Legalizing Pot in California
2009-04-12 · Guest: John Lovell (Lobbyist for Law Enforcement Groups) · 49:03
California Proposition 19 and Marijuana Legalization
Bob Zadek interviews lobbyist John Lovell regarding the 2010 California proposition to legalize marijuana. They debate the specific legal flaws of the “Tax Cannabis Act,” the historical context of drug prohibition, and the philosophical tension between personal liberty and public safety.
Topics: Marijuana Legalization, Proposition 19 (2010), Tax Cannabis Act, Drug Policy, Federalism, Property Rights, Workplace Safety, Harrison Act, Racial Bias in Law, Public Health
Speakers: Bob Zadek — Host John Lovell — Lobbyist for Law Enforcement Groups
Introduction to the Tax Cannabis Act [00:12]
Bob Zadek: Welcome to the Bob Zadek Show, everybody. I’m your host, Bob Zadek. Sundays at noon at 910 AM, more stimulating talk. We’re here every Sunday at noon with ideas, not attitude, from a libertarian perspective. We are the show of ideas, not attitude. We welcome your calls at 800-345-5639. Or, if you choose to email, bob@bobzadek.com, I may even make you a blogging star.
Today, we’re going to try to start making a bit of history. California, the California Secretary of State, has just approved and certified a proposition for the November ballot. It’s called the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. In short, it is a proposition which will have the effect of legalizing small amounts of marijuana use, marijuana cultivation for private use, and the sale, if not subject to taxation. The question today: Should California again lead the nation, this time by being the first state to legalize the use of and the carrying of small amounts of marijuana? To help us sort out this issue, I’m delighted to have John Lovell join us. John is a lobbyist. John has been retained to help defeat this proposition. John will explain why. You’ll get both points of view. John, welcome to the show.
John Lovell: Good to be here, Bob.
Bob Zadek: John, according to your website, quote, “No bills you have opposed have ever been enacted.” Is that true?
John Lovell: That’s true. That refers to legislation that has been introduced in the legislature that I have been asked to oppose on behalf of my various clients.
Bob Zadek: So, to the extent that my audience and today our audience is in favor of the regulation, control, and taxation of cannabis, aka marijuana, to that extent, we have the opportunity to hand you this time in your career your first defeat.
John Lovell: Well, as they would say in boxing, somebody’s “O” has got to go.
Bob Zadek: Somebody’s “O” has always got to go. Well, John, to help us understand the issue, and the proposition, unlike many propositions which are one or two lines long and state a general principle, this proposition reads more like an entire statute. If you could, just to start off the issue, summarize for us what the statute, the proposition, hopes to accomplish if it is enacted or approved by the voters in November. Summarize, if you would, what the statute, the proposed proposition, is all about.
Summary of the Proposition [02:01]
John Lovell: Okay, I’ll do my best. The statute, in fact, is a very confusing document. I think it’s possible the statute is so poorly worded that someone who philosophically favors legalization will look at this ballot measure and say, “Well, not this one.”
Here’s what the statute does, and it’s broken up into several pieces. The first piece is a piece that, notwithstanding any other provisions of law anywhere in the state, confers an absolute right for someone to possess at least an ounce of marijuana. As you’ll see later, the ounce is not a ceiling, it’s a floor. The statute also permits someone to cultivate up to 25 square feet of marijuana per residence if they are a property owner, resident, lawful occupant, or guest. They can cultivate up to 25 square feet. It’s unclear as to whether it can be on that property or whether it can be on another piece of property. If the lot is a vacant lot, the person can cultivate the entire lot. So, in other words, if you and I are next-door neighbors and I move out and eventually I just tear down the residence, I can dedicate that entire lot to cultivation irrespective of any other provisions of law.
So, that’s the first part, where it conveys unfettered rights to cultivate marijuana. Those rights even supersede the rights of a property owner, because what the statute says is that there are circumstances where the property owner may be required to give permission before cultivation can be permitted. But it doesn’t—it actually encroaches on a property owner’s current rights. So, if I’m your tenant, it is unclear what rights you have to protect your property and restrict my cultivation of marijuana on your property.
Bob Zadek: Sounds like we’re going to develop a whole family, a whole group of marijuana sharecroppers to me.
