What Were They Smoking?

How to Kill a Bill: No On Prop 19

As a long time cannabis user, as a long time student of American politics, and as a successful campaign coordinator, I'm beyond enthusiastic about California's Prop 19 (Synopsis at the bottom of the post).

Still, some people oppose Prop 19. Most of you reading this site know and understand why these opponents are wrong, so instead of beating a dead horse, let's take a quick look at how a dangerous opponent can pump special brands of rhetoric into a given debate.

Here's an excerpt from a public statement given by Joe Perez, Chair of the Orange County Coalition of Police and Sheriffs:

“Proposition 19 creates chaos for local public safety organizations. The poorly drafted initiative allows for a free-for-all at the local level and will be another burden on law enforcement representatives who will be tasked with trying to clean up this mess.”

To see similar statements go to http://www.noonproposition19.org/.

So, how do such statements, void of data or specificity, justify continuously incarcerating responsible adults for using a relatively harmless substance? The statement fails to address what Prop 19 does – keep responsible adults out of jail by granting them the safe, private use of their own bodies. It fails to even suggest what Prop 19 is about!

How do such statements convince people of anything?

Answer: the statement doesn't address, justify, or convince.

It simply reaffirms existing attitudes.

See, in politics, you don't argue; no one wins political arguments, ever. Instead, you persuade, and there's no better way to do it than to simply aid a prejudiced person in persuading themselves. 

With the above given excerpt in mind, here's a 5 Point Process I learned to use in fashioning statements against propositions:

1. Issue a politely disparaging statement.

(No personal attacks; accentuate positive identification with police)

2. Veil a vague critique of easily amended language with an air of practicality.
(Evoke Organizational Burden and "Free-For-All")

3. Detach the argument from relevant subjects and reference minutiae.

(Cite "Poorly Drafted" Sub-Sections)

4. Finish by beginning a semantic argument.

("Local level" "Mess" and "Law Enforcement Representatives")

5. Thereby confuse the issue further and drag the argument into oblivion.

The goal is to help voters see a murky horizon, an uncertain future, and then allow them to conclude on their own that the proposed legislation doesn't assuage their more palpable fears (cue "the children" and "drug related crime" parallel montage). The above given excerpt, which is a good example of how to use these 5 Points, allows the voter to reach the following type of conclusion:

"I am a good, tolerant, non-authoritarian democratic citizen who empathizes with my fellow voters about society and  ________, but I just don't think this is the right time to make any changes. It's not that I hate the idea of ________; I just don't think this is the right way to move forward. Oh, and I fear for my children and society too. What about the police?"

It sounds reasonable enough, especially on the terms of everyday conversations between neighbors, coworkers, and friends.

And so, with enough money for air time, it works.

Next we will likely see these opponents put certain sections of Prop 19 in bolded quotations on a television commercial where a voiceover plays to fears of government regulation, criminal behavior, and how Prop 19 "adds to the mess". Though I obviously disagree, as a political professional, I have to hand it to the No On 19 folk here.

PROP 19 SYNOPSIS: The ballot measure seeks to regulate and tax the economy surrounding cannabis use in mature adults age 21 and over, at essentially legalizing the cannabis market and safe use for responsible adults. Even so, Prop 19 maintains near criminal illegality for cannabis use in minors as well as those under the age of 21 and those who supply them. It maintains laws against driving under the influence. Not being a rigid imposition of stoner culture on the entire state, Prop 19's flexibility allows each County in California to either specify their own type of regulation or opt out entirely, like "Dry Counties" in other states. VOTE "YES"!!!