title: 2010 California Proposition 19
text: # 2010 California Proposition 19
  
  Elections in California :
  
  Federal government
  
  U.S. President
  
  1852
  
  1856
  
  1860
  
  1864
  
  1868
  
  1872
  
  1876
  
  1880
  
  1884
  
  1888
  
  1892
  
  1896
  
  1900
  
  1904
  
  1908
  
  1912
  
  1916
  
  1920
  
  1924
  
  1928
  
  1932
  
  1936
  
  1940
  
  1944
  
  1948
  
  1952
  
  1956
  
  1960
  
  1964
  
  1968
  
  1972
  
  1976
  
  1980
  
  1984
  
  1988
  
  1992
  
  1996
  
  Dem
  
  Rep
  
  2000
  
  Dem
  
  Rep
  
  2004
  
  Dem
  
  Rep
  
  2008
  
  Dem
  
  Rep
  
  2012
  
  Dem
  
  Rep
  
  2016
  
  Dem
  
  Rep
  
  2020
  
  Dem
  
  Rep
  
  2024
  
  Dem
  
  Rep
  
  U.S. Senate
  
  1849
  
  1850
  
  1852 sp
  
  1856
  
  1857 sp
  
  1860
  
  1860 sp
  
  1868
  
  1872
  
  1873
  
  1873 sp
  
  1878
  
  1880
  
  1885
  
  1886 sp
  
  1887
  
  1891
  
  1891 sp
  
  1893
  
  1895 sp
  
  1897
  
  1900 sp
  
  1903
  
  1905
  
  1909
  
  1911
  
  1914
  
  1916
  
  1920
  
  1922
  
  1926
  
  1928
  
  1932
  
  1934
  
  1938
  
  1940
  
  1944
  
  1946
  
  1946 sp
  
  1950
  
  1952
  
  1954 sp
  
  1956
  
  1958
  
  1962
  
  1964
  
  1968
  
  1970
  
  1974
  
  1976
  
  1980
  
  1982
  
  1986
  
  1988
  
  1992
  
  1992 sp
  
  1994
  
  1998
  
  2000
  
  2004
  
  2006
  
  2010
  
  2012
  
  2016
  
  2018
  
  2022
  
  2022 sp
  
  2024
  
  2028
  
  U.S. House of Representatives
  
  1849
  
  1851
  
  1852
  
  1854
  
  1856
  
  1859
  
  1861
  
  1863
  
  1864
  
  1867
  
  1868
  
  1871
  
  1872
  
  1875
  
  1876
  
  1879
  
  1880
  
  1882
  
  1884
  
  1886
  
  1888
  
  1890
  
  1892
  
  1894
  
  1896
  
  1898
  
  1900
  
  1902
  
  1904
  
  1906
  
  1908
  
  1910
  
  1912
  
  1914
  
  1916
  
  1918
  
  1920
  
  1922
  
  1924
  
  1926
  
  1928
  
  1930
  
  1932
  
  1934
  
  1936
  
  1938
  
  1940
  
  1942
  
  1944
  
  1946
  
  12th sp
  
  1948
  
  1950
  
  1952
  
  1954
  
  1956
  
  1958
  
  1960
  
  1962
  
  1964
  
  1966
  
  1968
  
  1970
  
  1972
  
  1974
  
  1976
  
  1978
  
  1980
  
  1982
  
  1984
  
  1986
  
  1987
  
  5th sp
  
  1988
  
  1990
  
  1992
  
  1994
  
  1996
  
  1998
  
  2000
  
  2001
  
  32nd sp
  
  2002
  
  2004
  
  2005
  
  5th sp
  
  48th sp
  
  2006
  
  50th sp
  
  2007
  
  36th sp
  
  2008
  
  12th sp
  
  2009
  
  10th sp
  
  32nd sp
  
  2010
  
  2011
  
  36th sp
  
  2012
  
  2014
  
  2016
  
  2017
  
  34th sp
  
  2018
  
  2020
  
  25th sp
  
  2022
  
  22nd sp
  
  2024
  
  30th
  
  45th
  
  47th
  
  vte :
  
  State government
  
  Executive Governor
  
  1849
  
  1851
  
  1853
  
  1855
  
  1857
  
  1859
  
  1861
  
  1863
  
  1867
  
  1871
  
  1875
  
  1879
  
  1882
  
  1886
  
  1890
  
  1894
  
  1898
  
  1902
  
  1906
  
  1910
  
  1914
  
  1918
  
  1922
  
  1926
  
  1930
  
  1934
  
  1938
  
  1942
  
  1946
  
  1950
  
  1954
  
  1958
  
  1962
  
  1966
  
  1970
  
  1974
  
  1978
  
  1982
  
  1986
  
  1990
  
  1994
  
  1998
  
  2002
  
  2003 (recall)
  
  2006
  
  2010
  
  2014
  
  2018
  
  2021 (recall)
  