John Lovell: Actually, that’s a very, very good point, because the other thing that’s unclear, as I said, is where the 25 square feet per cultivation can be. So, can I lease 25-square-foot segments to other people on my vacant lot in an unfettered way without any interference by local government? And the answer may be “yes” to that.
The second set of provisions relate to so-called regulation by local governments. Understand that this measure does not authorize state regulation. Instead, it says that the various 475 local governments in California, cities and counties, may choose to enact their own regulatory schemes. Among the authorization is they can choose to increase the amount that anybody can possess. They can regulate advertising. They can regulate the commercial cultivation, not the cultivation by right that’s in the first section of the bill.
Workplace Safety and Federal Contracts [05:16]
John Lovell: Then there’s a third provision that is very disturbing to employers. Because what this provision does is it, in effect, says that if I test positive for marijuana, an employer cannot discipline me. If I’m in possession of marijuana in the workplace, an employer cannot discipline me. If I consume marijuana in the workplace—at least the non-smokable type—an employer cannot discipline me.
Now, contrast that with the rights of an employer where someone has alcohol on their breath, tests positive for alcohol, brings alcohol to work, or consumes alcohol at work. This law, in effect, places marijuana in a preferred position. The only right an employer has is an after-the-fact right to address consumption where it has actually impacted the work performance of a specific employee. So, in other words, after I have crashed the forklift into the wall, you can call me in and say, “John, you know, it’s time we discuss your marijuana consumption habits.”
There’s really two issues there. One is that that’s just devastating for California employers. It’ll inevitably mean insurance rates go up and that work comp rates will go up. But the second issue is one that could potentially cost California billions of dollars. There is a federal act called the Federal Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988. Compliance with that act is a condition precedent to the obtaining of federal contracts. So, if I’m a defense contractor based in California, I must make what is called a drug-free workplace affirmation. Under the provisions of this law, however, it will be impossible for any employer to make that kind of affirmation.
That act not only covers people seeking to contract with the federal government to provide goods or services, it also covers certain grants. For example, the University of California gets about a quarter of a billion dollars a year in federal research grant money. All of that would be at risk. Ironically, even federal law enforcement grant money would be at risk.
Bob Zadek: John, we’re going to have to go to break in a second. This is Bob Zadek, I’m talking with John Lovell. The topic is the November proposition to legalize marijuana. Should marijuana be legalized in California, and is this the right way to do it? 800-345-5639. Be right back.
Federalism and the Drug-Free Workplace Act [08:31]
Bob Zadek: Welcome back, everyone. Welcome back to the Bob Zadek Show. Sundays at noon on 910 AM, more stimulating talk. We are the show of ideas, not attitude. Today’s idea: Should California legalize the use and cultivation of marijuana? If the answer is yes, is this pending proposition the right way to do it? And indeed, there’s a third issue: Should the federal government be regulating marijuana use or any kind of drug use to begin with? Those are the topics today. If you have a point of view, 800-345-5639, or bob@bobzadek.com.
I’m joined today by John Lovell. John is a lobbyist who has been retained to help defeat this measure. John, welcome back.
John Lovell: Thank you, Bob.
Bob Zadek: Now, just to put all this stuff in perspective, there are about 10 hours of issues on this individual topic of the legalization of marijuana. The first question I find intriguing is: Should we have any federal legislation on the use of marijuana to begin with? Is that overreaching by the feds itself? A pretty interesting topic.
John Lovell: No, that is an interesting topic, and I don’t think so. I think, for example, with the Federal Drug-Free Workplace Act, the federal government certainly has an interest in having a workplace that’s safe. I mean, it is axiomatic that whenever anyone’s five senses are impaired—and it doesn’t matter whether it’s by alcohol, whether it’s by prescription drugs, whether it’s by illicit drugs—that workplace safety is endangered. When people’s five senses are impaired, they make bad decisions. We know that.
Bob Zadek: John, the fact that people make bad decisions is of no particular interest to the federal government. It may be of particular interest to the employer, it may be of particular interest to the employee, and it might—it just might—be of particular interest to the states, which historically regulate health and welfare. You and I simply disagree on a federalism issue.
