There are just 21 days left until California voters decide whether their state becomes the first in the nation to make marijuana legal for all adults. And as the campaign enters its final stretch, support for ending marijuana prohibition in California continues to pour in from all kinds of sources.

Late last week, the League of United Latin American Citizens of California (LULAC) – part of the nation’s oldest Latino civil rights group – became the latest statewide organization to endorse Prop 19. "The current prohibition laws are not working for Latinos, nor for society as a whole," said Argentina Dávila-Luévano, California LULAC State Director, in a statement. "Far too many of our brothers and sisters are getting caught in the cross-fire of gang wars here in California and the cartel wars south of our border.  It's time to end prohibition, put violent, organized criminals out of business and bring marijuana under the control of the law."

LULAC’s endorsement came on the heels of major financial contributions to the Yes on 19 effort from Napster co-founder Sean Parker ($100,000), Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz ($70,000), and David Bronner, the president of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soap Company ($75,000). Though the Prop 19 campaign has not yet received the multimillion-dollar funds required to launch a full-scale TV ad campaign, these donations will be a tremendous boost to get-out-the-vote efforts among California’s electorate.

To assist in that effort, MPP is directing our supporters to an online tool set up by the Just Say Now campaign that enables users to reach out to likely supporters of marijuana initiatives in California, Oregon, Arizona, and South Dakota. If you have any free time, this is a great opportunity to contribute to the cause.

For a more detailed look at the battle lines being drawn over Prop 19 in California, check out some of Phil Smith’s reporting over at the Drug War Chronicle.

“The Colbert Report” dedicated about a third of last night’s episode to a lively discussion about Prop 19 in California – and it was chalk full of gems. After rallying his audibly excited audience with an overview of where the measure stands (“If Prop 19 were a human, it would be the most popular candidate in California”), host Stephen Colbert turned to two guests – Joseph Califano, of the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson – to argue for and against making marijuana legal.

Califano opposes Prop 19. The entire debate over marijuana, he said, comes down to children:

“We have two legal drugs in America – alcohol and tobacco – and we’ve had no success keeping them out of the hands of kids. So if you legalize pot in California, all the kids will have access to it.”

Yeah, I know. My head hurt when I heard this, too. It’s amazing how twisted, bankrupt, and dishonest a statement that is. First off, Califano conveniently ignores the fact that young people already have access to marijuana – better access than they do to alcohol and tobacco, because marijuana dealers aren’t required to check IDs. (On the same day this segment aired, a report from the International Centre for Science and Drug Policy said that despite decades of increased arrests, seizures, and enforcement efforts, marijuana remains “universally available” to young people.) Secondly, there has been a great deal of progress in recent years in lowering the use rates for alcohol, and especially tobacco, among young people. That success has come about through sensible regulations and fact-based education campaigns – not the criminalization of tobacco users.

If Califano truly believes we need to “change the culture” surrounding marijuana the same way society changed the culture surrounding tobacco, he should embrace the regulation of marijuana, accompanied by science-based education. But doing so could negatively affect the bottom line for the substance abuse centers Califano represents – and who depend on court-ordered entries for arrested marijuana users for a great deal of their business.

Luckily, Gary Johnson was there to inject some honesty into the conversation.

“I just think that there should be truth in this. I don’t drink alcohol, I don’t smoke pot, but I’ve drank alcohol and I’ve smoked pot, and I can tell you there’s a big difference between the two, and that is that marijuana is a lot safer than alcohol. I think you can introduce truth into the equation; we can tell our kids the truth regarding this. When it comes to the truth and my kids, I love them. I’d rather see them smoke marijuana than alcohol – but I don’t want them caught. I don’t want them subject to the criminal justice system when it comes to marijuana.”

Bravo, governor. It takes courage to say something like that, and by doing so on national television, Gary Johnson is making it easier for other public figures to follow suit.

How’s that for changing the culture?

Watch the entire segment below:

New Jersey’s Department of Health and Senior Services yesterday released long-awaited regulations for the medical marijuana program first approved by its state legislature in January. They are among the most stringent medical marijuana guidelines in the nation.

To qualify, patients must have one of nine conditions, and their doctor must treat them for at least one year (or have seen them four times) and show that other treatments have been ineffective. Patients can apply for the program starting next month, but none are expected to receive their medicine until at least summer 2011.

The law originally called for six nonprofit dispensaries to grow and sell marijuana to patients, but these latest rules scale that back to two growers for the entire state – who will supply only four nonprofit dispensaries statewide. (By comparison, Washington, D.C.’s medical marijuana regulations, which are also quite narrow, propose up to five dispensaries for the entire District). And, in what is perhaps the first requirement of its kind in the nation, New Jersey will limit the potency of all medical marijuana to just 10 percent THC.

