2010 was an exciting but disappointing year for the marijuana legalization movement. California’s Proposition 19 did better than many past legalization efforts, but despite having an ample war chest and a well organized campaign, it still narrowly lost with 46.5% voting yes and 53.5% voting no. However, there is reason to believe this November may be different and that voters in at least one state may finally vote to end marijuana prohibition.
Marijuana legalization initiatives are already approved to appear on the ballot in Colorado (Amendment 64) and Washington State (Initiative 502). These two initiatives have five important advantages this year compared to Prop 19.
1) Time – While two years is a very short period of time separating the ballot measures, the opinions of regular Americans on marijuana legalization are changing rapidly. In October 2009 Gallup found 44% of Americans thought marijuana should be legal, compared to 54% illegal. In 2010 that gap had closed to 46% legal – 50% illegal. By October 2011 Gallup found 50% thought it should be legal, compared to 46% illegal. That was basically an 8 point national swing for legalization in just the first year following Prop 19′s failure.
Pew polling also found a recent increase in support for legalization in one year. In March 2010 pew found 41% thought marijuana should be legal compared to 52% illegal. Exactly one year later Pew found support jumped to 45% legal – 50% illegal.
There has already been a significant growth in popular support for marijuana legalization since just 2010 when Prop 19 failed. If the trend continues, support should likely grow another few point between now and November, when voters in Colorado and Washington State go to the polls.

2) Turnout, Age – Another piece of good news for marijuana legalization is that 2012 is a presidential election year; 2010 was only a congressional election year. Presidential elections almost always experience much higher overall voter turnout, especially among younger voters. In 2008 the last presidential election, people under the age of 30 cast 17.1% of all the votes. In 2010 people under 30 made up only 11.3% of the vote.
This is very important for marijuana legalization, because there is a huge age divide on the issue. Young voters overwhelming support it, while older voters oppose it. According to Gallup 62% of those adults under 30 support legalization while only 31% of those over 65 do. If young voters in 2010 had comprised the same percentage of the electorate as they had in the 2008 presidential election, Prop 19 would have done significantly better, likely failing by only 49% yes to 51% no.
3) Turnout, Partisan – In addition 2010 was a highly unusually wave election for Republicans. There was a relatively high turnout among Republican leaning voters and an unusually low turnout among Democratic leaning voters. This likely hurt Prop 19, since Republicans voters tend to be less supportive of legalization. Gallup found 57% of Democrats think marijuana should be legal while only 35% of Republicans feel that way. Early indications are that in 2012 we will see nothing like the historic Republican wave that happened in 2010, and partisan turnout should be more even. A more traditional partisan balance in turnout would improve a marijuana legalization ballot measure performance this year compared to 2010.
4) Clear Regulatory Structures – While there are important technical differences between the initiatives on the ballot in Washington State and Colorado, they both clearly assign a specific state agency to regulate, control and tax marijuana. On the other hand Prop 19 didn’t directly lay out how state agencies would regulate and tax marijuana. This lack of explicit instruction about a state regulation scheme was widely attacked by opponents to make the claim that Prop 19 was “poorly drafted.”
Indications are that this particular attack did cost Prop 19 some support and contributed to its narrow loss. PPIC polling found that 7% of voters said the main reason they voted no on Prop 19 was because it was “poorly written.” Similarly Greenberg Quinlan Rosner polling found that almost a third of those who voted against Prop 19 in general thought marijuana should be legal or decriminalized but had specific problems with Prop 19. Both I-502 and Amendment 64 were drafted in part to address these concerns. One hopes the design of these two measures will help them win over those on the fence.
5) Strength in Numbers – While hard to quantify, I think the fact the legalization will be on the ballot in at least two states this November will have a psychological impact on voters. A lot of the rhetoric around Prop 19 was about California going it alone. Often it was phrased as ‘would California lead the way’, ‘would California break with the rest of the country,’ or ‘would California live up to its hippie counter cultural image.’ I think concerns about being first and alone on this issue made some voters in California uncomfortable.
I feel that with legalization being simultaneously decided on in Washington and Colorado, the rhetoric this time around will be more about whether the country is moving to embrace marijuana legalization and less about whether a single state is going it alone. I suspect being part of a multi-state debate will make some undecided voters more comfortable than they would be if they were asked to vote to make their state the ‘first’ to take the plunge.
The demographic trends on the issue are so clearly moving in one direction that it is no longer a question of whether states will begin ending their prohibition against marijuana, but simply a matter of when. For these reasons and many others, 2012 just might be the beginning of the end for the war on marijuana in the United States.


16 Comments
i sure hope so — thanks for the update
Good luck to you…and the Boston Red Sawks…Just too much money in grass being illegal…Too much overtime for cops and prison guards too…”I mean it leads to harder stuff, right?” (George Hansen, Easy Rider, 1969.
how can we miss? With the dynamic leadership our our enlightened, progressive, humane, science respecting POTUS, we should be able to do that and a lot more.
Or maybe not.
It’s great that some states aredoing this but as long as we have a coward in the White House and tools in Congress nothing will change.
There’s also a #6: Revenue.
The War on Some Drugs brings in some revenue, but at a far greater cost in terms of crime and corruption and murder. Legalization, on the other hand, eliminates these costs both monetary and human and allows state and local governments to regulate and tax a product in a manner that brings in much cash to these cash-strapped governments while allowing for said product to be safer, better and cheaper than when it was sold illegally.