  2022
  
  2026
  
  Lieutenant governor
  
  1954
  
  1958
  
  1962
  
  1966
  
  1970
  
  1974
  
  1978
  
  1982
  
  1986
  
  1990
  
  1994
  
  1998
  
  2002
  
  2006
  
  2010
  
  2014
  
  2018
  
  2022
  
  Attorney general
  
  1970
  
  1974
  
  1978
  
  1982
  
  1986
  
  1990
  
  1994
  
  1998
  
  2002
  
  2006
  
  2010
  
  2014
  
  2018
  
  2022
  
  Secretary of state
  
  1970
  
  1974
  
  1978
  
  1982
  
  1986
  
  1990
  
  1994
  
  1998
  
  2002
  
  2006
  
  2010
  
  2014
  
  2018
  
  2022
  
  Treasurer
  
  1994
  
  1998
  
  2002
  
  2006
  
  2010
  
  2014
  
  2018
  
  2022
  
  Controller
  
  1994
  
  1998
  
  2002
  
  2006
  
  2010
  
  2014
  
  2018
  
  2022
  
  Insurance commissioner
  
  1994
  
  1998
  
  2002
  
  2006
  
  2010
  
  2014
  
  2018
  
  2022
  
  Superintendent
  
  1994
  
  1998
  
  2002
  
  2006
  
  2010
  
  2014
  
  2018
  
  2022
  
  Board of equalization
  
  2018
  
  2022
  
  Legislature Senate
  
  1988
  
  1990
  
  1992
  
  1994
  
  1996
  
  1998
  
  2000
  
  2002
  
  2004
  
  2006
  
  2008
  
  2010
  
  2012
  
  2014
  
  2016
  
  2018
  
  2020
  
  2022
  
  2024
  
  Special
  
  Assembly
  
  1992
  
  1994
  
  1996
  
  1998
  
  2000
  
  2002
  
  2004
  
  2006
  
  2008
  
  2010
  
  2012
  
  2014
  
  2016
  
  2018
  
  2020
  
  2021 (79th sp)
  
  2022 (17th sp)
  
  2024
  
  Special
  
  Judiciary Court of appeals
  
  1994
  
  1998
  
  2002
  
  2006
  
  Elections by year
  
  1992
  
  1994
  
  1996
  
  1998
  
  2000
  
  2002
  
  2004
  
  2005
  
  2006
  
  2008
  
  Feb
  
  Jun
  
  Nov
  
  2009
  
  2010
  
  Jun
  
  Nov
  
  2012
  
  Jun
  
  Nov
  
  2014
  
  2016
  
  2018
  
  2020
  
  2022
  
  2024
  
  vte :
  
  State propositions
  
  1910–1919
  
  1911
  
  4
  
  7
  
  8
  
  1960–1969
  
  1964
  
  14
  
  1970–1979
  
  1978
  
  6
  
  8
  
  13
  
  1980–1989
  
  1982
  
  8
  
  1986
  
  64
  
  65
  
  1988
  
  98
  
  99
  
  1990–1999
  
  1994
  
  187
  
  1996
  
  196
  
  209
  
  215
  
  218
  
  1998
  
  6
  
  10
  
  227
  
  2000–2009
  
  2000
  
  21
  
  22
  
  36
  
  39
  
  2003
  
  53
  
  54
  
  2004
  
  1A
  
  55
  
  56
  
  57
  
  58
  
  59
  
  60
  
  60A
  
  61
  
  62
  
  63
  
  64
  
  65
  
  66
  
  69
  
  71
  
  2005
  
  73
  
  74
  
  75
  
  76
  
  77
  
  78
  
  79
  
  80
  
  2006
  
  81
  
  82
  
  83
  
  85
  
  87
  
  89
  
  90
  
  2008
  
  91
  
  92
  
  93
  
  94, 95, 96, and 97
  
  98 and 99
  
  1A
  
  2
  
  3
  
  4
  
  5
  
  6
  
  7
  
  8
  
  9
  
  10
  
  11
  
  12
  
  2009
  
  1A
  
  1B
  
  1C
  
  1D
  
  1E
  
  1F
  
  2010–2019
  
  2010
  
  13
  
  14
  
  15
  
  16
  
  17
  
  19
  
  20
  
  21
  
  22
  
  23
  
  24
  
  25
  
  26
  
  27
  
  2012
  
  29
  
  30
  
  32
  
  34
  
  37
  
  38
  
  39
  
  2014
  
  1
  
  2
  
  41
  
  42
  
  45
  
  46
  
  47
  
  48
  
  2016
  
  50
  
  51
  
  52
  
  53
  
  54
  
  55
  
  56
  
  57
  
  58
  
  59
  
  60
  
  61
  
  62
  
  63
  
  64
  
  65
  
  66
  
  67
  
  2018
  
  68
  
  69
  
  70
  
  71
  
  72
  
  6
  
  7
  
  8
  
  9
  
  10
  
  11
  
  12
  
  2020–2029
  
  2020
  
  13
  
  14
  
  15
  
  16
  
  17
  
  18
  
  19
  
  20
  
  21
  
  22
  
  23
  
  24
  
  25
  
  2022
  
  1
  
  26
  
  27
  
  28
  
  29
  
  30
  
  31
  
  Full listvte :
  