John Lovell: Well, let me ask you this though, Bob. If I, as the federal government, am contracting with you to provide goods and services, it would seem that I have an interest in assuring the quality of the goods and services that you provide. And if I, as a contractor with you—if I’m contracting with you between two entities—believe that an impaired workplace is not a place where I can get good quality goods, I think I have an interest in imposing that condition. Just as if I were a private person contracting with you for goods and services, I should be able to—I’m not under this law, but I should be able to—impose conditions that assure an impaired-free workplace so the product you’re giving me is an acceptable product.
Bob Zadek: My response is, and then we’ll move on, is I couldn’t disagree more. The federal government has an issue in getting a good product, and it does that in its contract. It says, “I’m not going to pay for this product unless it’s good.” It’s up to the employer to do whatever the employer has to do or not do to produce a product, lest the employer doesn’t get paid.
Philosophical Opposition to Legalization [11:16]
Bob Zadek: But let’s move on, John, because the topic before us is specifically marijuana use. Now, a question, John. Is your—I know you are retained by a police officers association to help defeat the bill. So, I’m not inquiring your views as a private citizen, because it’s not before us today. I mean, if you want to share them, that’s fine.
John Lovell: Right, but I’m happy to share them. I concur with those views.
Bob Zadek: Okay. But then the question is, is your client philosophically opposed or opposed to the legalization of marijuana on some basis or another, or are they specifically opposed to this bill as being, “Well, we don’t oppose marijuana use, but this bill is a bad bill”? Which of those two correctly describes your client’s position?
John Lovell: The answer is both. We oppose on the overarching issue of whether more mind-altering substances should be legalized. We are opposed to that. But in addition, this measure is so poorly worded that even people who disagree with us on the overarching issue, I am confident that many of those will vote against this.
I’ll tell you one place where I agree with Richard Lee, who’s the proponent of this measure. John, let me just introduce the audience to Richard Lee. Richard Lee is the primary sponsor of this proposition. Richard Lee is the founder of a university—what’s it called? Oaksterdam University. Oaksterdam, which is a combination of Amsterdam and Oakland, of a private college or trade—more accurately a trade school—in Oakland, which is dedicated to teaching its students how to cultivate marijuana. That’s what the curriculum is. So Richard Lee is clearly a pro-marijuana activist. Indeed, there was, as an aside, there was a discussion in the media a while ago when the issue was, could students attend his university using federal grants? And that was an interesting fight. The politicians were all bent out of shape about that. But we’re not going to digress into that. But that’s who Richard Lee is. Sorry, John, go ahead.
John Lovell: No, that’s fine. But Richard Lee did say one thing. He said, “Well, there are many of us who are proponents of marijuana who have a religious zeal about marijuana.” And I agree with him. And as my wife said to me, she said when I was talking with her about the initiative, she said, “Honey, it looks like this initiative was drafted by the marijuana Taliban.”
And I think that’s part of the problem with initiatives generally, Bob. What happens is everybody in the room when they’re drafting an initiative is on the same side. So nobody is looking at it through critical eyes. And as a result, you have these gross mistakes that are made in the drafting of the initiative, which, when the public becomes aware of those issues, says, “Well, you know, even though I may feel one way philosophically, this is not the particular vehicle to advance my philosophy.”
Personal Freedom vs. Public Harm [14:38]
Bob Zadek: Let’s not—we could have a whole show, and I suspect it would be an interesting show, at least for you and I, on the whole proposition process and whether it’s good or bad, whether it’s democracy at the grassroots level or whether it’s an abomination. That’s a whole other topic.
So, the issue I’d like to discuss is, first, the more general of the two issues: Should marijuana, as a principal matter—not this proposition per se—should marijuana, should the use and the cultivation be legal in California? Now, taxing is a different issue. Why not tax it if the government wants to raise revenue? And this has been promoted, interestingly enough, as a cure or a partial cure for California’s budgetary problems. As if we’re going to smoke weed our way out of the deficit. Well, that’s of course absurd. It’ll never raise enough money. But that’s what the sponsors are doing, and I think that’s a little deceitful.
John Lovell: Well, and it is particularly deceitful because this initiative specifically does not authorize the state to tax cannabis. It only permits counties to.