I am a veteran of the “War on Drugs” since Nixon, and at 63, my goal is to live long enough to not only see marijuana legal, but to have my healthcare pay for it.
I’ve been mulling the revenue issue, and would like to play devil’s advocate a moment
Once MJ is legal but taxed, there will be more incentive for people to grow their own in small amounts on the sly. Of course that goes on anyway, yet it would be expected to increase in some proportion to how expensive MJ becomes in a store or clinic (including the tax). MJ is a lot easier to grow and process than tobacco.
If a state continues to prohibit unlicensed growing and unlicensed sales (while allowing possesion) it would be because of revenue. That vests the state’s interests in MJ trade which remains illegal at the Fed level. Then, depending on the hard asses in DC, Fed enforcement could include demands that a state divulge its tax records to DOJ — who is licensed, who paid the MJ tax, how much, etc. I don’t see how a state could conceal such information, and the consequences from the Feds could be difficult for those involved — growers, sellers, maybe even state employees simply doing their jobs managing revenue collection.
All I’m suggesting is that there will be disincentives for casual MJ wannabe users to comply with the rules which would generate revenue — probably the cost, a climate of fear of compliance, and the low likelihood of getting caught going it alone. So a new underground cottage industry may result which diverts a lot of expected gov’t revenue elsewhere.
Other reasons:
Mortality, the oldest and most anti legalization voters are dying off.
Endorsements, like Pat Robertson, the California Medical Association, the Washington State Democratic Party, former US Attorneys, and many Conservatives like Buckley and Schultz.
Drug War Fatigue, people are tired of the endless parade of slaughter and a war that is all tunnel and no light.
Just remember the Prohibitionists are utterly fanatic and will say or do anything..
I agree. But until the Feds relent I think the best the states can do is passive resistance on a piecemeal state by state level. Legalize at the state level, and then the state/local gov’t politely demurs from participating in or backing up any Fed enforcement.
The Feds will be the last to relent because of the mishmash of left/right and red/blue. There will be enough prohibitionists there to stop change regardless of which party controls what. The most progressive states are the key, and they have to lead the way. Create a tipping point that way, but it’ll take awhile.
You’re right. The Feds will be the last to change. State reform will pressure Congressmen from those states to support Federal reform. All they have to do is repeal Federal prohibition to allow states to regulate as they choose.
The Controlled Substances Act is federal law, enforced by the DEA and their minions. The DEA works for 0bama. 0bama works for the lobbyists. The lobbyists work for the money. Lobbyists make big money from this prohibition.
So Colorado may vote to legalize (hooray) but the Feds will be standing by to bust heads and confiscate property the first time anyone lights up or plants a seed. Ask the folks in California.
It would require an actual liberal Democrat (or better) in the White House to make anything change. We don’t have that now, and that’s not a possibility in November since there are no liberal Democrats running for President.
Consider that there are multiple Presidents throughout Central and South America recommending legalization or decriminalization of marijuana in order to defund the narco-gangs. Meanwhile, we have 0bama’s lackey, Joe Biden, running around and letting the world know that THAT’S not going to happen. All of the reasons it SHOULD happen do not matter to those in power. They have a different agenda than you and I and 99% of the people of the world.
Maybe in 2016….
As a WA state resident (and non-user of marijuana, but a big supporter of legalization) I really hope we can be one of the first states in the union to legalize it.
The war on drugs is so utterly, infinitely stupid.
The more states vote to legalize it, decriminalize it, approve it for medical use, etc., and the more the federal government is required to override the state laws and crack down, the more the following things happen:
1. Obama and other faux-Democrats are exposed for exactly what they are; DINO’s.
2. The libertarian-leaning portion of the Republican base realizes that regardless of their personal feelings on marijuana, the reality is that “big gummint” has too much skin in the game here. So you begin to gain support from unlikely sources.
So although I think your analysis of lobbyist support is accurate, I’m not sure we’ll lose this year, and even if we do it’ll be a Big Deal because even in losing we’ll win valuable ground and mind-share.
I think the Feds cracking of heads in CA related to larger scale things, businesses and clinics. I haven’t closely followed that story.
Yet the Feds don’t have the manpower of the combined state and local enforcement, which most often applies to smaller scale issues uncovered locally. Then, once a state decriminalizes (or legalizes) it may take state and local enforcement out of the picture. It might no longer even have a state requirement to refer anything to the Feds (i.e., which the Feds may not already know about). A lot would change there, no?
The Feds would have to massively ramp up to fill that gap — the Fed prohibitions would remain unchanged all the while. How likely are they to be able to micromanage all that?
And yet. . . The leverage remaining in DC might be at least the budgetary cudgel, of course. A state which terminates proactive cooperation in pursuing and reporting any MJ issue may find funds cut off, no? Can anyone count the ways? It would depend on who’s in charge.
I’m not going to say you’re wrong; I want you to be right. I want to be wrong. “Told ya so” don’t give me no buzz. But I’m no longer young, and I’ve seen hopes dashed too many times before.
Why don’t we ask Jimmy Carter why pot is still illegal? Or Bill Clinton? And why, when practically the entire Western Hemisphere is demanding legalization TODAY, is Joe Biden making such an issue of insisting that it’s not going to happen?
Ah yes, Change (TM) is in the offing!