The so-called Noble Experiment, or National Prohibition Act of the 1920’s offers a historical case study of what happens when a highly demanded product is made illegal. Alcohol prohibition created a brand new market for criminal services in bootlegging, racketeering and, above all, violence. The same social ills exist today as a result of unnecessary drug prohibition. Californians have an opportunity to participate in another experiment this November, by allowing a legal market for marijuana to replace the current black market.

Many opponents of Proposition 19 believe that the inherent nature of the drug trade lends itself to cartelization and violent gang activity. However, history has shown that organized crime groups were never involved in the alcohol business until it was prohibited and have not been involved again since its repeal in 1933. The logic behind this is simple. Prohibition creates substantial risks of prosecution for producers who are looking to make a profit by satisfying consumer demand for the drug. As a result, only those with a criminally high tolerance for risk or a supportive criminal network will enter the trade, bringing a criminal culture into the market with them. Rather than expand the market for criminal activity, legalization of marijuana would eliminate the high risk and high profits that draw criminals into the market in the first place.

The cost of the criminal activity resulting from prohibition is staggering, in terms of both law enforcement resources and the ruined lives of the thousands of inmates incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. The benefits associated with prohibition, ostensibly lower rates of drug use and abuse, are vague and unproven. There is little evidence that criminalization reduces substance use in adults or children. From 1920 to 1923, in the early years of alcohol prohibition, the average age at which males began drinking dropped from to 20.4 years old, down from 21.3 in 1914. For females, the average age dropped by over two years over the same period, from 27.9 to 25.8. Additionally, numerous surveys have found that teenagers report that it is easier to illegally purchase marijuana than to buy alcohol, which is legal and regulated. This is unsurprising, given that a drug dealer is not required to ask a minor for photo ID.

Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. For some, the lessons of prohibition have yet to be fully internalized. The passage of Proposition 19 would be a major step towards sanity in our state’s drug policy. Eventually, marijuana prohibition will come to be seen as equally pointless and destructive as alcohol prohibition was.

This November, Californians will decide whether or not to become the first state to go against federal drugs laws and legalize recreational use of marijuana for adults over the age of 21. Practical people of all ideological stripes will raise valid arguments for and against the ballot initiative, which proposes the taxation and regulation of all cannabis products within state borders. However, thoughtful analysis is likely to be mixed with misinformation and exaggeration of the costs and benefits of the act.

Most existing statutes regarding marijuana would be unchanged by the law. Driving while under the influence would remain illegal, although there is currently no effective method for testing drivers suspected of intoxication on the spot. Selling to minors would still be punished by a stiff prison sentence of three to seven years, depending on the age of the buyer. Also, smoking cannabis products in public would remain a misdemeanor accompanied by a $100 fine, akin to the punishment for drinking alcohol in public. To the extent that our laws currently deter these activities, they would continue to do so under the proposed new law.

The bill would legalize private consumption and possession of up to one ounce of bud, the smoke-able part of the cannabis plant. It would also allow individuals to cultivate the plant on a twenty-five square foot parcel, but only on private property and for personal usage. The terms of legal buying and selling would be set by local governments, who already oversee medical marijuana dispensaries in cities like Oakland, Berkeley and Los Angeles. All transactions would be subject to the 8.25% state sales tax, as well as federal, income, and additional excise taxes which many local governments would inevitably impose, as they do with alcohol and cigarettes.

The immediate fiscal impact of legalization would be unambiguously positive. Countless resources are spent each year enforcing laws that most police officers agree are draconian and unjust. In addition to creating thousands of new jobs in the burgeoning pot industry, new tax revenue would help local governments that allow dispensaries to operate to make up for budget shortfalls. Incarceration rates will fall as well, saving the State money on prison administration. Allowing recreational marijuana users to generate wealth instead of languishing in prison would also improve the long term economic prospects of the state.

At this point, accurate estimates of the total additional revenue from the taxation of marijuana are impossible to calculate since we cannot predict how the market for marijuana will respond to a change in its legal status. If additional taxes are set too high, people might choose to continue buying marijuana on the black market, or grow it themselves. Revenue figures that are presented as fact should be taken lightly. Also, a potential new stream of revenue could represent a danger for state government, which has a reputation for spending beyond its means based on unrealistic forecasts of future revenues.

Taxing marijuana does not represent a solution to the state’s insolvent fiscal path. Debates over the long-term mental and physical health effects of marijuana have proved inconclusive. Unfortunately, rigorous laboratory studies will remain difficult to conduct until the drug is legalized due to prohibitions on testing the effects of illegal drugs such as pot. It is widely accepted, however, that marijuana is far less addictive than tobacco, and less carcinogenic at typical levels of consumption. Plus, unlike alcohol, marijuana is not linked to violent or erratic behavior.

Concerns that the proposed changes in the law could make marijuana more accessible to children seem unfounded. Already, eighty-five percent of high school seniors nationwide say that marijuana is “easy to get.” Under the new law, street dealers would be crowded out by legitimate cannabis clubs in cities that allowed them, and adults caught furnishing minors with marijuana would bear the full brunt of the law. Minors would undoubtedly still have access to marijuana, but a change in the law would shift responsibility from our overburdened justice system back to where it belongs: parents of teenagers.

