State of California

The whirlwind continued the past few days as the clock was ticking on the expiration of the lethal injection drugs, set to expire on October 1, with new drugs  not  available until 2011.

There was just a surreal element going on with Jerry Brown pushing for the rush to execute ahead of the Governor’s election, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger moving in the other direction. On Monday the Governor ordered a one-day delay in the execution, giving defense time to file appeals.

While pundits will likely be quick to point out that there were no knockout punches thrown on Tuesday night at the first debate, the debate did offer an at-times refreshing respite from the normal formulaic and scripted candidates’ debate.

The debate also offered the voters somewhat of a clear distinction between the two Governor’s candidates.  Voters will have to choose between the contrasting ideologies of Meg Whitman as the anti-tax conservative, and of Jerry Brown as the candidate who, like it or not, is tied to labor and public employees.

At a time when support for a death penalty is softening, and other states like North Carolina have joined the call for a moratorium on the death penalty, we see Attorney General Jerry Brown pushing hard for the death penalty to resume in California.

In 2006, a federal judge halted executions and ordered prison officials to overhaul lethal injection procedures.  The state adopted new regulations on August 29, 2010 but has not put the matter before US District Judge Jeremy Fogel.

Why doesn’t more law enforcement support the elimination of marijuana laws?  In private, most police officers will acknowledge they do not like marijuana laws.  Some do not like drug laws in general and do not believe that such laws work.

I remember last summer going on police ride-alongs on back-to-back days in Davis and Woodland.  In both cities we encountered someone in the park with marijuana.  In both cases, the police took the marijuana away, gave the individual a warning, but did not write up a citation.  It was explained to me that from the standpoint of law enforcement, possession charges are cumbersome and costly.

Proposition 23 is a contest over nothing less than California’s energy future. As such, it will be hard fought with campaign spending projected to exceed the previous record of $154 million (Public Policy Institute of California  4/10). This proposition would suspend AB 32 until California’s unemployment rate remains at 5.5% or lower for four consecutive quarters. Since 1979, this has happened only three times. Thus, Prop 23 could well confine us to our trajectory of ever increasing environmental pollution.  

AB 32, passed in 2006, designated the California Air Resource Board (CARB) to develop regulations and market mechanisms to reduce California green house gasses (GHG) to 1990 levels, a decrease of 12%. Reductions would begin in 2012 and gradually reach the goal of 12% reduction by 2020.

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.

Last summer I went on police ridealongs, first with the Davis Police Department and the next night with the Woodland police department.  Both nights we encountered individuals in respective parks in possession of marijuana.  In both cases the police took the marijuana from the individuals without issuing a citation.

In one of the vehicles there was a huge collection of extravagant pipes.  In one case there was a pipe that looked like a gas mask, going completely over one’s face as they took the smoke in.

During the last campaign, as reported by this site, an Independent Expenditure campaign launched by Mayor Ruth Asmundson and Marty West attempted to resurrect a flagging Sydney Vergis campaign for Davis City Council.  Instead, a series of missteps helped to undermine the effort.  But at its core, it represented an attempt by two members of the public to legally circumvent the city’s one hundred dollar campaign contribution limit.

This is of course not just a Davis issue, in fact, the FPPC just released an analysis that found that $127 million has been spent by special interests on independent expenditures since California voters enacted contribution limits for statewide and legislative candidates in 2000 with the passage of Proposition 34, according to information released today by the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state’s political watchdog.