Peter's Quick Guide to the Propositions, Part 1 - Props 19, 20, 27, 21

Prop 19 - Strong Yes! Legalizing Marijuana. Prohibition didn't work for alcohol - people kept drinking, and it financed the rise of organized crime. Funny, but the same thing happened with marijuana. Substance abuse is a serious problem, but criminalizing the user is not the answer. Will there be implementation problems? Yes, but it is still worth saying "No" to our expensively failed drug policy.

Prop 20 - Mild No. Redistricting. In 2008, we passed Prop 11, which shifted state legislative district drawing from the legislature to a new commission, but it has not actually gone into effect yet. Prop 20 would extend the new process to federal congressional districts, too. Since we have not seen how Prop 11 actually works (it sounds good in theory, but may have some issues in practice), it seems a bit early to be extending it to other offices. Let's see how it works first.

Prop 27 - Medium No. More Redistricting. This would repeal Prop 11, and give state legislative district drawing back to the legislature. Of course, the last time the legislature did redistricting they engaged in extreme and shameless gerrymandering that has contributed to our ongoing budget gridlock, and that led to passage of Prop 11 in the first place. Why should we trust them again? Besides, maybe we should see how Prop 11 works before we repeal it.

Prop 21 - Medium Yes. Vehicle Fees for Parks. Parks are good. Higher fees on cars are good (see my entry of July 10 re taxes). Fees on cars paying for parks instead of going towards public transit or air quality or road maintenance is sort of weirdly indirect. And having a specific budget set aside for parks will make budgeting harder still. On balance, while not the ideal approach, it is probably still a good thing.

More Propositions coming soon.

See Me, Hear Me!

You can now see my videotaped interview on the California Channel, as well as the interviews with (most of) my opponents. Take a look here: https://www.calchannel.com/channel/sr1/Candidate%20for%20Attorney%20General

Kamala Harris totally botched one question - seemed like she was not listening very well.

I was also on Forum with Michael Krasny on KQED radio. Steve Cooley declined to participate, which for those of us in the Bay Area seems very weird. The four minor candidates shared half the show, while Kamala Harris got most of the other half. Take a listen here: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201010060900

Are They Qualified to be Attorney General?

Steve Cooley (Republican) and Kamala Harris (Democrat) have both been prosecutors. Both have both worked in local district attorneys' offices. But that is all they have done. Neither Cooley nor Harris has experience in civil litigation, neither of them have worked in the private or non-profit sector, neither have them have worked on energy or environmental issues, neither of them has been a judge or administrative law judge, neither of them have worked for a state agency, and neither of them have even worked in the other half of the state.

Given the broad responsibilities of the California Attorney General, their lack of relevant experience is striking. By comparison, I have significantly broader experience. I have worked for law firms, a non-profit, a state agency, and a major city. I have lived and worked in both Northern and Southern California. The following chart (based on information from the candidates' websites) shows the difference in experience between me, Cooley and Harris:

Candidates’ Experience	Peter Allen	Steve Cooley	Kamala Harris
Civil Litigation	X
Consumer Advocacy	X
Criminal Prosecution	X	X	X
Energy Law	X
Environmental Law	X
Financial/Securities Fraud Litigation	X	?	?
Judge or Administrative Law Judge	X
Telecommunications Law	X

Three Free Signs!

Here are three signs - choose which one you like the best or print out all three and post them in visible places.

Send them electronically to your friends!

Going Back For More?

The logic of much of the voting public, at least those responding to polls, escapes me. The Republicans (with assistance from the Democrats) blew up the US economy, in a big and ugly way. The Democrats (with resistance from the Republicans) have not managed to fix it. So now, according to various polls, people are going to vote for...Republicans?!?! This seems especially odd given that the Republicans are promising to run the economy the same way they did before.

This is like taking your car to the mechanic for a tune up, and he wraps it around a tree. So you take it to a second mechanic, but when he is having difficulty fixing it, or maybe is just taking too long, you take it back to the first mechanic. Who assures you he will treat it like he did before.