Bob Zadek: That is correct. Counties or cities.
John Lovell: Counties or cities.
Bob Zadek: So the question, folks, is: Should marijuana be legalized? And then we’ll discuss this bill. 800-345-5639. bob@bobzadek.com. How will your life be affected if marijuana is—when I say marijuana be legalized—if carrying and using small amounts of marijuana and the sale of marijuana is legalized in the state of California? Will this be more or less like the state you want to live in? 800-345-5639.
Now, of course, you know, we start with—libertarians, unlike Democrats or Republicans, always seem to start with a principle. And then from the principle, you apply the principle to the issue du jour, in this case, marijuana use. And the principle is: Isn’t marijuana, the decision to grow and to use marijuana, isn’t that a—and the phrase is often used—a victimless crime? Why can’t I use marijuana, whether or not it’s good or bad for me, if that’s what I choose to do? Why is it somebody else’s business? And indeed, for 200—until the middle of the 20th or the early part of the 20th century, use of narcotics was permitted, and the country seemed to prosper, indeed go through a golden age. So, what’s wrong with the use of marijuana? Now, John, we have a couple of minutes now before break, but your views, then we’ll go to break.
John Lovell: All right, just very quickly. Look, we have enough problems already, public safety and social problems caused by abuse of alcohol. We have enough public safety and social problems caused by abuse of lawful pharmaceuticals. Tobacco actually kills people. Given that reality, what on earth is the public good that is served by adding yet another mind-altering substance where people not only make bad decisions on their own, they make bad decisions that hurt other people? And that’s the core of our opposition. One very quick point: Alaska actually did this from 1978 to 1990.
Bob Zadek: And then they changed their mind.
John Lovell: And then—well, and the reason they did is because use among children went to 51%, which was double the national average, and highway fatalities also went up. And it caused the voters in 1990 in Alaska to repeal that failed experiment. And I think Alaska’s an important laboratory here.
Bob Zadek: Well, it’s a laboratory if you choose to say personal freedom and personal responsibility don’t get into the mix. Every time you prohibit something, you deny people freedom of choice. You tell people, “We don’t trust your private decision-making. We will make decisions for you.” Now, and so the cost is the constant erosion of freedom and the lack of respect for an individual’s ability to make the right decision. This nannyism, which many of us find so offensive. So, my question: Should the state deny us the decision to even do something wrong, or should we be prohibited from doing something wrong? And if so, is the next step making sugar illegal and trans fats illegal and staying up late illegal and listening to loud music illegal? Is that where we are going? I’m talking to John Lovell. John is opposed to the legalization of marijuana. 800-345-5639. bob@bobzadek.com. If you have a point of view, I’d love to hear it. I’ll be right back.
The Racist History of Drug Regulation [18:09]
Bob Zadek: Welcome back to the Bob Zadek Show. I’m your host, Bob Zadek. I’m here every Sunday at noon at 910 AM, more stimulating talk. Today’s topic: Should marijuana be legalized in California? Should California lead the way for the rest of the country to legalize the private use of marijuana, perhaps tax it, allow its cultivation? If marijuana should be legalized, is the pending proposition called the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, is that the right way to go? And the subtext, those of us who are libertarians always look to principles. The subtext is: What business does the federal government have in regulating drug use anyway?
I’m joined by John Lovell. John Lovell is a lobbyist. He has been hired to help defeat this legislation. So you may be contributing to his very first legislative defeat. We’ll see in November. John, thanks for sticking with us.
John Lovell: It’s good to be here. I’m enjoying this show, Bob.
Bob Zadek: Now, John, I found a couple of quotes of yours which I found interesting. One quote I found—and I think I’m quoting—well, first, there are quotes. You said, “Why on earth would we want to add yet another mind-altering substance to the array of legal substances that comprise a person’s five—that compromise a person’s five senses when we know they are going to make bad decisions?” Well, we allow alcohol, and I guess you’re saying you would prefer that alcohol be illegal because it is a mind-altering substance that affects the senses?
