It's bad enough those godless pinko socialists brought us Nancy Pelosi, but smoking wacky tobacky? At the World Series? How dare they!

Willie Nelson is firing up the bus!

Willie Nelson is firing up the bus!

Willie can visit his old friend, Adrian Monk.

I have seen people quietly smoking pot in public in multiple U.S. cities. Some people care, but not many.

pretty much legal here in Boston now

Yet another reason San Francisco Doesn't Deserve to Win the World Series

I think you get the equivalent of a traffic ticket in Portland. Unless you just get jacked. I suspect there are many suburban cops smoking free weed courtesy of the people who are too stoned to hide the stash when they get pulled over.

Yet another reason San Francisco Doesn't Deserve to Win the World Series

That column sounds exactly like it was written for The Onion. Excellent!

I must have been watching the Budweiser ads and missed that.

I think you get the equivalent of a traffic ticket in Portland.

I read a column suggesting that decriminalizing weed will actually lead to more arrests, since right now law enforcement is not going to deal with the paperwork of arresting someone on a trivial amount of weed, but its easy to right tickets, tickets are quite profitable for police departments, and many people who smoke weed habitually will be unable/unwilling to pay the large fines.

I'm running for District Attorney in Caldwell County, North Carolina (home of Madison Bumgarner, BTW). My platform is that I want to go after violent criminals, those who steal or damage property, and crimes of fraud. I will not prosecute non-violent drug offenses. I will not prosecute checkpoint cases, which I believe are illegal, unconstitutional, and a waste of time and resources. I oppose the death penalty. I think it is immoral, fraught with the risk of killing an innocent person, and also a waste of time and money.

So who's with me? :)

I will not prosecute non-violent drug offenses. I will not prosecute checkpoint cases, which I believe are illegal, unconstitutional, and a waste of time and resources.

Huh, does a district attorney get to select which laws are enforced in their jurisdiction?

does a district attorney get to select which laws are enforced in their jurisdiction?

Absolutely. DAs have discretion as to which charges to prosecute and which to dismiss. You've never heard of plea bargains, or dismissals of cases due to insufficient evidence/suppression of evidence/violation of rights? Or the inverse: "We're really going to go after X, which is a horrible crime! By prosecuting these cases, we'll make the streets safer!"

I think you get the equivalent of a traffic ticket in Portland.

IIRC that was the "penalty" for possesion of personal use amounts of marijuana in Berkely, CA back in the 1970's; needless to say that was a law that was seldom, if ever, enforced. I can remember standing on line to get in clubs, passing around joints, waving at the police as they drove by and they would just wave back. At that time a good many people sincerely thought that pot would be decriminalized and soon. Obviously that hasn't happened, at least not in most jurisdictions. I no longer smoke marijuana and haven't for a long time so I don't really have a dog in this fight but one has to think that governments, that are always crying that they don't have enough money, could find better ways to spend the money they do have than on non-violent drug offenses.

So who's with me? :)

I am, if only so I can say, POST #11 IS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY!!!

I read a column suggesting that decriminalizing weed will actually lead to more arrests, since right now law enforcement is not going to deal with the paperwork of arresting someone on a trivial amount of weed, but its easy to right tickets, tickets are quite profitable for police departments, and many people who smoke weed habitually will be unable/unwilling to pay the large fines.

uh, what?

"I will not prosecute non-violent drug offenses. I will not prosecute checkpoint cases ..."

You are running for the wrong office. It's the job of the Congress or your state legislature to decide what the laws are*. A DA is hired to administer the laws decided by legislative officials, not to decide what the laws ought to be.

(*In states with initiatives, that power to write the laws is ceded to the people some times, but never to DA's.)

Granted, District Attorneys need to use discretion, set priorities and make judgments as to what best serves the public interest. But it is improper, if not illegal, to not prosecute laws you personally don't agree with. When you are sworn in to a job as DA, you will swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and enforce all its laws. By declaring that you will pick and choose what laws you will uphold, you disqualify yourself for that prestigious office.

In context, this is hyperbole, but imagine white DA's in the South in the 1960s or before declaring unilaterally that they would not prosecute violations of the law committed by whites against blacks. In principle, it's the same as your declaration--it's a unilateral decision by a DA to pick and choose which laws he agrees with and which ones he thinks the legislature got wrong, without him every being elected to legislate.

Note: I am in agreement with you on the drug laws. I have opined in my column in favor of Prop 19. I also think we send far too many people to prison for far too long at far too great an expense for little public benefit. But I don't think my District Attorney or anyone else in an executive or administrative position has the right to veto the decisions of elected legislatures, once laws are on the books.