  Los Angeles County
  
  Los Angeles County Board of supervisors
  
  1980
  
  1996
  
  2006
  
  2008
  
  2010
  
  2012
  
  2014
  
  2016
  
  2018
  
  2020
  
  2022
  
  2024
  
  Ballot measures
  
  1980
  
  A
  
  2008
  
  R
  
  2012
  
  B
  
  J
  
  2016
  
  M
  
  Elections
  
  2020
  
  2022
  
  Los Angeles Mayor
  
  1896
  
  1898
  
  1900
  
  1902
  
  1904
  
  1906
  
  1909 (sp)
  
  1909
  
  1911
  
  1913
  
  1915
  
  1917
  
  1919
  
  1921
  
  1923
  
  1925
  
  1929
  
  1933
  
  1937
  
  1938
  
  1941
  
  1945
  
  1949
  
  1953
  
  1957
  
  1961
  
  1965
  
  1969
  
  1973
  
  1977
  
  1981
  
  1985
  
  1989
  
  1993
  
  1997
  
  2001
  
  2005
  
  2009
  
  2013
  
  2017
  
  2022
  
  City attorney
  
  2009
  
  Ballot measures
  
  1986
  
  U
  
  2017
  
  S
  
  Elections
  
  2009
  
  2011
  
  2013
  
  2015
  
  2017
  
  2019 (sp)
  
  2020
  
  2022
  
  2023 (sp)
  
  2024
  
  Long Beach Mayor
  
  1994
  
  1998
  
  2002
  
  2006
  
  2010
  
  2014
  
  2018
  
  2022
  
  vte :
  
  Orange County
  
  Orange County Board of supervisors
  
  2018
  
  2020
  
  2022
  
  2024
  
  District attorney
  
  2018
  
  Anaheim Mayor
  
  2002
  
  2006
  
  2010
  
  2014
  
  2018
  
  2022
  
  Irvine Mayor
  
  1988
  
  1990
  
  1992
  
  1994
  
  1996
  
  1998
  
  2000
  
  2002
  
  2004
  
  2006
  
  2008
  
  2010
  
  2012
  
  2014
  
  2016
  
  2018
  
  2020
  
  vte :
  
  Sacramento
  
  Mayor
  
  2000
  
  2004
  
  2008
  
  2012
  
  2016
  
  2020
  
  2024
  
  vte :
  
  San Diego County
  
  San Diego County Board of supervisors
  
  2020
  
  San Diego Mayor
  
  1887
  
  1889
  
  1891
  
  1893
  
  1895
  
  1897
  
  1899
  
  1901
  
  1903
  
  1905
  
  1907
  
  1909
  
  1911
  
  1913
  
  1915
  
  1917
  
  1919
  
  1921
  
  1923
  
  1925
  
  1927
  
  1929
  
  1931
  
  1932
  
  1935
  
  1939
  
  1943
  
  1947
  
  1951
  
  1955
  
  1959
  
  1963
  
  1967
  
  1971
  
  1975
  
  1979
  
  1983 (sp)
  
  1984
  
  1986 (sp)
  
  1988
  
  1992
  
  1996
  
  2000
  
  2004
  
  2005 (sp)
  
  2008
  
  2012
  
  2013–14 (sp)
  
  2016
  
  2020
  
  2024
  
  City attorney
  
  2004
  
  2008
  
  2012
  
  2016
  
  2020
  
  City council
  
  2002
  
  2004
  
  2006
  
  2008
  
  2010
  
  2012
  
  2014
  
  2016
  
  2018
  
  2020
  
  Special
  
  vte :
  
  San Francisco
  
  Mayor
  
  1959
  
  1963
  
  1967
  
  1971
  
  1975
  
  1979
  
  1983 (recall)
  
  1983
  
  1987
  
  1991
  
  1995
  
  1999
  
  2003
  
  2007
  
  2011
  
  2015
  
  2018 (sp)
  
  2019
  
  2024
  
  District attorney
  
  2019
  
  2022 (recall)
  
  2022 (sp)
  
  2024
  
  Board of supervisors
  
  1977
  
  1996
  
  1998
  
  2000
  
  2002
  
  2004
  
  2006
  
  2008
  
  2010
  
  2012
  
  2014
  
  2016
  
  2018
  
  2020
  
  2022
  
  Board of education
  
  2018
  
  2022 (recall)
  
  Elections
  
  2004
  
  Mar
  
  Nov
  
  2005
  
  2006
  
  Jun
  
  Nov
  
  2007
  
  2008
  
  Feb
  
  Jun
  
  Nov
  
  2009
  
  2010
  
  Jun
  
  Nov
  
  2011
  
  2012
  
  Jun
  
  Nov
  
  2013
  
  2022
  
  Feb
  
  vte :
  