John Lovell: Well, I can tell you that two-thirds of the calls we get—police get—for domestic abuse crimes, for example, are what we refer to as alcohol-involved. There are a high percentage of other violent crimes, including armed robberies, that are alcohol-involved. And the easy availability of mind-altering substances does not yield positive social results. Now, can we—can we outlaw alcohol? Historically, that boat has sailed. But what we can do is assure that we don’t add to the problem by increasing the inventory of legal mind-altering substances.
Bob Zadek: Well, that’s interesting because while I am aware of these statistics that mention spousal abuse and child abuse is often—and the phrase is “alcohol-related”—
John Lovell: Alcohol-involved.
Bob Zadek: Alcohol-involved. I wonder if we start with somebody who has—whether or not the same qualities that predispose somebody to be a spouse abuser or child abuser are the same qualities that cause that person to drink, so that it’s not the alcohol that’s causing the problem, but it’s the DNA of the person who is abusing a family member. That statistic isn’t so clear.
John Lovell: No, and that’s a very interesting argument. I really—and I respect that perspective. But even then, though, having said that, if we know that there are people who will commit violent acts when their five senses are compromised, what is the social good that is served by making yet more substances that compromise their five senses readily available? I mean, keep in mind that the fellow who went back to Washington, D.C. and shot the people at the Pentagon was not under the influence of alcohol, he was under the influence of marijuana.
Bob Zadek: And my response is, when you ask the question—and it wasn’t a rhetorical question—what is the social good in introducing another mind-altering substance? I have an easy answer. The social good is: People should be free to do what they want. They’re not free to harm somebody else, but they’re free to do what they want. Freedom is the most significant social good there could be. So to dismiss that as being some throwaway item of no real concern to anybody is to fly in the face of everything this country has stood for for so many years. So let’s not diminish that.
John Lovell: No, not diminishing that. But I think we have to draw a distinction between freedom and license. And I think that when you unleash mind-altering substances, the end result is that other people, people who don’t consume those substances, are the ones who are harmed. I mean, look, if there were a social way or—if there were some means of assuring that the only circumstances under which people took mind-altering substances was that their decisions would negatively impact them, then I think we’d have a different question. But we know that, for example, in the Alaska experience, use among children went to 51%. I don’t think anybody would argue that introducing mind-altering substances to children, whose brains are still physiologically developing, is a good idea. And so I think we have to draw the distinction here between freedom and license and to keep in mind that when people’s five senses are impaired, they’re not just hurting themselves, they are frequently hurting other people.
Modern Opposition and the “Misery Index” [21:31]
Bob Zadek: John, there’s two responses to that that come to mind. There may be more, but two come to mind really fast. First of all, as to the issue of harming others. We all know about the dangers to others of drunk driving. And drunk driving was a very serious problem in this country. We, as you said, we could not revisit the issue of prohibition, so that was off the table. So what did we do? Well, between Mothers Against Drunk Driving and lots of other organizations, they increased awareness, increased the penalties, and the incidence of drunk driving has gone down dramatically. Not by the prohibition of alcohol, but by peer pressure, awareness, education. So the fact is, alcohol does not have to lead to drunk driving, injuries, and fatalities. There will always be some, and you can’t get it to zero.
And as to the issue of children. I find many issues are defended, many denials of freedom are defended by making reference to children. And my comment is this: What about the role of parents? To me, by denying freedom to an entire society simply because parents are doing a really crummy job in educating their children is putting the emphasis in the wrong place. The role of parents is the primary line of defense to prevent children from making any number of really, really bad decisions. And you shouldn’t, because parents are doing a crummy job, we should not encroach on personal freedoms.
John Lovell: Couple of points in response. Your example of MADD is quite a good one. I’d point out parenthetically that MADD has actually come out against this ballot measure. Secondly, your point about parental involvement is also a good one. But empirically, we know, based on what happened in Alaska, that the legalization of marijuana resulted in this dramatic increase in use by children. And again, I think every society has an interest in assuring that its next generation is capable of carrying on in that society. And when you affect developing brains, you are doing a bad thing. And so I think we have to draw the distinction here between freedom and license and to keep in mind that when children’s five senses are impaired, they’re not just hurting themselves, they are frequently hurting other people. And knowing that empirically suggests that one of the prices we will pay for legalization—so that everybody goes into this with their eyes open—one of the prices we will pay for legalization is that use among children will increase. And I think the challenge for policymakers, irrespective of philosophy, is determining whether that is a worthwhile price to pay.