That column sounds exactly like it was written for The Onion. Excellent!

This, on the other hand, is actually pretty funny.

http://tinyurl.com/2crjxzn

A civil infraction for smoking pot (aka a ticket) is not the common meaning of "arrest", at least in my experience. Anyways, the tide is coming in on decriminalization and it won't be long before most states and cities are taking the reigns from the feds and decriminalizing and eventually legalizing and taxing it. Makes sense to me, we have budget crises in almost every state, overcrowded courts and prisons, and the pot zeitgeist has swung way back from "just say no" of the 80's and 90's.

the tide is coming in on decriminalization and it won't be long before most states and cities are taking the reigns from the feds and decriminalizing and eventually legalizing and taxing it. Makes sense to me, we have budget crises in almost every state, overcrowded courts and prisons, and the pot zeitgeist has swung way back from "just say no" of the 80's and 90's.

All you Californians: VOTE YES ON 19!

but imagine white DA's in the South in the 1960s or before declaring unilaterally that they would not prosecute violations of the law committed by whites against blacks.

I don't think that's analogous. What you are describing violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Non-violent drug crimes don't directly violate any part of the Constitution, so there is a significant distinction between the two crimes.

As to the broader point, DA's have to allocate their resources and they absolutely have the discretion to not prosecute cases they think aren't a priority. The DOJ isn't prosecuting pot crimes at the moment, is that improper? No, because it's a waste of government money and time.

I'm usually with you on this type of thing, Treder, but I will, as I always do, vote NO on every ballot initiative. Ballot initiatives are the devil, no matter how well-intentioned.

I'm with 22.

The post, not the proposition.

uh, what?

I think the idea is that people end up getting arrested for not paying their fines. It doesn't strike me as very likely, either.

You always vote NO regardless of the content? Because you are philosophically opposed to ballot measures? How are they the Devil?

What if there was a ballot measure to outlaw ballot measures?

#22 -- If you are ever going to make an exception, make it for Prop 20 and against Prop 27. Allowing elected officials, incumbents if you will, to draw their own district lines is a serious conflict of interest. The only way we will ever take this power out of their hands and make district elections* in California competitive again is by the initiative process. To have districts for Congress and the legislature designed to benefit incumbents is undemocratic.

Keep this in mind when thinking about our gerrymandered districts: In 2008, when Democrats won some huge percentage** of the vote in California, Republicans did not lose any seats they held in 2006. This year, Democrats should win some much smaller percentage** of the vote in our Congressional races (according to Nate Silver), but that change won't make any difference. 35 of the 36 Dems in the US House are completely safe, due to how our districts are drawn. Those 35 all won by 30% or more in 2008. There is one Democrat, Jerry McNerney of Pleasanton, who Silver thinks may lose. But his race is very close now--within 3.1%. So it is entirely possible that a big decline in the popular vote will make no difference at all. That strikes me as an affront to our democracy.

**Were it up to me, we would have proportional representation in place of districts.

**I am not certain what the percentages are. I think the decline for the Democrats will be in the 10-15% range, but I don't know.

I'm usually with you on this type of thing, Treder, but I will, as I always do, vote NO on every ballot initiative. Ballot initiatives are the devil, no matter how well-intentioned.

Baloney. Stupid ballot initiatives are the devil. Smart ones aren't.

How about the steroid prosecutions? Do you guys think this is an abuse of prosecutorial discretion at the federal level?

You always vote NO regardless of the content? Because you are philosophically opposed to ballot measures?

Yes. That, and my experience with the California initiatives are that they're at least one of the following:

• Unconstitutional
• Have no payment mechanism
• Have no expiration date
• Impossible to amend
• Impossible to remove

And since they're passed by the "People of California", no one can ever actually be held accountable when things go bad. And since ballot initiatives are, by law, limited to addressing one single issue, they ignore the possible impacts on everything else in the budget. Thus, unintended consequences abound as every initiative that passes tends to make things worse instead of better.

Moreover, since when have we been a direct democracy? The initiative system was built specifically to circumvent the legislature. Some people see subverting the representative republic as a feature, not a bug, but I don't think circumventing the people's elected representatives actually addresses the problems with the legislature in any way.

Edited for clarity.

I think you get the equivalent of a traffic ticket in Portland.

That's the case now in California too. Recently The Guvinator signed a law that reduced possession of "personal use" amounts of pot to what amounts to a traffic ticket. It's a $100 fine, I think. This has, ironically if arguably (the data is hardly fast), reduced the support for Prop 19 in that people who were supporters when it was a means to reduce the wrongly incarcerated are more likely to abstain or vote no since it's just a "parking ticket."

