A Reluctant No on Prop 5 re: Nonviolent Drug Offenses

This was my toughest decision on this election. I waffled until the moment that I actually filled out my ballot tonight. And it wasn't for lack of data - I even had opposing emails from a public defender (Yes on 5) and a district attorney (No on 5) with lots of details about the measure.

I agree entirely with the policy intent. We should not be locking people up for non-violent drug offenses. If that was all this initiative did, I'd vote yes for sure. I'd be joining LOTS of people I respect.

But that's not all this initiative does. Prop 5 also requires that a certain amount of money be dedicated to specific programs from the state budget, in perpetuity. That is ballot-box budgeting and is exactly the kind of thing that makes it super hard for the legislature to negotiate the budget every year. Did you notice how late the budget was this year? That delay is in large part because the budget is structured to be VERY difficult to pass.

Now I know that the "No" campaign is mostly people I disagree with. And it is likely that if Prop 5 fails, it will mostly be interpreted as a "tough on crime" vote. I'm unhappy about that. But I think I'd be more unhappy, the next time the budget is super-late, if I knew I'd voted for an initiative that made the problem worse.

So I just voted NO, but I'm still unsatisfied. If you're torn like me, I recommend you send a contribution to the Drug Policy Alliance Network and ask them to pursue the same policy change without the ballot-box budgeting.