  San Jose
  
  Mayor
  
  1974
  
  1978
  
  1982
  
  1986
  
  1990
  
  1994
  
  1998
  
  2002
  
  2006
  
  2010
  
  2014
  
  2018
  
  2022
  
  vte :
  
  Other localities
  
  Bakersfield
  
  Mayoral elections:
  
  2004
  
  2008
  
  2012
  
  2016
  
  2020
  
  Fresno
  
  Mayoral elections:
  
  1996
  
  2000
  
  2004
  
  2008
  
  2012
  
  2016
  
  2020
  
  Oakland
  
  Mayoral elections:
  
  1994
  
  1998
  
  2002
  
  2006
  
  2010
  
  2014
  
  2018
  
  2022
  
  Riverside
  
  Mayoral elections
  
  San Bernardino
  
  Mayoral elections:
  
  2005
  
  2009
  
  2014
  
  2018
  
  2022
  
  Stockton
  
  Mayoral elections:
  
  2008
  
  2012
  
  2016
  
  2020
  
  vte :
  
  vte :
  
  California Proposition 19 (also known as the Regulate, Control & Tax Cannabis Act) was a ballot initiative on the November 2, 2010, statewide ballot. It was defeated, with 53.5% of California voters voting "No" and 46.5% voting "Yes." If passed, it would have legalized various marijuana-related activities, allowed local governments to regulate these activities, permitted local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorized various criminal and civil penalties. In March 2010, it qualified to be on the November statewide ballot. The proposition required a simple majority in order to pass, and would have taken effect the day after the election. Yes on 19 was the official advocacy group for the initiative and California Public Safety Institute: No On Proposition 19 was the official opposition group.
  
  A similar initiative, "The Tax, Regulate, and Control Cannabis Act of 2010" (California Cannabis Initiative, CCI) was filed first and received by the Attorney General's Office July 15, 2010, assigned 09-0022 that would have legalized cannabis for adults 21 and older and included provisions to decriminalize industrial hemp, retroactive expunging of criminal records and release of non violent cannabis prisoners. It did not make it onto the ballot.
  
  Supporters of Proposition 19 argued that it would help with California's budget shortfall, would cut off a source of funding to violent drug cartels, and would redirect law enforcement resources to more dangerous crimes, while opponents claimed that it contains gaps and flaws that may have serious unintended consequences on public safety, workplaces, and federal funding. Even if the proposition had passed, the sale of cannabis would have remained illegal under federal law via the Controlled Substances Act.
  
  Proposition 19 was followed up by the Adult Use of Marijuana Act in 2016, which successfully passed a ballot initiative with 57% of the vote.
  
  ## Effects of the bill
  
  According to the State of California's Legislative Analyst's Office, the law would have had the following effects.
  
  ### Legalization of personal cannabis-related activities
  
  Except as permitted under Proposition 215 and SB 420 laws, persons age 21 and older may:
  
  * possess up to 28.5 grams (1 oz) of cannabis for personal consumption.
  * use cannabis in:
     * a non-public place such as a residence
     * a public establishment licensed for on site cannabis consumption.
  * grow cannabis at a private residence in a space of up to 25 square feet (2.3 $m^2)$ for personal use.
  
  ### Local government regulation of commercial production and sale
  
  Local governments may:
  
  * Authorize the retail sale of up to 28.5 grams of cannabis per transaction to persons 21 and older.
  * Regulate the location, size, hours of operation, and signs and displays of the establishments authorized to make these sales.
  * Authorize larger amounts of cannabis for:
     * personal possession and cultivation, or
     * commercial cultivation, transportation, and sale.
  
  ### Other permissions
  
  * Allows for the transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises in one city or county to a licensed premises in another city or county, without regard to local laws of intermediate localities to the contrary.
  * Allows the collection of taxes to allow local governments to raise revenue or to offset any costs associated with cannabis regulation.
  
  ### Maintenance and addition of criminal and civil penalties
  
  * Maintains existing laws against selling drugs to a minor and driving under the influence.
  * Maintains an employer's right to address consumption of cannabis that affects an employee's job performance.
  * Maintains existing laws against interstate or international transportation of cannabis.
  * Every person 18 years of age or older who hires, employs, or uses a minor in transporting, carrying, selling, giving away cannabis, or knowingly sells or gives away cannabis to someone under the age of 14, shall be imprisoned in state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years.
  * Every person 18 years of age or older who knowingly sells or gives away cannabis to someone older than the age of 14 but younger than 18, shall be imprisoned in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.
  * Every person 21 years of age or older who knowingly sells or gives away cannabis to someone older than the age of 18 but younger than 21, shall be imprisoned in county jail for up to six months and fined up to $1,000 per offense.
  * Any person who is licensed, permitted, or authorized to sell cannabis, who knowingly sells or gives away cannabis to someone under the age of 21, will be banned from owning, operating, or being employed by a licensed cannabis establishment for one year.
  