"Overall, it seems the goal of the regulations is to provide the least amount of relief to the fewest number of patients,’’ DPA’s Roseanne Scotti told local news outlets. "This wasn’t what was foreseen by advocates. We already had the strictest law in the country; I didn’t think it could get any worse."

Earlier this summer, a Phoenix marijuana deal went bad and resulted in the deaths of three people. Now, details have been released about the investigation that led up to the massacre. After being connected with a group of buyers through a confidential informant, police planned to sell 500 lbs. of marijuana (seized in previous investigations) for $250,000. During the deal, something went wrong and shooting started.

Many words come to mind when considering this horrible event, which ended with a detective dead and two more wounded, as well as the deaths of two suspects. Tragic. Wasteful. Heroic. For me, one word stands above the rest: avoidable.

The simple fact is that this sort of thing doesn’t happen in regulated industries. When was the last time you heard about a liquor store owner gunning down the delivery driver to avoid paying the bill? As seen during alcohol prohibition – most notably in Chicago during the reign of Al Capone – illegal markets that have no legal means to resolve disputes inevitably produce violence. Once the product is brought into a regulated market, the violence disappears almost overnight.

In a society that taxes and regulates marijuana like alcohol, few of our law enforcement officers will end up murdered over a couple of bales of plant matter.

A new report released today by the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy uses figures provided by the U.S. government to highlight the unquestionable failure of America’s marijuana prohibition to accomplish a single one of its goals. Reviewing 20 years of data, the report shows that despite drastically increased spending on enforcement efforts, including near record-level arrests and seizures, marijuana has become cheaper, more potent, and more available than ever. It concludes, “the legalization of cannabis, combined with the implementation of strict regulatory tools could help reduce cannabis-related harms, as research has demonstrated is successful in tobacco and alcohol control, when strictly enforced.”

Among the report’s findings:

• The annual overall budget for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy increased by more than 600%; growing from approximately $1.5 billion in 1981 to more than $18 billion in 2002 (the last year reliable figures were available).
• Between 1990 and 2006, marijuana-related arrests increased by 150%, while marijuana seizures increased by more than 400%.
• The estimated retail cost of marijuana decreased from $37 per gram in 1990 to $15 per gram in 2007.
• Marijuana has remained almost “universally available” to American youth during the last 30 years of prohibition.

The report is very clear in its endorsement of a regulated marijuana market over simply a decriminalized model, in which criminal penalties against users are removed, but the sale of marijuana would remain illegal, and therefore, in the hands of criminals. “Without regulatory controls allowing for limited distribution – as employed for other psychoactive substances such as alcohol and tobacco – organized crime groups continue to exercise control over the cannabis market,” the report states.

It goes on to explain that regulations could include “age restrictions, restricting driving or operating machinery while intoxicated, limiting hours of sale and outlet density, restricting bulk sales and limiting potency of legal cannabis.”

Boiled down, this is the same message that MPP and others have advocated for years: marijuana regulation is a far superior policy alternative to the chaotic and ineffective nature of prohibition.

On November 2, voters in California will have a historic opportunity to choose that superior alternative by voting yes on Prop 19.

You can read the entire ICSDP report here, or a summarized two-page fact sheet here. I highly recommend it.

Every day there are more and more stories in mainstream media outlets about Prop 19 and the growing national movement to end marijuana prohibition. That alone is a promising development. But what’s even more telling has been the way the tone of the coverage is starting to shift from asking, “Should marijuana be legal?” to, “Is marijuana going to be legal? And if so, when, where, and how?”

Check out just three examples from today:

Wall Street Journal: “Democrats Look to Cultivate Pot Vote in 2012”

Democratic strategists are studying a California marijuana-legalization initiative to see if similar ballot measures could energize young, liberal voters in swing states for the 2012 presidential election.

NPR: “Has the US Reached a Tipping Point on Pot?”

California's Proposition 19, if approved by voters, will legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana legal for the first time in the United States. Many other states have relaxed their marijuana laws. Is this the tipping point when marijuana follows alcohol and gambling from criminal offense to harmless pastime -- and source of new tax revenue?

New York Times: “Will California Show the Way on Marijuana?”

Like it or not, the tens of millions of people in California serve as a laboratory for new legislation, and their state sets a legal example that the rest of the states might follow. So, even if you do not live in California, pay attention to Proposition 19: maybe someday marijuana may come to a store near you.

In July, I wrote about the growing belief among political strategists that candidates can benefit from supporting marijuana reform. Just last week, the Oregon Democratic Party endorsed Measure 74, the ballot question that would add state-licensed dispensaries to that state’s medical marijuana law.

Remember who's helping to fund the campaign against Prop 19.

The Marijuana Policy Project has largely sat out the campaign to end marijuana prohibition in California this election cycle, but the recent escalation of infighting among allies who claim to support marijuana legalization has inspired me to speak out, and firmly.

