On Local Government

Ballot propositions: Part I – 19, 20, and 21

 ‘Tis the season for California voters to cast their ballots on items they usually spend way too little time researching. These are the biennial initiatives and constitutional amendments presented to the voters because some special interest was forced, by law, to ask permission. (Otherwise, the Legislature would either accept of reject these in the last furious days of a session, thus making most of them unnoticed by the general public.)

There are nine measures on the ballot this time, so I thought I’d divide them into three parts and provide you with my take on them, for whatever you might think of that’s worth.

Proposition 19: Legalizing marijuana

It is the great dilemma of public policy to try to determine how far a society must go to protect people from themselves. The illegal use of marijuana is relatively widespread, depending on which set of experts you believe. There is also considerable difference of opinion about its effects on individuals and society.

Marijuana growing areas in northern California are becoming a battleground of Bulgarian and Russian gangs looking to get a piece of the illegal trade. And, local governments spend countless millions trying to eliminate what seems to be a desired, and relatively benign, product.

Probably the most devastating drug, in terms of effect on individuals, families and society in general, is alcohol. It is legally sold, with mostly effective measures of dealing with the prohibition of sales to minors (most children get alcohol from other sources) which also penalize its use in dangerous situations such as driving. Nevertheless, alcohol is the primary cause of accidents and deaths on the highways.

Is marijuana any better or worse? Probably, neither.  For me, I’d rather have a controlled sales infrastructure, from which much needed taxes can be obtained rather than spend all that money trying to keep people from committing criminal acts they wouldn’t be impelled to do.

Proposition 20: Redistricting

This would extend to Congressional districts the same commission-based redistricting process that is in effect for state legislative seats. Having supported the state version, it would be disingenuous to oppose its use for Congressional districts. However, the jury is still out on how the whole thing will work at all. We’ll see in the next year or so.

Proposition 21: State park and wildlife funding

There is always at least one proposition that confuses where it could be clear. In this case, on your vehicle license renewal will appear an $18 surcharge to go onto a trust fund to support California’s state parks and wildlife preservation. In return, all vehicles paying the fee will be admitted free to State parks. The “Day Use Fee” will be waived for vehicles. As is currently the case, people can walk into the parks for free.

However, the fee doesn’t apply to everyone. Some, such as veterans would be exempt. Others, such as large commercial vehicles, wouldn’t be charged on registration, but would have to pay on entering the park.

Confused?

Not a bad idea, but, it seems, a convoluted execution.