I'm usually with you on this type of thing, Treder, but I will, as I always do, vote NO on every ballot initiative. Ballot initiatives are the devil, no matter how well-intentioned.

I'm sympathetic to this idea, especially in a state like CA where government by referenda has pretty much destroyed the state's ability to function. (The insolvency/tax problems in CA are directly related to stupid ballot initiatives.) I'm not sure I'm good with the 'throw all of it out' tact, but I'm sympathetic.

This year in GA we get to vote whether or not to modify the state constitution to "promote competitiveness" by outlawing former tech industry workers from ever starting a firm of their own, because of over-zealous non-compete agreements. I hate Georgia.

This year in GA we get to vote whether or not to modify the state constitution to "promote competitiveness" by outlawing former tech industry workers from ever starting a firm of their own, because of over-zealous non-compete agreements. I hate Georgia.

Eh, all states are screwed up. This year in Indiana we are voting to amend the state constitution to permanently cap property taxes at 2% of the assessed value. This is all well and good but there is no mechanism in place to address steadily increasing assessments. Last year my property tax assessment went up some 45%; I think you all can see how a property tax cap would be an exercise in futility. I'm not really complaining about this, Indiana might be the least taxed state in the country, of course we have crappy services but at least our taxes are low.

of course we have crappy services but at least our taxes are low.

See, you need to move to California. We have crappy services, embarrassingly bad infrastructure and high taxes. It's a win-win-win.

Moreover, since when have we been a direct democracy?

To some extent California (as a state) has always had some amount of direct democracy. But the initiative process is a remnant of the Progressive Era. That's what makes the current situation so much fun to watch.

Moreover, since when have we been a direct democracy? The initiative system was built specifically to circumvent the legislature. Some people see subverting the representative republic as a feature, not a bug, but I don't think circumventing the people's elected representatives actually addresses the problems with the legislature in any way.

Agreed. I guess we're just conservative that way.

Baloney. Stupid ballot initiatives are the devil. Smart ones aren't.

Sure, but naturally you think that the initiatives you vote for are smart and the ones you vote against are stupid. So do people on the other side of anything. That's independent of the question of whether the process itself is smart. Almost no one reads the entire text of ballot propositions (Proposition 19 is apparently incredibly poorly worded; my extremely liberal/libertarian officemate who is pro-legalization is voting against it on structural grounds, and that's all the evidence I need to vote against it), or considers how they interact with other laws and statutes, so you really have people voting on abstract ideas, not practical effects. I'd rather have professional legislators drawing up laws that are written and implemented correctly, and have the voters pick legislators who are similar to them ideologically, then have the voters themselves vote on laws. We already have a system that ensures that the people making laws are similar ideologically to the voters.

So the initiatives that pass, like Prop 13, are inevitably passed due to pandering and/or misrepresentation, because voters don't go deep enough to figure out all the consequences. I don't really blame them; that's not their job. That's the job of the legislature, who we pay to do this. And those are the guys that should be making laws.

As of January 2010, the Seattle police consider personal marijuana possession as their lowest possible enforcement priority. More here.

Proposition 19 is apparently incredibly poorly worded; my extremely liberal/libertarian officemate who is pro-legalization is voting against it on structural grounds, and that's all the evidence I need to vote against it

Apparently not. I thought you voted No on every initiative regardless of its intrinsic merits.

Look, I fully agree that the initiative process is a clusterf@ck. But I'm not nearly philosophically pure enough to wait until the state's procedures are all hunky-dory before I concern myself with the actual content of the initiatives that my fellow citizens are going to be voting yes/no on, with me or without me.

Legalization of cannabis is a no-brainer. It's about as simple a question as one ever encounters. It's beyond idiotic for this state (or any other) to criminalize it, and simultaneously fail to extract a penny of sorely-needed tax revenue out of its billion-dollar market.

I would love it if the state legislature would take action on this. But they aren't. And anyone who thinks they are going to within any forseeable time frame is spectacularly naive.

If Prop 19 passes, it won't solve the state's major problems, by any means. But it will be a step in the right direction, and it will send a powerful signal to Sacramento, to other states, and to Washington DC (as things in California, ballot initiatives prominently among them, often do) that at least on this particular issue, the citizens of California might possibly be onto something that you craven legislators aren't willing to deal with.

If this makes me philosophically impure, I plead guilty. Meanwhile in real life, my Yes vote will have contributed in some tiny way to something positive for us all.

I'd rather have professional legislators drawing up laws that are written and implemented correctly, and have the voters pick legislators who are similar to them ideologically, then have the voters themselves vote on laws.