The best way to explain is to tell a true story about something that happened just across the border, in Nevada, in 2006.

MPP was in the midst of campaigning for our ballot initiative to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol in Nevada. (Only six statewide initiatives to end marijuana prohibition have ever been voted on -- one in California in 1972, one in Oregon in 1986, two in Alaska in 2000 and 2004, and two in Nevada in 2002 and 2006. The highest voter-getters were the 2004 Alaska initiative and the 2006 Nevada initiative; each received 44% of the vote.)

Surprisingly, one of the leading libertarians in Nevada -- someone who had real access to mainstream media outlets -- told me he was going to oppose our initiative. The reason? As a libertarian, he didn't like taxes, and he didn't like regulations.

I explained to him that it's one thing to be disappointed with the exact wording of the initiative, but it's another thing to actually oppose the initiative. He didn't budge.

I then pointed out that if he opposed the initiative, he would also have to endorse making alcohol illegal. "How interesting," he said, wondering what I meant.

I expounded that -- by campaigning and voting against the marijuana initiative -- he would be choosing to keep marijuana illegal instead of taxing and regulating it. So, if prohibition is somehow preferable to taxes and regulations, he should prefer alcohol prohibition over alcohol being taxed and sold in bars and restaurants.

I never heard from him again, even to this day. But, to his credit, he ended up not campaigning against the initiative, I think because he's well known to be intellectually honest and consistent.

The same dilemma now faces anti-prohibitionists in California, except, unfortunately, some anti-prohibitionists are choosing to advocate for prohibition, because Prop. 19 isn't "perfect enough," they imply.

One need not be a lawyer to find something not to like about Prop. 19, if one looks hard enough. The initiative gives local governments the option to prohibit or legalize the sale of marijuana; perhaps you prefer not to give local governments any option at all? The initiative allows all adults to possess up to one ounce of marijuana; perhaps you prefer a pound or more? The initiative allows all adults to grow 25 square feet of marijuana; perhaps you prefer not allowing grow-your-own at all?

These kinds of debates are legitimate and -- to be sure -- it's literally impossible to reach a consensus on any of these points before or even after a statewide initiative is drafted and qualified for the ballot. So the issue isn't whether a consensus can be reached.

Rather, the issue is whether anti-prohibitionists really want their souls to be burdened with voting to prohibit marijuana -- which is what they'd be doing by voting against Prop. 19 on November 2.

Have you ever heard a marijuana user say the following? "I don't want marijuana to become legal, because it would take the fun out of it. It would make it less glamorous."

I respond to such pea-brained declarations of adolescent rebellion by saying, "Oh, because you want to have more fun, you therefore want the government to continue arresting more than 800,000 people every year for what you, yourself, are doing? And you want to spend my tax money -- and yours -- to accomplish this?"

How selfish.

Of course, to be fair, people who say they like the glamour of being an outlaw don't really want more than 800,000 of their brethren to be arrested every year for marijuana. It's just that the glamour-seekers are losing sight of what's really important: They're choosing a public policy that resonates with them (keeping marijuana allegedly "cool" because it's illegal), while inadvertently overlooking the horrible byproduct of that choice (arresting the equivalent of every man, woman, and child in the state of Montana every year, forever).

So, to bring it back to California, it's important that opponents of Prop. 19 at least be intellectually honest: By opposing the initiative for whatever reasons one has, the tradeoff is that more than 60,000 people will continue to be cited for marijuana offenses every year in California. That's not something that I'd want to have on my conscience.

Going back to the top of this column: Many people who remember the 1972 initiative in California, which lost with 34% of the vote, muse nostalgically about how great it would have been if that initiative had passed ... how it would have changed the whole course of events, especially in the midst of President Nixon's administration. But have you read that initiative? It was inferior to this year's initiative in California.

And you know what? Coincidentally, they're both labeled "Prop. 19." The first Prop. 19 failed 38 years ago; do we really want to lose again, in just a few weeks?

Please visit Yeson19.com to support the current campaign.

Yesterday, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill that downgrades the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana from a misdemeanor to a civil infraction.

This new law means that the more than 60,000 people who are arrested in California every year for small-time marijuana possession will no longer be arrested, given criminal records, or have to appear in court. Instead, they will receive a $100 fine similar to a parking citation. SB 1449 will also save California untold millions in reduced court costs.

And as Paul Armentano at NORML points out, this change will still have a positive impact on California’s marijuana laws even if Prop 19, the measure to make marijuana legal for all adults, passes:

Proposition 19 leaves misdemeanor possession penalties in place for public use and smoking in the presence of children; under SB 1449, these offenses would be simple infractions.

Remember, only 17 days left to register to vote in California.