Naturally just like the gay marriage “strategy” the party’s elected leaders will pretend to be scandalized and run to distance themselves from these “outside the mainstream” initiatives. All the while while enjoying the benefits of the extra two or three percent on their bottom lines.

via Joshua Green at the Atlantic:

The idea that this helps Democrats is based on the demographic profile of who shows up to vote for marijuana initiatives–and wouldn’t show up otherwise. “If you look at who turns out to vote for marijuana,” says Jim Merlino, a consultant in Colorado, which passed initiatives in 2000 and 2006, “they’re generally under 35. And young people tend to vote Democratic.” This influx of new voters, he believes, helps Democrats up and down the ticket.

The legalization movement appears to be gaining steam. As many as a half dozen states could consider the issue this fall. If the correlation Merlino describes really exists, then Democrats will have an advantage in those states. Does it?

Political scientists disagree about whether gay marriage bans helped Republicans, though a growing body of scholarship suggests that they probably did. So far, nobody has measured marijuana’s effect at the polls. But Stephen Nicholson, a leading expert on ballot initiatives at the University of California at Merced, told me that he plans to. What’s more, he sees an intriguing precedent in the nuclear freeze initiatives of 28 years ago, which he has studied. “In the 1982 midterms, 10 states had ballot initiatives on the nuclear freeze,” Nicholson told me. “This had a significant positive effect on Democratic candidates.”

Green has a bit more on the phenomenon/possible strategy in a slightly longer article here. And there is a full cover story in the National Journal this month on the growing movement to revisit marijuana’s status as a controlled substance. But you’ll need to subscribe or run to your local library to read that one.

As a tactic would it be dirty and underhanded? Sure. But they called Karl Rove a genius for doing the same thing with gay marriage. This might actually do some social good. Win-Win I say.

More states than ever have either implemented or are considering various methods of reform, from limited distribution for medical purposes to outright legalization. In Iowa the Pharmacy Board will make a recommendation on February 17 to legislators on whether or not to move forward with a medical marijuana program in Iowa.

A bill introduced in the California state legislature last spring would have legalized and taxed the plant as a way of repairing the state’s hideously dysfunctional budget. The bill garnered more support than one would expect but did not pass

Now a pro-reform group in California states that it has more than enough signatures to get a legalization measure on the ballot in 2010.

Advocates of the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act say they have gathered more than enough signatures to qualify the initiative for California’s November 2010 ballot. The measure would allow people 21 and older to grow marijuana for personal use and to possess up to an ounce. It would also allow licensed suppliers to grow and sell marijuana (up to an ounce at a time) to adults. Public consumption and consumption in the presence of minors would remain illegal. (The text of the initiative is here.) The measure’s chief backer, Richard Lee (operator of Oaksterdam University and Coffeeshop Blue Sky in Oakland) told the San Francisco Chronicle “the petition drive collected more than 680,000 signatures in two months, less than half the time allowed for such a drive.” Supporters need 433,971 valid signatures to get the initiative on the ballot. The Chronicle notes that “a recent California Field Poll suggested that a majority of California voters, 56 percent, support the idea of legalizing and taxing cannabis.”

Meanwhile the overall attitude towards pot has softened to the greatest extent in 30 years. Support for marijuana legalization is at an all time high (no pun intended) according to a recent Gallup survey.

Gallup Marijuana Legalization trend

It looks like we will probably see reform of marijuana laws in this country in our lifetime. First by state and region and finally, probably the federal government will bow to the inevitable. It is important to keep in mind what the end result will look like. Unlike many pro-reform advocates, I do not support the “make it legal and tax it like cigarettes and booze,” policy.

When you make something like tobacco and alcohol legal and commercially available you create an industry. That industry is then in the business of creating addicts. Oh, they’ll never admit such a thing. But let’s be honest with ourselves. The business of tobacco and alcohol companies is selling as much of their product as possible. What other result could there be?

But pot is different. It is a very hardy weed. Even a pretty incompetent gardener can grow a healthy, productive marijuana plant. It requires no post-processing. Just dry and smoke. Therefore legalization of marijuana requires no pot industry. It just requires allowing people to grow it for their own use.

A rational policy would look something like this: It is legal to grow up to a dozen plants for personal use. It is illegal to sell more than a quarter of an ounce at a time or a quarter of a pound in total for an individual or group. Certain growers will grow for pharmaceutical company end-use, either in large or small quantities by contract and state or federal license. Agricultural and industrial use of low THC strains will be encouraged. Smoking will have the same restrictions on place and manner as tobacco. Smoking in front of minors is prohibited, or outdoors within 500 feet of a school. Operating under the influence is right out and carries the same penalties as driving under the influence of alcohol.

There you go. No invasive new regulations, no huge bureaucratic infrastructure to support and pay for. Just let people grow it and use it for themselves and their friends and family. Large scale production for medical end-use will be regulated, probably by the FDA or Ag department. The net savings in law-enforcement and incarceration costs would instantly add several tens of billions of dollars to state and federal budgets. And it would instantly set back the Mexican drug cartels that are a pox upon the body politic and society of our neighbor to the south.

Would there be associated problems with increased use? Quite probably. But would those societal and economic costs outweigh the costs to society and our economy of the criminalization and incarceration policies under which we currently labor? The evidence says no.