California doesn't have professional legislators, it has professional dogmatic partisans. The initiative process is only part of the state's problem, the demographics are just as troublesome. Even with redistricting reform, it is virtually impossible to draw moderate districts in this state without blatant, and almost certainly illegal, levels of gerrymandering.

Yet another reason San Francisco Doesn't Deserve to Win the World Series

Thank you for pointing out that San Francisco is "effete", Mr... umm, what was your name again? I'm sorry... did you say "Steve Blow"???

District Attorneys need to use discretion, set priorities and make judgments as to what best serves the public interest. But it is improper, if not illegal, to not prosecute laws you personally don't agree with. When you are sworn in to a job as DA, you will swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and enforce all its laws. By declaring that you will pick and choose what laws you will uphold, you disqualify yourself for that prestigious office.

I agree with most of the above posters that this does not constitute an argument that all minor crimes must be prosecuted. However, this logic certainly does apply to a huge issue like the death penalty. I am against the death penalty myself, but if it were the state law, I would want and expect the DA to treat it as such. Speaking of which...

I'm running for District Attorney in Caldwell County, North Carolina

This could be confusing...

And since they're passed by the "People of California", no one can ever actually be held accountable when things go bad. And since ballot initiatives are, by law, limited to addressing one single issue, they ignore the possible impacts on everything else in the budget. Thus, unintended consequences abound as every initiative that passes tends to make things worse instead of better.

Moreover, since when have we been a direct democracy? The initiative system was built specifically to circumvent the legislature. Some people see subverting the representative republic as a feature, not a bug, but I don't think circumventing the people's elected representatives actually addresses the problems with the legislature in any way.

These are my feelings precisely, we have constitutional amendments on the ballot every election here in Florida and it's ridiculous. I did vote for one several years ago: It was an amendment that required future constitutional amendments on the ballot to be approved by 60% of voters instead of 50% (it passed). We really don't need the constitution to require a high speed rail line (passed, though I think it has either been repealed or is completely stalling due to the state not funding it) or establish rules for the treatment of pregnant pigs (failed).

The hot button issue this year is Amendment 4, a giant steaming pile of crap. It essentially will require that any future new or changes to a current land use plan will require a taxpayer funded referendum of the local residents. So not only does the amendment itself subvert the way our government is supposed to function but it wants to create a new way to do the same thing by wasting tax money (which we sure as hell don't have available in Florida right now) to have everyone vote on each land use plan (in 2006 there were 6,406 amendments to local plans). Plus it's not like it would really do a damn thing to actually prevent the influence of special interests or really serve the best interests of the people.

I can't see it having the slightest chance of passing though, opposition to it is widespread and diverse (business, labor, and environmental groups are all against it, most newspapers and government officials oppose it, etc.) and seems vastly better funded. I've seen virtually nothing in the way of political advertising in support of the amendment but around here you can hardly kick a puppy in the street without it hitting a Vote No on 4 sign.

I took my 23 month old son out around AT&T Park for his first baseball experience a few weeks ago. It was during one of the evening playoff games – we were one of the only groups with a child out there on the McCovey Cove boardwalk, and certainly were among a small minority who weren’t drunk or high.

We still had fun and my son could see the field through the fence (so he got a lot of mileage out of one of his favorite words – “bee-bawl”), but I was kind of surprised by the incredible amount of pot smoke wafting through the air – and that’s taking into account that I expected there to be A LOT of pot smoke. There were cops back there but they were probably just there to make sure nobody threw Molotov cocktails at the yacht with the “Free Johannes Mehserle” banner.

Apparently not. I thought you voted No on every initiative regardless of its intrinsic merits.

No, that's me that does that, not AS.

Legalization of cannabis is a no-brainer. It's about as simple a question as one ever encounters. It's beyond idiotic for this state (or any other) to criminalize it, and simultaneously fail to extract a penny of sorely-needed tax revenue out of its billion-dollar market.

I would love it if the state legislature would take action on this. But they aren't

I don't feel very strongly about the issue and I have no particular objection any of your arguments in support of legalizing cannabis, but if it's such a no-brainer, then you and those who agree with you need to push the issue with the governor and your representatives in the state legislature instead of trying to pretend they don't exist.

If this makes me philosophically impure, I plead guilty. Meanwhile in real life, my Yes vote will have contributed in some tiny way to something positive for us all.

"In real life"? We already know what the result of this system is "in real life": countless laws that, at best, do no good, and at worst, steal state money from people and projects who deserve it. In real life, special interests, monied interests, corporate interests, and out-of-state interests pack the California ballot with initiatives disguised as legislation in the people's interests, and each and every one that slips through makes our lives a little worse.