  ## Fiscal impact
  
  The State Board of Equalization estimated that imposing a $50 per ounce levy on cannabis sales could generate $1.4 billion a year in new tax revenue, thus generating a large amount of revenue at a time when the state was experiencing financial pressure. This estimate came from the BOE's 2009 analysis of California Assembly Bill 390 based on a 2006 report entitled "Marijuana Production in the United States." These statistics were based on production estimates derived from marijuana eradication efforts from 2003 to 2005.
  
  According to the States Legislative Analyst's office, passage of the proposition could have a significant fiscal impact, including:
  
  * Significant savings to state and local governments; potentially up to several tens of millions of dollars annually due to reduction of individuals incarcerated, on probation, or on parole.
  * Freeing up cells used to house marijuana offenders, which could be then used for other criminals, many of whom obtained early release because of a lack of jail space.
  * Major reduction in state and local costs for enforcement of marijuana-related offenses and the handling of related criminal cases in the court system, providing the opportunity for funds to be used to enforce other existing criminal laws.
  * Potential increase in the costs of substance abuse programs due to a projected increase in marijuana usage, possibly resulting in reduced spending on mandatory treatment for some criminal offenders, or in the redirection of these funds for other offenders.
  * Potential reduction in both the costs and offsetting revenues of the state's medical marijuana program, as some adults over 21 would be less likely to participate in existing programs if obtaining marijuana were made less difficult.
  * Providing the opportunity for significant additional tax revenue stream from businesses engaged in marijuana-related commerce.
  * Reduction in fine collection under state law but a potential increase in local civil fines authorized by existing local laws (the cumulative effect on fines was indicated to be largely unknown).
  
  In regard to potential savings from the reduction of incarcerated individuals, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations, 1,639 state prison inmates were in prison for marijuana-related crimes at a cost of $85 million per year.
  
  ## Arguments
  
  ### Support
  
  Several arguments were used in support of passing Proposition 19. Supporters argued that legalizing marijuana in California would help alleviate the drug war in Mexico. Based on the theory espoused by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy that up to 60% of Mexican drug cartels’ profits come from sales of marijuana, legalizing the drug in nearby California would drastically cut their funding. As a result, supporters of this argument believed that legalization would lead to a decrease in drug-related violent crime in Mexico.
  
  Also cited were expected financial benefits of passing the measure. Economists lauded an analysis by Jeffrey Miron predicting $7.7 billion in projected savings on law enforcement expenses related to marijuana offenses, as well as expected revenues of up to $6.2 billion annually in taxes. These revenues were calculated based on marijuana sales taxes structured similarly to alcohol and cigarettes. In 2008, California police made 78,500 arrests related to marijuana.
  
  Some civil rights groups lauded Proposition 19 as a way to reduce the disproportionate number of arrests of African-Americans and Latinos in California, many of which were related to marijuana possession. A study released by the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance found that despite having lower marijuana consumption rates than young whites, young Latinos and African Americans were arrested for marijuana possession at much higher rates than whites in the 25 largest California counties.
  
  Supporters also argued that passing the measure would result in additional benefits including tourism and spinoff industries such as cafes and paraphernalia. Based on California's wine industry, proponents of this theory anticipated that legalizing marijuana in the state could generate up to $18 billion, including the creation of 60,000-110,000 jobs.
  
  Some argued that legalization of marijuana could reduce drug-related violence, based on a study conducted by the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy. This study found that drug law enforcement contributes to increased levels of drug-related violence and suggests that "alternative models for drug control" may be necessary.
  
  ### Opposition
  
  Opponents of Prop 19 argued that legalizing marijuana in California using the current proposition would have numerous negative consequences. They cited current Federal laws banning the cultivation, sale, and use of the drug, and claimed that it would create complications with drug trafficking and arrests as well as challenge Federal authority. Opponents also argued that Proposition 19 would complicate regulation across the state by allowing local jurisdictions the power to determine their own laws regarding cultivation and possession. Opponents claimed that this increased government activity would absorb much of the projected tax revenue.
  
  Opponents of the measure also argued that it posed a public safety risk, based on research showing an association between marijuana use and voluntary treatment admissions for addiction, fatal drugged driving accidents, mental illness, and emergency room visits. Opponents also compared Prop 19 to current alcohol and tobacco regulation, arguing that the associated potential healthcare and criminal justice costs outweigh the tax revenue generated.
  
  In response to supporters' claims regarding Prop 19's tax revenue generation, opponents claim the potential benefit is vastly overstated. Opponents also criticized the measure for failing to include specific accompanying tax proposals. Opponents also rejected the argument that revenue increases from the measure would improve the state budgetary deficit, dismissing it as a short-term fix.
  
  Since California decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana (under one ounce) in 1976, opponents reject the idea that legalization would free law enforcement to pursue violent crime in lieu of marijuana-related crime. A RAND Corporation study found that passage of the measure would likely do little to curtail the drug trade and cartel violence stemming from Latin America. Opponents also argued that passage would reflect softening attitudes in America toward drug consumption.
  
