When PG&E pumped in millions in an attempt to prevent public power from gaining more marketshare into California, the California voters saw through the charade and voted to defeat the measure.  Now they will have a similar challenge this fall with Proposition 23.

In 2006, California moved to the forefront of green policies with AB 32, which not only improved our air quality but it encouraged the growth of profitable green industries.  Contrary to what industry advocates would have you believe, there is nothing anti-economic about environmental policies.

The amount of time and money we spend on drug enforcement is mindboggling, particularly in light of the state of our economy, the various budgets of local entities, and the utter lack of success.

For the cost of housing an inmate in California for one year, we could put several in residential treatment for two years.  That is the key.  Most programs simply do not last long enough to get people out of bad habits.  We need to not simply punish people, but rather we need to start turning them into productive citizens.  As we discussed Friday, the system often makes that impossible, imposing huge fines on people struggling to get their lives back in order, putting restrictions on the ability to land decent jobs, and live productive lives.

I have read a couple of commentaries opposed to Proposition 19 which would legalize marijuana in California.  As I read these things, I wonder if people really understand the extent to which drug laws clog up our court system and make it difficult to deal with more serious crimes.  For the cost of incarcerating one individual in California for one year, we can put perhaps two people into residential treatment for two years each.  To me that seems not only more cost-effective, but it seems more effective.

I have seen a lot of studies cited, but I thought it might be valuable to glean some insight from someone who spent thirty years actually working on the ground with people with drug-dependency problems.