You want to legalize pot? Go for it. I wish you the best of luck, and encourage you to pursue it via the representative system of government. I'm not voting for any propositions, though. We're drowning in them.

No, that's me that does that, not AS.

Oops, sorry, my bad.

I don't feel very strongly about the issue and I have no particular objection any of your arguments in support of legalizing cannabis, but if it's such a no-brainer, then you and those who agree with you need to push the issue with the governor and your representatives in the state legislature instead of trying to pretend they don't exist.

If you don't feel strongly about an issue, then please do a favor to those of us who do (in either direction) and just decline to vote on it. A "no" vote is not an abstention.

And you are displaying abundant naivete if you sincerely believe that pushing this particular issue with the governor and the legislature will achieve anything whatsoever. We have been pushing this issue for well more than 30 years. The "War on Drugs" power structure has been pushing back.

We don't pretend they don't exist. They exist all too plainly and futilely and obstructively.

"In real life"? We already know what the result of this system is "in real life": countless laws that, at best, do no good, and at worst, steal state money from people and projects who deserve it.

No better example of this than the law that criminalizes cannabis. Perfect example. And to pretend that if only we didn't have the dumb-a$$ (and it surely is dumb-a$$) initiative process in California that all this would be improved is to ignore real life.

You want to legalize pot? Go for it. I wish you the best of luck, and encourage you to pursue it via the representative system of government.

I appreciate the theoretical support. Unfortunately, what's required to actually effect change in the extremely imperfect world in which we live is empirical support.

If you don't feel strongly about an issue, then please do a favor do those of us who do (in either direction) and just decline to vote on it. A "no" vote is not an abstention.

I'm not abstaining. I actively oppose the passage of any and every ballot proposition.

And you are displaying abundant naivete if you sincerely believe that pushing this particular issue with the governor and the legislature will achieve anything whatsoever.

Welcome to representative democracy? Here's an excellent articulation of my beef:

...Proposition 19 also establishes a specific method for legalizing and taxing marijuana that, under California's Constitution, can't be altered without another vote of the people.

This is problematic when it comes to legalizing marijuana, because if California were to become the only state to legalize the drug, there undoubtedly would be a host of new issues that might require altering the fundamental structure of Proposition 19. And that would require more action by voters. If the Legislature had created the underlying law, it would be easier to make changes.

What the article doesn't point out is another problem with 19, that because local governments are allowed to make their own regulations WRT to weed, we'd be looking at well over 400 new laws concerning the use and sale of weed, with regulations changing every few miles you might travel.

These types of issues are the norm when it comes to ballot initiatives. For practical as well as principled reasons, I oppose them all.

We have been pushing this issue for well more than 30 years. The "War on Drugs" power structure has been pushing back.

I wish you luck against the power structure, but I value my representative government more than I value legal pot.

I think we can agree to disagree.

Of course. We don't exactly have other options :-)

I find that most people tend to agree with me in general on my stance against ballot propositions, but they always make an exception for the ones they like. That, to me, is what keeps the initiative system alive: everyone admits to its flaws, but everyone also sees how it might work for themselves.

I find that most people tend to agree with me in general on my stance against ballot propositions, but they always make an exception for the ones they like. That, to me, is what keeps the initiative system alive: everyone admits to its flaws, but everyone also sees how it might work for themselves.

Fair enough, well said.

The one point I would add is that your position is perfectly principled, but I find it impractical. I would suggest that our difference is that between the principle and the practical, and finding the proper balance between them on any given issue is someting that all of us should always struggle to achieve.

I find that most people tend to agree with me in general on my stance against ballot propositions, but they always make an exception for the ones they like. That, to me, is what keeps the initiative system alive: everyone admits to its flaws, but everyone also sees how it might work for themselves.

I find the same thing and basically agree with our Southern Californian frenemy entirely. FWIW to re-slander myself, I also do think that I should vote no on all ballot props -- I certainly vote no on anything close. But I disappoint myself by voting yes extremely infrequently (the only thing I voted yes on this cycle was the proposal to increase the vehicle license fees -- I will basically vote for any tax increase, as I think we desperately need to close the horrendous budget gap, which, ironically, is at least significantly due to the proposition system. I assume this proposal has no chance of passing, as it is a tax increase.)

However, this doesn't stop me from considering the propositions on their merits, if for no other reason than to try to use meritorious arguments instead of procedural ones to try to convince others to vote no.

Yet another reason San Francisco Doesn't Deserve to Win the World Series

I'd like to point out the fact that this guy (the columnist) lists Joe Barton, the man who apologized to BP for the government requiring them to set up a clean up fund and who will be the chair of the energy committee if/when the GOP takes the house, as one of the reasons Texas is better.