeted PAC fundraising among peace groups and progressive organizations.  I think Anthony and I are running a bit to the left of the field.  And then you have the possibility of Marianne Williamson getting in, and she has a major public profile as well as having worked with Kucinich in the past.  I think she takes votes from everybody a bit, but certainly (Assemblywoman Joan) Buchanan.

I’ve just been trying to build a consistent presence on the ground, through appearances and volunteer events.  The other campaigns have big staffs, especially (Lt. Gov. John) Garamendi.  (Sen. Mark) DeSaulnier has the Democratic club circuit down, and Garamendi is kind of running an air war.  But the poll he put out showed an 80% name ID and only 24% of the vote.  I’ve been campaigning everywhere, all over the district, and we’ll see how it goes.

DD: Let’s get into the issues.  I’ve been looking at your 12 ideas to change the nation, and right at the top is economic reform.  Could you talk about that a bit?

AH: Absolutely.  I got into this race to discuss economic issues and taking on Wall Street.  In fact, I was strongly considering running a primary against Ellen Tauscher, I have been critical of her since her vote to authorize the Iraq war.  Then I learned about how she was one of Wall Street’s biggest friends.  I’m running as an economic progressive.  A big problem with the Democratic Party is that they consistently fail everyday citizens on economic issues.  In many ways, they’re just as corporate as the other party.  I was active in the grassroots against the Bush bailout.  Obama brought in some of the same people responsible for taking us down that road with Wall Street.  I supported the stimulus, and the opportunity for New Deal-type spending, but I think we need to go further and break up the political power of Wall Street.

DD: You mention supporting credit unions.  How exactly would Congress be able to do that?

AH: I think we can favor them with an FDIC guarantee, promoting them as an alternative to the global banks.  During the financial crisis, the banks outside the big national firms tended to do better.  And so I think we should encourage that more local approach.

DD: There’s been a lot of talk recently about bankslaughter, this idea that we could add a new crime to hold bank managers personally responsible for behaving recklessly or in a negligent way.  Do you support bankslaughter?

AH: I would tone down the name to enact popular support!  But you know, when you see someone like Angelo Mozilo, he certainly engaged in what I would call a dereliction of duty.  I don’t have a problem with holding bankers personally responsible for failing to hold to certain consumer protections.  What I’ve seen is that the grassroots folks who are not necessarily active in politics are very receptive to this.  They want to see some accountability.  And I don’t want to harp on Obama entirely about these issues, he needs a progressive Congress as well to push this through, it’s not all on him.

DD: OK.  Another one of your 12 issues I read kind of surprised me, it was about conscience clauses.  As it turns out, there was a federal ruling recently saying that pharmacies must dispense the Plan B pill and cannot use their religious beliefs to deny women legal medical aid that they seek.  How you do respond to that?

AH: I am not for restricting access to the morning after pill or abortion information.  All I’m saying is that there has been a robust system of jurisprudence around reasonable exemptions.  You cannot fire disabled people because they cannot perform one task in a job, you have to make an exemption.  If a pharmacist doesn’t want to provide those pills, some other pharmacist can in their place.

DD: But some people live in rural areas where they have no other choice but one pharmacist for possibly hundreds of miles.  If that person doesn’t want to provide legal services, shouldn’t he find another job?

AH: Well, I’m for reasonable accommodation, not blocking access to health care.  I believe in allowing people to exercise their individual liberties as long as they don’t infringe on others.  I’m willing to talk about the nuance of issues like this, to see if we can come to an understanding.

DD: The biggest issue in Congress right now is health care.  Where do you stand?

AH: Well, I’m for single payer.  Pete Stark, up here in the Bay Area, decided to vote against that cap and trade bill because it was too weak, and conservatives now love him for it.  But I don’t think that should come into account, and I don’t think the grassroots should give up.  Some of my opponents say we should get what we can get, but we might lose the momentum for reform if we do that.  But I understand that we have to treat those millions of people who are suffering right now without health insurance.

