Prop 19: A Gateway to Tax Revenue and Regulation

By Marcos Villanueva           

Voters face a very difficult decision this November as Proposition 19 enters the ballot. Every smoker’s dream and conservative’s worst nightmare has come to the state of California, as Proposition 19 offers to possibly forever change the face of California with the legalization of marijuana. 

            The proposition states that any person 21 years of age or older would have the legal right to personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis for that individual’s consumption. This does not include the sale of cannabis.

An individual in the state of California would also be permitted to cultivate cannabis plants, within 25 square feet per private residence area, for personal consumption only.  Unless the person is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301.  Those are just a handful of the legal terms that define the laws set for the proposition, however, even with a well-organized presentation of this proposition, much debate against the proposition is still at hand.

                        Throughout our campus, a web of much political discussion concerning the topic of Prop 19 has become to grab notice of teachers and students. Many students, such as Sean Desmond, stated as long as “they tax the hell out of it (cannabis), it could be for the best.” 

Which begs the question, could these new taxes on cannabis perhaps aid California in its current budget crisis?

              “A wife of a pastor, a mother and a conservative republican, I believe that the passing of proposition 19 will only negatively affect California,” said a woman, at the registration booth that asked to remain anonymous.

Strong opinions resonant and confirm that many are reluctant to the new idea of Prop 19.

The other woman working at the booth, also added that she believed that instead of helping the budget crisis for California, Prop 19 would make it worse by having to repair the damages from cannabis users and possibly bring more problems to the courts.

 CSUSM’s Political Science professor Jerry D. Breckon, gave another perspective on the topic.  When asked the question, professor Breckon simply replied that he was a democrat and if this proposition can curb violence and crime associated with it, then he is for it. 

This was another opinion relating to the proposition in that the legalization of cannabis would lower crimes due to the fact that the drug would be sold legally, taking money from the pockets of criminals, as well as lowering the number of criminals, and pumping it into the economy. With every question, it seemed that the numbers on both sides of the argument were increasing. 

When it came to debates on whether or not the proposition should pass, there seemed to be an equal amount of individuals on both sides of the fence.  However, the majority of interviewees were undecided and found flaws on both sides of the argument.  When it comes to any kind of political proposition or bill, trying to be passed it really only comes down to the opinion of the voter.  Whether anyone has visions of California consumed by chaos, disorder, and a mist of “blue berry yum yum” or a society with just an ounce more of freedom (no pun intended) the future of California simply lies in the hands of the voters.