  Supporters of medicinal marijuana use expressed concern that Prop 19 could burden growers with increased regulations. Also cited were potential confusion caused by double selling rules and a potential threat to existing protections for medical marijuana users.
  
  ## History
  
  The first cannabis prohibition laws in California were passed in 1913. In the 1972 California November elections, a similar initiative to Proposition 19 which would have legalized cannabis was on the ballot, coincidentally also named Proposition 19. It failed to pass, with 66.5% voters voting "No" and 33.5% voting "Yes." In 1976 the passage of the Moscone Act changed small-scale possession of marijuana from a felony to a misdemeanor. Two decades later in 1996, Proposition 215, which legalized medical marijuana, passed with 56% of the vote. In 2003 the California Senate Bill SB 420 clarified some of Proposition 215 to address critics and issues that arose since it was passed. In 2005, Oakland’s Measure Z, one of the first marijuana taxes, made marijuana possession one of the lowest law enforcement priorities. It was passed by 65% of the voters. In July 2010, Oakland approved a cultivation ordinance.
  
  Proposition 19's originator is Richard Lee, a marijuana legalization activist and medical marijuana provider based in Oakland. Lee named political consultant Chris Lehane as the head of the campaign to pass the measure. In order to qualify for the ballot, the initiative needed 433,971 valid petition signatures. The initiative proponents submitted 694,248 signatures, and it qualified through the random sample signature check.
  
  ## Stance on initiative
  
  In response to growing demand for a vote on the legal status of marijuana, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said in May 2009, "I think it's time for a debate. And I think that we ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalized marijuana and other drugs, what effect it had on those countries, and are they happy with that decision." However, in his signing statement for California SB 1449, which decriminalized possession of less than an ounce of marijuana from a misdemeanor to an infraction, Schwarzenegger said he opposed Proposition 19, calling it "deeply flawed" and claiming that its potential for generating tax revenue has been overstated.
  
  ### Support
  
  * Laura Wells, 2010 California Green Party gubernatorial candidate
  * Dale Ogden, 2010 California Libertarian gubernatorial candidate
  * Carlos Alverez, 2010 California Peace and Freedom Party gubernatorial candidate
  * Gary Johnson, former two term Republican Governor of New Mexico, 2012 Libertarian Candidate for President
  * Jesse Ventura, former Independent Governor of Minnesota
  * Joycelyn Elders, former United States Surgeon General
  * George Miller, current Democratic House Representative from California's 7th congressional district
  * Barbara Lee, current Democratic House Representative from California's 9th congressional district
  * Pete Stark, current Democratic House Representative from California's 13th congressional district
  * John Dennis, 2010 Republican Congressional candidate for California's 8th congressional district
  * Dan Hamburg, former Democratic House Representative from California's 1st congressional district
  * Pete McCloskey, former Republican House Representative from California's 11th congressional district
  * Don Perata, former Democratic President pro tempore of the California State Senate
  * Mark Leno, current Democratic member of the California State Senate
  * Tom Hayden, former Democratic member of the California State Senate
  * Tom Ammiano, current Democratic member of the California State Assembly
  * Hector De La Torre, current Democratic member of the California State Assembly
  * Mary Hayashi, current Democratic member of the California State Assembly
  * Jared Huffman, current Democratic member of the California State Assembly
  * Nancy Skinner, current Democratic member of the California State Assembly
  * Kerry Mazzoni, former Democratic member of the California State Assembly
  * Vicente Fox, former President of Mexico
  * Jorge Castañeda Gutman, former Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Mexico
  * Tom Bates, current Mayor of Berkeley, California
  * Jim Gray, former Superior Court judge of Orange County, California and former Libertarian Party senate candidate
  * John A. Russo, current City Attorney of Oakland, California
  * Paul Gallegos, current District Attorney of Humboldt County, California
  * Jeffrey Schwartz, former Senior District Attorney and Prosecutor of Humboldt County, California
  * Terence Hallinan, former District Attorney of San Francisco, California
  * Mike Schmier, former District Attorney of Los Angeles, California and California Administrative Law Judge
  * Norm Stamper, former Seattle, Washington police chief
  * Joseph McNamara, former San Jose, California police chief
  * Stephen Downing, former Los Angeles, California police chief
  * David Doodridge, former Los Angeles, California narcotics detective
  * Larry Bedard, former President of the American College of Emergency Physicians
  * George Soros, businessman and stock investor
  * Jeffrey Miron, Harvard University economist
  * Sean Parker, an Internet technology businessman and co-founder of Napster and Facebook
  * Dustin Moskovitz, co-founder of Facebook
  * Paul Buchheit, creator of Gmail, co-founder of FriendFeed, and prolific Silicon Valley angel investor
  * Peter B. Lewis, former CEO of Progressive Insurance
  * Ed Rosenthal, cannabis activist and columnist
  * Marc Emery, cannabis activist and former cannabis seed seller
  * California NAACP
  * League of United Latin American Citizens
  * Oakland City Council
  * Berkeley City Council
  * West Hollywood City Council
  * Humboldt County Board of Supervisors
  * National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML)
  * California NORML
  * Drug Policy Alliance
  * Marijuana Policy Project
  * California Courage Campaign
  * Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
  * Students for Sensible Drug Policy
  * Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative
  * Progressive Jewish Alliance
  * American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Northern California
  * ACLU of Southern California
  * ACLU of San Diego
  * American Federation of Teachers
  * National Black Police Association
  * National Latino Officers Association
  * United Food and Commercial Workers Union
  * Communications Workers of America, Local 9415
  * International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Northern California District Council
  * Service Employees International Union of California
  * Editorial board of The Globe and Mail
  * Editorial board of the Santa Barbara News-Press
  * Alameda County Democratic Party
  * Butte County Democratic Party
  * Los Angeles County Democratic Party
  * Madera County Democratic Party
  * Modoc County Democratic Party
  * Monterey County Democratic Party
  * Orange County Democratic Party
  * Placer County Democratic Party
  * Santa Barbara County Democratic Party
  * San Francisco County Democratic Party
  * San Luis Obispo County Democratic Party
  * Siskiyou County Democratic Party
  * Sonoma County Democratic Party
  * Ventura County Democratic Party
  * Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley
  * Orange County Libertarian Party
  * Riverside County Libertarian Party
  * California Young Democrats
  * Progressive Democrats of America
  * Republican Liberty Caucus
  * Green Party of California
  * Peace and Freedom Party
  * Libertarian Party of the United States
  