DD: Let me ask you this, would you agree to refuse to sign any bill without a robust public option that is available immediately and can use Medicare bargaining rates to drive down costs?

AH: You know what, I would.  I would not vote for anything that didn’t severely change the insurance system.  I’m not a violent person, but the system is so violent right now that I feel the need to do violence to it.  And the same with war funding efforts without drawdowns and timelines, I couldn’t vote for that.  I know that the ads would kill me, defying the President.  But I think it’s important to talk about the issues, meeting as many people as I can, going right to them and explaining myself.  There have to be lines in the sand.  We have a radical right-wing party in this country that is almost insane.  And the Democrats are playing down the center.  We need some organizing from the left.  Just imagine someone like me, a regular guy, expressing the beliefs of Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee.  I’m not afraid of the word socialist in certain respects.  I think there’s a role for government in equalization, to provide an economic bulwark against death, disease, and poverty.  And I get that regular people in the insurance industry may suffer, but are they worth the struggle of 47 million uninsured?  At least we can start these debates on the left, I think it would result in a better outcome.

DD: Obviously at Calitics we’re focused on the budget issues.  What help do you think the federal government could provide to help get some systemic reform here?

AH: Well, I voted all No on May 19, because I didn’t see any serious reform efforts in there.  One benefit of the problems now in California, which are tragic, is that I hope people are waking up.  There’s such a right-wing influence in the media and the popular consciousness.  As it turns out, California’s taxes are not progressive.  I just think there’s a rage on the populist level that can be tapped by progressives.  Everyone in this race is a strong liberal, but I think I’m the only progressive, fighting for progressive taxation and labor rights.

DD: So what reforms can we get out of Congress?  Some want the Feds to provide loan guarantees to the states, or they can condition a second stimulus to real budget reform, or even take Medicaid out of a state/federal partnership and into the realm of a purely federal program to smooth out outcomes throughout the country.  Where do you fall?

AH: Probably along the lines of more extreme reforms.  I appreciate Calitics’ reporting on this.  The loan guarantees sound like a good idea.  I could live with centralized funding of Medicaid with local administration.  And I’m for carrots and sticks in any stimulus funding, the idea that if you bail out a state, they have to have additional guarantees.  Overall, I’m for structural reform.  One of my opponents, Sen. DeSaulnier, is pushing a Constitutional convention.  But we all need to stay on top of that.

DD: One final question, with respect to Iran.  You wrote in your 12 points to change the nation that “I will oppose, by any means necessary, Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon.”  Obviously, a lot has happened since you wrote that.  Are you revisiting this, and how can we engage with Iran now given the scenes of repression?

AH: Iran is one of the most difficult issues we have right now.  We shouldn’t forget the amazing turnout in their election, almost 85%.  What did we have for the special election, 25%?  We shouldn’t really be in the position of telling Iran what to do.  And you cannot give a state democracy, the people have to want it for themselves, things have to happen.  Military intervention in Iran right now would be terrible.  And we have to be careful, because the students over there are already being scapegoated as US puppets.  It’s also an open question whether Mousavi has clean hands, or if he’s just an outlet valve for the current system.  But I still believe we have to have negotiations.  I think Woods and I are the only two who said that at our last forum.  Garamendi was talking about banning the import of refined oil.  That would only hurt everyday people in Iran.  So I think we need diplomatic relations and a strategic dialogue.  I’m not happy about dealing with Ahmadienjad, but you have to play the hand you’re dealt.

DD: OK, thanks-

AH: Can I add one final issue?  I am the only candidate in the race who supports the full legalization of marijuana, I think Woods supports decriminalization.  We’re seeing a modern prohibition movement, and that leads to inefficient and dangerous outcomes.  We have a highly regulated alcohol industry, and I think we could do the same thing with marijuana.  I don’t smoke, but people like me, squares, need to say, “what is the policy benefit of continuing the drug war?”

DD: All right.  Thanks for your time.

AH: Great, thanks.