The Lottery Comparison and Final Arguments [22:51]
Bob Zadek: Well, the issue is: Do we deny freedom to us all to protect children from parents doing a bad job? Is that a fair tradeoff? Or do we say, “Okay, parents, live up to your responsibility. Teach your kids right from wrong and protect your kids against all of these dangers, including marijuana use”?
Now, what’s interesting is, when we come back, there’s the whole history of drug regulation in this country has a racial basis. The history of us regulating drug laws in this country started with a profound anti-black bias. And so, for most of this country’s history, we didn’t regulate drug use at all. It was only a hysteria in about 1913, hysteria and a fear of drug-crazed blacks that caused the beginning of anti-drug regulation.
And John, the interesting thought I’ll leave you with before we go to break is this: Congress knew they lacked the power to prohibit alcohol, and they had to amend the Constitution in 1918, the 18th Amendment. They needed a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol use. If they needed a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol use, why don’t they need a constitutional amendment to prohibit drug use? How can they regulate one simply by statute and the other by constitutional amendment? There’s an interesting question for us to discuss when we get back. This is Bob Zadek. Marijuana use is the topic, the legalization. 800-345-5639. I’ll be back. I’m talking with John Lovell, a lobbyist who opposes the legalization. We’ll be right back.
Bob Zadek: Welcome back to the Bob Zadek Show, where every Sunday at noon at 910 AM, more stimulating talk. Should marijuana be legalized? At least the private cultivation and the use and the sale. That’s a question that’ll be before the California voters this November when the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 is put before the voters. Will California lead the way again? John Lovell, my guest today, hopes not. John is a lobbyist. He is working—been retained—to campaign against this piece of legislation. The voters will speak this fall. The question is: Should California legalize the private use of marijuana? And while we’re at it, what about cocaine and opium, although they are not the subjects of the bill?
Before we went to break, I made reference to the ugly racist history of drug legislation in this country. John, the Harrison Act of 1914, familiar with it?
John Lovell: I thought the Harrison Act was actually before 1913. I thought it was around the turn of the century.
Bob Zadek: No, it was 1913. And the history of drug regulation is pretty ugly stuff, and it’s highly racial. In the 1800s, cocaine was totally unregulated. In fact, if you were to buy a Sears and Roebuck—remember them?—catalog, remember that? The Sears and Roebuck catalog offered a syringe and a small amount of cocaine for $1.50. You could order it from Sears and Roebuck.
Then early in the 20th century, people started to detect, or think they detected, a correlation between cocaine and crime. Remember, cocaine was totally legal, was sold by Sears and Roebuck in the up until the early 20th century. Then there was the Journal of the American Medical Association—well, you would think they’re not too hysterical, they’re pretty objective. There was an editorial, and let me quote to you one line from the Journal of the American Medical Association editorial: quote, “Negroes in the South are reported as being addicted to a new form of vice, that of cocaine sniffing.” Close quote.
Newspapers picked it up. Newspapers claimed that cocaine use caused blacks to rape white women and also improved blacks’ pistol marksmanship. Then we get to opium. Chinese start to be blamed for opium use. More racism. Washington appointed a blue-ribbon panel, and they found, quote, “If the Chinaman cannot get along without his dope, we can get along without him.” Close quote.
Then there are congressional hearings. There was fear stated in open congressional hearings of “drug-crazed, sex-mad Negroes,” close quote, under drug influence murdering whites. There was fear of “degenerate Mexicans” smoking marijuana and “Chinamen” seducing white women with drugs. How nasty is this? How ugly is this? Not to be outdone, the New York Times in an editorial, the headline was: “Negro Cocaine Fiends Are New Southern Menace. Murder and Insanity Increasing Among Lower-Class Blacks.” Close quote.
That’s the environment in which the first narcotics prohibition legislation was passed. Nothing born of science. Freedom takes a back seat to race hysteria and bad science. That finds its way today in the environment we have today where cocaine and marijuana use is prohibited on the federal level. Pretty nasty stuff, John.