Opponents argue that a change in the law could result in a cultural shift towards greater acceptability of drug use in general. The ever-popular “gateway drug” theory suggests that marijuana is frequently just the first step for many youth before moving on to harder drugs like ecstasy, cocaine and LSD. This kind of causal chain is difficult to identify empirically, but experience in European countries such as the Netherlands, which liberalized its marijuana policy more than twenty years ago, indicates that laxer drug policies do not necessarily lead to higher rates of hard drug use among children or adults.

In the city of Berkeley, marijuana laws are given the lowest possible priority by local law enforcement. Look no further than Memorial Glade on the stoner holiday “4/20” for proof that our current marijuana laws are neither respected nor enforced. Each year, on April 20th, dozens of students gather to light up in celebration of the city’s free-spirited ethos and relaxed enforcement policies. The perception that the rule of law is not enforced damages public respect even for legitimate laws regarding substance use. In all likelihood, legalization of marijuana would further diminish whatever remaining stigma is still associated with getting high in certain parts of California. Some will claim that legalizing marijuana is synonymous with endorsing it. These social critics of mind altering drug-use are entitled to voice their opinions in any number of forums, including the democratic process. However, the broad charge of social cost is subject to a strong burden of proof when it is used to deny responsible adults the right to engage in a private activity. New temptations mean that individuals must take on more responsibility for their actions. Personal responsibility means that individuals reap the rewards and suffer the losses of their decisions. This is a central value of a free society.

Just days after Californians cast their votes, opponents of Proposition 8 filed several lawsuits against the state’s marriage registrar, arguing that the content of Proposition 8 represents a revision rather than an amendment to the Constitution. Under California law, a revision to the Constitution requires a vote in both legislative assemblies and a 2/3 majority in a statewide election, whereas an amendment can be passed by a simple majority vote on a ballot initiative. In May of 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld the amendment in a 6-1 vote. The majority opinion found no grounds to overturn the will of the voters, who are granted the almost unfettered right to alter the state’s Constitution.

Since May 2009, Proposition 8 opponents have taken their case to federal courts. Three separate lawsuits filed by gay couples seeking to marry in California have been merged into one case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The trial phase, which began on January 11, 2010, took place in the US District Court located in San Francisco. The case is currently under review by Judge Vaughn Walker, who is expected to deliberate after several weeks of reviewing the case.

Proposition 8’s opponents are now challenging the amendment under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees citizens the right to equal protection under the law. Under current California law, gay couples can enter into a domestic partnership, which grants them most, but not all of the benefits afforded to married couples. For example, domestic partnerships do not entitle a partner of a state worker to the same long-term insurance benefits given to spouses of state workers. Additionally, at least one party must be over the age of 62.

The plaintiffs in the case are represented by the unlikely duo of Ted Olson and David Boies, the two lawyers who opposed each other in the famous Bush v. Gore case of late 2000. Olson, a prominent conservative, offered to represent a gay couple shortly after the election. He believes that his background as Solicitor General to President George W. Bush lends bipartisan credibility to the legal team.

Olson and Boies face a two-fold task. First, they must reaffirm that marriage is a fundamental right, applying equally to all citizens. In the past, the court has held marriage to be a fundamental right. In Loving v. Virginia, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional, calling marriage a “basic civil right”. However, the ruling has not traditionally extended to the right to marry anyone, that is, members of one’s family, multiple partners, or members of the same sex.

The second task facing the Olson-Boies team is persuading the court that gays belong to a “protected class.” Protected classes include members of an ethnic or racial minority, religion, gender and other historically sensitive characteristics. To date, no federal court has established a precedent of recognizing gays as a protected class. If Olson and Boies can convince Judge Walker that gays are, in fact, a protected class, then the court would have to apply “strict scrutiny” to the issue of discrimination in the country. Under that standard, the law must be closely tailored to addressing a compelling governmental interest. If no suspect class is involved, then a state requires only a rational basis for passing a law.

To make their case, Olson and Boies called witnesses to testify on the underlying sentiments behind voter support of Proposition 8. If they can convince the court that support was heavily grounded in anti-gay prejudice, then gays could potentially be considered a protected class, and Proposition 8 will be subject to strict scrutiny. Additionally, several experts on the history of marriage, and on the potential economic and psychological consequences of the amendment all testified on behalf of the plaintiffs.

The defense seemed confident that their side had persuasively argued the State’s interest in recognizing only opposite-sex marriage. “We say that the central and the defining purpose of marriage is to channel naturally procreative sexual activity between men and women into stable, enduring unions for the sake of begetting, nurturing, and raising the next generation,” said Charles Cooper, a lawyer for the defense, “Plaintiffs say that the central and constitutionally mandated purpose of marriage is simply to provide formal government recognition to loving, committed relationships.” The defense called only two witnesses to testify, choosing not to address many of the issues raised by the plaintiff.