  ### Opposition
  
  * Arnold Schwarzenegger, former Republican Governor of California
  * Meg Whitman, 2010 California Republican gubernatorial candidate
  * Jerry Brown, current California Governor (2010 California Democratic gubernatorial candidate)
  * Dianne Feinstein, current Democratic Senator from California
  * Barbara Boxer, current Democratic Senator from California
  * Carly Fiorina, 2010 California Republican Senatorial candidate
  * Gil Kerlikowske, current Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and former Seattle police chief
  * Dan Lungren, current Republican House Representative from California's 3rd congressional district
  * Nate Holden, former Democratic member of the California State Senate
  * Gavin Newsom, current California Lieutenant Governor (2010 Democratic candidate for California Lieutenant Governor)
  * Kamala Harris, current California Attorney General (2010 Democratic candidate for California Attorney General)
  * Steve Cooley, current District Attorney of Los Angeles, California and 2010 Republican candidate for California Attorney General
  * Bonnie Dumanis, current District Attorney of San Diego, California
  * Leroy D. Baca, current Sheriff of Los Angeles County, California
  * Sandra Hutchens, current Sheriff of Orange County, California
  * Michael J. Rubio, current Democratic Kern County, California supervisor
  * Dennis Peron, co-author of California Proposition 215
  * Louis R. Miller, current chairman of D.A.R.E. America
  * John Redman, current executive director of Californians for Drug Free Youth
  * Randy Thomasson, founder of Campaign for Children and Families and supporter of California Proposition 8
  * National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
  * California Chamber of Commerce
  * League of California Cities
  * California State Association of Counties
  * California Narcotics Officers Association
  * California Police Chiefs Association
  * California Association of Highway Patrolmen
  * California State Sheriff's Association
  * California District Attorneys Association
  * California Bus Association
  * Association of California School Administrators
  * California Beer and Beverage Distributors
  * California Cannabis Association
  * Bishop, Dr. Ron Allen California. Founder/President/CEO International Faith Based Coalition.
  * Mothers Against Drunk Driving
  * National Black Churches Initiative
  * Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America
  * The Heritage Foundation
  * Editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle
  * Editorial board of the Sacramento Bee
  * Editorial board of the Los Angeles Times
  * Editorial board of the San Jose Mercury News
  * Editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune
  
  ## Polling history
  
  Color indicates the simple majority in a poll.
  