John Lovell: No, it’s very nasty. I think we can stipulate that much public policy, not just narcotic policy, made during that period was racially motivated. Woodrow Wilson, who was president at the time, was an unvarnished racist. He actually—there had been a slow migration, not fast enough, but a slow migration of African Americans who had gotten federal jobs over the years. And when Wilson became president, he, wherever he could, he dismissed African Americans from federal work.
But I think it’s important to look at the drug debate today. And let’s look back at Proposition 5, which would have decriminalized all drugs. It was on the 2008 ballot. And what’s interesting is that that proposition was opposed by the Interfaith Based Council, which is an organization primarily made up of inner-city African American clergymen. It was also opposed by LULAC, which is the oldest Latino civil rights organization in America. And I think what you will see with the debate on marijuana legalization is that advocates for quality of life in the inner city in particular are going to be opposing this legislation because they will see it as simply adding to the misery index in the inner city. The Interfaith Based Council has already come out against the marijuana initiative, and I expect that other organizations, as soon as they have their meetings and their board meetings, will also be coming out against it. You’re absolutely right about the pedigree of much legislation or lack thereof from that era in America. It was a very ugly era. It’s the reason there were no lynch laws ever enacted in that era. But if you look at the modern legalization debate, you will find that the people who are opposed to legalization are the same people who are concerned about the quality of life in the inner city, who are concerned about mobility of people who are economically disadvantaged. I think any look at who’s supporting legalization measures and who is not will bear that out.
Bob Zadek: And my comment is, and I respect that point of view, but on the other side of the coin, of course, as one who likes to believe—me—likes to believe that I operate from a core set of principles, I say if the principle of those who oppose legalization of marijuana to protect the inner city, the disadvantaged, from yet another vice, yet another temptation—why aren’t those same people railing against, for example, the California State Lottery? Which is the most regressive of taxes, it plays right into the biggest weaknesses of inner-city people who are in despair and who hope against hope they can work their way out of poverty by winning the lottery, even though the odds are against them. Why isn’t that the government taking advantage of and praying into the vices and the temptations of the inner city? Why aren’t those people calling for repeal of the state lottery, for example?
John Lovell: Well, actually, that’s again a very good point. And if you look at the California lottery when it was on the ballot, it was in fact opposed, not just by law enforcement, but by many of those same inner-city organizations for precisely the reasons you articulate. There’s no question that the lottery is a regressive tax on the poorest of the poor.
Bob Zadek: So, if it is, then—but there’s no right now, there’s no outcry to repeal the lottery because California as a state is addicted to the revenue stream. So California has this revenue stream, which is clearly a tax on the people least able to afford it because they need the money. So California is perfectly willing, in the most obscene, crass way, to take advantage of the weaknesses of the inner city and their lack of knowledge of the odds to take advantage of them by selling them lottery tickets, but on the same plane wants to prevent the rest of us from using marijuana when we can do so intelligently. It’s just there’s no principle involved. And to me, you start with the principle and you build on that. And there’s no principle if somebody is principled and says, “Keep marijuana illegal,” that same principle should require them to fight to the death to eliminate things like the lottery. And it’s just the principle isn’t there.
John Lovell: Well, I would respectfully disagree. I think those of us who oppose the lottery continue to oppose it. But our most immediate task in front of us is to prevent further erosion by legalization of marijuana, which actually comes back to this ballot measure. Because what voters are going to decide is not the larger philosophical questions you and I have been sharing this morning, but this ill-designed, in your opinion, statute. Well, it’s a statute that absolutely encroaches on the property rights of property owners. John, you’re going to have about 30 seconds to finish up and tell the audience why they should vote against this proposition.
John Lovell: This is a measure that encroaches on property rights, encroaches on the ability of an employer to have a safe workplace, and will cost the state of California billions in lost federal contracts.
Bob Zadek: And I say I stand for the principle of free choice. People should not—don’t need statutes to protect themselves from their own bad decisions. And there you have it. Will liberty prevail or will prohibition prevail? Tune in in November. This is Bob Zadek. I’ll be back next week at noon on Sunday for the world from a libertarian perspective. Thanks so much for listening. I’ll be back next Sunday.