Joshua Malbin

The Los Angeles Times/USC poll finds that support for legalized marijuana leads at 49%, but is soft, with one-third of supporters only “somewhat” supporting it:

Voters were also split over whether legalized marijuana would worsen social problems, such as increasing crime and triggering higher marijuana use among teenagers. Those concerns appear to have much more potency with voters than the debate over tax revenues. Among those who oppose the initiative, 83% think it would add to the state’s social woes; 55% of married women also believe that.

Me, May 20:

The talking points in favor of legalization are simple: regulate and tax it like alcohol and reap more than $1 billion of revenue that can patch the holes in our budget. These are terrible talking points, and I think it’s because of this mostly bloodless approach to the issue that the initiative will fail.

The one-third of supporters who polled as weak will mostly not vote; a few will be turned to “no” votes. What if we generously assume that one-third hold to yes, one-third convert to no, and one-third don’t vote, and also that the 10% who answered “don’t know” or refused to answer don’t vote? The measure goes down, 55-45. I think it will be closer than that, but that kind of loss doesn’t feel extreme.

I’d like to see an ad for legalization that forgot about the tax revenue case and showed a boring looking middle-aged couple saying something along the lines of, “We don’t really smoke much pot anymore. It was pretty fun when we were younger, but these days we prefer a nice glass of wine. Still, I wouldn’t mind an occasional hit, and certainly, no one should go to jail for it. We’ll tell our kids what we’ve already told them about alcohol: your body isn’t ready for it now, but it’s something you might enjoy occasionally in moderation.” Then some policy case foofara, followed by a tag of the couple saying, “Oh, you remember that party where you shared that spliff with Kenny? That was trippy, man…”  and being embarrassing dorks.

I don’t think it would turn the election, but it would start to address the emotional content of the civic debate in a way that “use taxes will fill the budget gap” doesn’t.

Share on Facebook

John B. Cannon is exactly right about the unpleasantness of California winters:

Now the problem with California winters is that, since it never gets that cold, most houses are not properly constructed for heat conservation. They are poorly insulated. Windows often have gaps (and storm windows are not to be found). Instead of central heating, the average home in the Bay Area will have one or two rinky-dink wall heaters. What makes matters worse is that most native Californians are kind of macho about heating. They don’t think it should be on except for the two or three coldest days of the year, and they don’t even bother to close windows consistently. To me, an open window in November is an anomaly – not out of the question, but always to be remembered and closed at the earliest moment a nice day turns cold. I like being macho about going for long walks in the cold in Kansas. I hate being out-machoed (and therefore being what, weak and soft?) about feeling cold in my house in California.

I had a lovely November day today, as I made a cup of tea and broke my reading fast (more on that tomorrow) in the dim midafternoon and the need for a sweater. But soon it will be chilly inside all the time, when it should be toasty inside and chilly outside.

Share on Facebook