  | Date of opinion poll | Conducted by | Sample size (likely voters) | Methodology | Yes | No | Undecided | Margin of error |
  | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
  | April 20, 2010 | SurveyUSA | 500 | Automated | 56% | 42% | 3% | ±4.4% |
  | May 9–16, 2010 | Public Policy Institute of California | 1168 | Live | 49% | 48% | 3% | ±3% |
  | June 22 – July 5, 2010 | Field Poll | 1005 | Live | 44% | 48% | 8% | ±3.2% |
  | July 8–11, 2010 | SurveyUSA | 614 | Automated | 50% | 40% | 10% | ±4% |
  | July 23–25, 2010 | Public Policy Polling | 614 | Automated | 52% | 36% | 12% | ±3.95% |
  | August 9–11, 2010 | SurveyUSA | 602 | Automated | 50% | 40% | 10% | ±4.1% |
  | August 31 – September 1, 2010 | SurveyUSA | 569 | Automated | 47% | 43% | 10% | ±4.2% |
  | September 20, 2010 | Public Policy Polling | 569 | Automated | 47% | 38% | 15% | ±3.9% |
  | September 26, 2010 | Field Poll | 599 | Live | 49% | 42% | 9% | ±4.1% |
  | September 30, 2010 | Public Policy Institute of California | 2,004 | Live | 52% | 41% | 7% | ±3% |
  | September 30 – October 3, 2010 | SurveyUSA | 670 | Automated | 48% | 41% | 11% | ±3.9% |
  | October 2–4, 2010 | Ipsos | 448 | Live | 44% | 53% | 3% | ±4.7% |
  | October 13–14, 2010 | EMC Research | 704 | Live | 40% | 45% | 14% | ±3.7% |
  | October 13–14, 2010 | EMC Research | 699 | Automated | 56% | 41% | 4% | ±3.7% |
  | October 10–17, 2010 | Public Policy Institute of California | 1,067 | | 44% | 49% | 7% | ±3.5% |
  | October 15–18, 2010 | SurveyUSA | 621 | Automated | 48% | 44% | 8% | ±4% |
  | October 13–20, 2010 | Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California | 441 | Live | 39% | 51% | 10% | ±4.6% |
  | October 21–23, 2010 | Public Policy Polling | 622 | Automated | 45% | 48% | 7% | ±3.9% |
  | October 21–24, 2010 | Suffolk University | 600 | Live | 40% | 55% | 6% | ±4% |
  | October 21–25, 2010 | SurveyUSA | 594 | Mixed | 44% | 46% | 10% | ±4.1% |
  | October 14–26, 2010 | Field Poll | 1092 | Live | 42% | 49% | 9% | ±3.2% |
  | October 20–26, 2010 | CNN/Time | 888 | Live | 45% | 53% | 2% | ±3.5% |
  | October 26–31, 2010 | SurveyUSA | 587 | Mixed | 44% | 46% | 10% | ±4.1% |
  | October 29–31, 2010 | Public Policy Polling | 882 | Automated | 44% | 51% | 5% | ±3.3% |
  
  ### Polling differences by poll type
  
  Analysis of different polling techniques showed significant differentials in support for Proposition 19. Polls conducted by a live interviewer showed substantially less support for Proposition 19 than automated polls. It was suggested that there was a "social desirability bias" causing people to deny their support for Proposition 19 to live interviewers.
  
  Another discrepancy was noted in the Action News/SurveyUSA poll taken in late October. Those interviewed via landlines opposed the initiative 53% to 43%, while those on cell phones supported it 54% to 29%.
  
  ## Outcome
  
  Proposition 19 :
  
  | Choice | Votes | % |
  | - | - | - |
  | No | 5,333,359 | 53.5 |
  | Yes | 4,643,751 | 46.5 |
  | Total votes | 9,977,110 | 100.00 |
  
  ### Results by major county
  
  | County (Major Cities) | Yes | No |
  | - | - | - |
  | Kern County (Bakersfield) | 34.9% | 65.1% |
  | Fresno County (Fresno) | 35.8% | 64.2% |
  | Stanislaus County (Modesto) | 36.6% | 63.4% |
  | San Joaquin County (Stockton) | 39.0% | 61.0% |
  | Sacramento County (Sacramento) | 41.2% | 58.8% |
  | San Bernardino County (San Bernardino, Upland, Fontana, Ontario) | 41.2% | 58.8% |
  | Riverside County (Riverside, Moreno Valley, Corona, Palm Springs) | 41.9% | 58.1% |
  | Orange County (Santa Ana, Anaheim, Irvine, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach) | 42.2% | 57.8% |
  | Ventura County (Ventura, Oxnard, Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley) | 44.8% | 55.2% |
  | Solano County (Fairfield, Vallejo) | 45.5% | 54.5% |
  | San Diego County (San Diego, Chula Vista, Oceanside) | 46.9% | 53.1% |
  | Los Angeles County (Los Angeles, Long Beach, Glendale, Santa Clarita, Pomona, Palmdale, Pasadena, Torrance, Inglewood, Burbank, Carson, Santa Monica etc.) | 47.9% | 52.1% |
  | Santa Clara County (San Jose, Santa Clara, Cupertino, Gilroy, Palo Alto) | 48.1% | 51.9% |
  | Napa County (Napa) | 50.1% | 49.9% |
  | Santa Barbara County (Santa Barbara, Santa Maria) | 51.2% | 48.8% |
  | Monterey County (Monterey, Salinas) | 51.2% | 48.8% |
  | San Luis Obispo County (San Luis Obispo) | 51.5% | 48.5% |
  | Alameda County (Oakland, Fremont, Hayward, Berkeley) | 56.4% | 43.6% |
  | Marin County (San Rafael, Novato) | 62.3% | 37.7% |
  | San Francisco County (San Francisco) | 63.6% | 36.4% |
  | Santa Cruz County (Santa Cruz) | 63.7% | 36.3% |
  