Regardless of Judge Walker’s ruling, the case will almost certainly be appealed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and then to the Supreme Court of the United States. Some gay marriage supporters fear that it is not a good time for this case to be tried in the highest court in the country. “A loss now may make it harder to go to court later,” said one anti-Proposition 8 activist. “It will take us a lot longer to get a good Supreme Court decision if the Court has to overrule itself.” The Supreme Court has tended to not overturn laws which have strong public support. Voters have rejected same-sex marriage ballot proposals in 31 states, including California.

On the afternoon of September 24th, UC Berkeley history professor Heath Pearson gave his routine lecture on the history of economic thought to an emptier than usual room. The LeConte auditorium contained roughly 80 students of the 135 enrolled in the course, indicating an absence rate usually seen only the day before the University breaks for Thanksgiving. So where were all the students?

It is estimated that 4,000 UC Berkeley workers, faculty, graduate students and community members gathered around midday on Sproul Plaza to protest a variety of recent administrative decisions made in the wake of state-wide budget cuts. The campus wide “walkout” was part of a broader walkout movement by all ten UC campuses with the purpose of sending a strong message to University administrators and state legislators. The movement began when the University Professional and Technical Employees (UTPE) urged faculty and students to stay away from campus on the 24th, except to attend the various picket lines and rallies held throughout the day. The walkout, which was scheduled to coincide with the first day of instruction at eight out of the 10 UC campuses, came several weeks into Cal’s fall semester.

Students attending the eight UC campuses with the late September start date stood only to miss the largely superfluous first day of instruction and their professors had time to plan accordingly. At Cal, on the other hand, classes were held on a case by case basis, with the decision to hold class left to the professor.

Some, including Pearson, were forced to rearrange midterm dates just days before the event. Pearson made the decision to postpone a midterm scheduled for the day of the event, but told students that they were still accountable for material covered on that day.

“I wouldn’t call it fair but I would call it acceptable,” Pearson said. “People who walked out of class today are going to pay a price because they missed out on what I consider to be important course material, but it’s not the kind of price that says ‘Guess what, you just got a zero for 25% of the course,’ which I think would be really punitive for people who are following their conscience.”

Jing Jing, an undergraduate business student enrolled in Pearson’s class had to weigh her options before making a decision. “I support the cause,” Jing said. “I considered not going to class, but we have a midterm on Tuesday.” Others, like third-year student Theresa Diederich, felt that the event was important enough to justify her absence. “The class I’m missing is economic history [not Pearson’s course] and I think that this is history dealing very clearly with economics. Here’s a chance to participate in something that I’m learning about.” She said that her participation mostly had to do with a lack of transparency in the University’s financial decision-making.

Pearson’s decision to hold class was not meant as a political statement in opposition to the walkout. Rather, he endorses civil disobedience as an effective method of human progress and acknowledges the need for real financial reform at a University and statewide level. Pearson is doubtful, though, of the walkout. That is, he is skeptical whether progress can be made by actively walking out on the resources of the University in order to make a statement about needing more resources. He sees a danger in how the walkout might be perceived by California voters. “I just don’t think this is the right way to pursue the political agenda that they have,” Pearson said.

Reasons for attendance at the protest on Sproul were as varied as the participants. Canvassers took advantage of the crowds by distributing literature on causes ranging from feminism to communism. There were, however, common threads among the hundreds in attendance. UC President Yudof was the target of chants calling for his firing and his salary ($828,000 per year) was frequently cited on handouts and signs. “I know there are news teams everywhere. I just want to show everyone that we care, to show the President that we’re really pissed off,” said Jaffer Kattan, another third year in attendance, referring to Yudof.

Widespread anger flared up among students, staff and faculty in July, following the UC Regents decision to slash $813 million from the $3 billion the University gets from the state each year. The Board of Regents, in conjunction with Yudof, voted to cut pay almost across the board and to require additional furlough days for workers and faculty, seeing that it would be preferable to massive lay-offs.

While Yudof was a primary target during the rallies, he claims that he is not the true culprit. “This is a long-term secular trend across the entire country. Higher education is being squeezed out. It’s systemic,” said Yudof in a New York Times interview that ran the day of the walkout.

State lawmakers, headed by the Democratic Senate President pro tem Darrell Steinberg and Democratic Speaker of the Assembly Karen Bass, cut $9 billion from education, including $2 billion from higher education, in an attempt to make up for the $26 billion shortfall caused by increasing costs and declining state revenues.

Diederich was one in attendance who did not rush to blame Yudof, saying, “I’m not proposing at this point that we should just cut it from the top [University administrators] automatically or that there shouldn’t be some sort of fee increases. Obviously everyone needs to feel this budget crisis, but I don’t think that there has been enough open discussion at this point about where that money needs to come from and how much actually needs to be cut to make these broad-sweeping and long-lasting decisions.”

In spite of inconveniences to class schedules, Berkeley’s campus protest was the largest of all of the UC campuses, reaffirming the city’s long-standing reputation as a bastion of political activism 45 years after the famous Free Speech Movement student protests.