If you really thought the second mechanic could not fix it, wouldn't you take it to a third one, rather than back to the one who broke it in the first place? Maybe we should try that with elected officials as well.

Proposition 23 - The Job Killer

Jobs or the environment - that is the choice presented by Proposition 23, a ballot initiative sponsored mainly by oil refiners, which proposes to suspend California's greenhouse gas law, AB 32, until unemployment drops below 5.5% for a year. But that is a false choice. The choice we really face is about the short term versus the long term.

The argument for Proposition 23 is simple - limiting greenhouse gas emissions under AB 32 will cost money, and will likely cost jobs in industries that generate greenhouse gasses. Based on that logic, Proposition 23 would only allow implementation of the greenhouse gas reductions currently in California law if California unemployment drops below 5.5% (it is currently over 12%) for a year.

But if California unemployment stays higher than 5.5%, or even if it drops to 4%, but bumps up to 6% after three quarters, then California would take no action to reduce greenhouse gasses.

Under Proposition 23, regardless of why unemployment is higher than 5.5%, California would take no action to reduce greenhouse gasses. Even if unemployment is high because jobs are being lost due to climate change - think of ski resorts closing due to no snow, fisheries destroyed due to changes in water temperature, beach resorts and airports damaged by higher sea levels, redwood forests dying from heat, valuable crops lost due to extreme weather conditions, and rivers running dry - we still would take no action.

The logic of Proposition 23 is the logic that says don't limit logging until all the trees are gone, because limiting logging takes away logging jobs that could last a few more years, or don't limit fishing until all the fish are gone, because limiting fishing takes away fishing jobs that could last a few more years. But how many logging jobs are there when all the trees are gone? How many fishing jobs are there when all the fish are gone?

If Proposition 23 passes, the oil refiners and other carbon-intensive industries who are backing it may get to make their profits for a bit longer. But at what long term cost? What happens when California and the rest of the world start really suffering from the effects of climate change? The potential job losses could make us nostalgic for the time when unemployment was only 12%.

Is it worth gambling with our economy, our health, perhaps even our survival, so that a few large companies can squeeze out a few more profitable years? The short term benefits to Valero and Tesoro are not worth the long term costs to every Californian and every California business. Vote no on Proposition 23 - we cannot afford it.

Proposition 19 Opponents Are Blowing Smoke

You can read the arguments for and against Proposition 19 (The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010) that will appear in the Voter Information Guide here: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vig-public-display/110210-general-election/

The arguments raised against Proposition 19 are really quite strange. The opponents of the measure don't say that marijuana should stay illegal - they just claim that the authors of the proposition made some "huge mistakes." The reality, however, is that the arguments against Proposition 19 are misleading.

My favorite is this one:

"The California Police Chiefs Association opposes Proposition 19 because proponents 'forgot' to include a standard for what constitutes 'driving under the influence.' Under Proposition 19, a driver may legally drive even if a blood test shows they have marijuana in their system."

Guess what - right now, under existing law, you can legally drive even if a blood test shows that you have marijuana in your system. Just like you can legally drive even if you have alcohol in your system (as long as it is less than .08% by weight). (See California Vehicle Code section 23152(a).) You just cannot be impaired by drugs or alcohol.

Proposition 19 changes nothing about existing DUI law. In fact, it even says: "This act shall not be construed to affect, limit, or amend any statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous activities such as driving..."

I am guessing that the standard the proponents "forgot" to include is a numerical standard, like the one used for alcohol, which makes it illegal to drive with .08% or more alcohol in your blood. (See Vehicle Code section 23152(b).) But the reason there is no similar numerical standard for marijuana is because marijuana is illegal - no one has been able to do studies like those done for alcohol that led to the adoption of the .08% standard. (That is because you can't give a bunch of volunteers an illegal drug. But you can give them alcohol.) If marijuana is no longer illegal, then we can do studies that will lead to a valid numerical standard for marijuana.

So if you want clearer and stricter laws against driving under the influence of marijuana, you should actually vote for Proposition 19.