Foremost among the public policy objectives of Prop 19 is improving the criminal justice system by reducing criminalization. The intent is to stop wasting resources prosecuting largely victimless activities and divert police attention to more serious offenses. Prop 19 does no such thing. While it would legalize the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana, this amount is already decriminalized and is not an arrestable offense, and possession is also already being downgraded to an infraction. The California Police Chiefs Association admits that they do not enforce the law in cases involving under an ounce. Taken together, these factors make the effects of legalization on reducing arrests for possession trivial.

The law would actually exacerbate many of the enforcement problems we currently face by creating new demographics of groups to jail. The law would make it expressly illegal to give marijuana to anyone under 21, under penalty of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine, yet the current penalty is only a $100 fine. Even smoking in the presence of minors can result in arrests – even for those who use the drug medicinally. By reclassifying minor offenses into more serious ones, Prop 19 would actually result in more enforcement and higher costs. The initiative would make it illegal to possess marijuana purchased from anyone other than a State-licensed dispensary. That removes the presumption of innocence from the court system, shifting the burden of proof onto the citizen, and allows the State to create legal monopolies, which would remove competition and advance corporate rather than consumer interests. That’s bad jurisprudence and bad economics.

The second main purpose, revenue generation, is just as more problematic. Like any tax, it would shift resources away from useful economic activity toward the already bloated California government. If a person is going to be buying marijuana whether or not a tax is in place, the amount paid as tax would have instead gone to other things, such as consumer goods. And while proponents claim it will reduce the efficacy of cartels, the tax rate of $50/oz currently being recommended will maintain a black market and all the other crimes that come with it; because the black market would dodge the tax, the projected $1.4 billion in revenues will never materialize. Because the initiative lends itself to corporatization of the marijuana trade, it will also generate a new kind of cartel – a small set of corporations with strong vested interests in manipulating public policy. Perhaps worst of all, it creates a government addiction to vice: the State will have a financial interest in citizens lighting up, which will conflict with the broader objective of sobriety (or at least restraint).

The proposal to tax marijuana relies on two very dangerous presumptions: that California’s fiscal problems are the result of insufficient taxes, rather than exorbitant spending, and that the State should treat politically marginalized groups – those who consume cigarettes, alcohol, gasoline, and now weed – as beasts of burden, to support the ever expanding government bureaucracy.

The consequences of Prop 19 are clear: less freedom and more government controls. If Californians want to legalize marijuana, Prop 19 simply won’t do it. We need an alternative that will very simply remove possession, consumption, and trade of marijuana from the penal code, which would reduce costs for the criminal justice system and promote competition. If Californians also want to tax marijuana, they should do so by including it in the sales tax, not by imposing additional excise taxes.

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.

The Black Student Union’s “Blackout” in response to the UCSD “Compton Cookout” controversy.

2. Best Failed Initiative

Professor Lakoff’s failed “anti-two-thirds” requirement “for democracy.”

3. Best Party on Campus

Does this even need explanation? Are we not all compatriots? As always, the Berkeley College Republicans is the best party on campus. If we weren’t, we wouldn’t be the Berkeley College Republicans or the California Patriot!

4. Best Voter Fraud

At Berkeley with a lot of insane leftist politics, you can imagine the difficulty we had with finding the winner. Yet, you have to admit that creating a fiasco and spectacle before even assuming office is damn impressive. Congratulations President-Elect Noah Stern!

5. Best Riot Chant

Again, there is some tough competition. Berkeley will be Berkeley. And as you’d expect, the California Patriot will be the California Patriot. As we have an eye for pithy remarks, we had to note (and recognize) this gem: “Whose streets? Our streets!”

6. Best Traffic Blockade

Again, do these categories even need explanations anymore? The clear winner was certainly the Berkeley anarchists’ blockade on March 4 on I-880!

7. Best ASUC Waste of Time

Senate Bill 118 and 119, which would eventually pass as Senate Bill 118A. This bill is more commonly known as the Divest from Israel initiative. Obviously, a group of twenty 20-year olds knows more than a world of actual governing bodies.

8. Best ASUC Waste of Money

Closely related — and not to be outdone — the BEARS Initiative won as the biggest waste of not only ASUC funds but of student funds. The BEARS Initiative was a “student-led” initiative that was disguised as a plan to renovate and upgrade the out-of-date Lower Sproul Plaza. However, it would do this by gradually increasing student fees for the next 40 or so years. And you wonder where our Members of Congress learn the tactics that the employ now? Surely, you have heard of our nation’s college campuses as being the breeding ground for our next generation of leaders!

9. Best On-Campus Occupation

The Wheeler Hall protest, isn’t this a no-brainer?

10. Best Economic Recovery Plan of the Year

In the 2010 ASUC elections, SQUELCH! candidate for ASUC President, Chad Kunert, announced a proposal for an on-campus dispensary on Lower Sproul. What would that dispensary provide for the students of Berkeley? Well, booze and marijuana of course! Trickle down effect anyone?

11. Best Local Non-Profit

We here at the California Patriot are tried and true conservatives. As any conservative would openly admit, we value the importance and beauty of people giving back to their community and engaging in charity for one’s neighbor without being told so and certainly without it being forced by the extraction of our hard earned dollar. It is with great pleasure that we announce the Berkeley needle exchange van as being the best non-profit organization, aside from us of course, in the entire city!

People’s Park is known for its history of radical political activism during the 1960s and 1970s, and has an important role in history as one of the central locations in the Free Speech Movement; however, the park today is not in any way something worth honoring. People’s Park today is little more than a dangerous, crime-ridden piece of turf bordering one of the most prestigious universities in the country.

The Unit 2 residential hall, Crossroads dining common, and American Baptist Seminary West are all adjacent to the park. People’s Park’s inhabitants, which include the homeless, the insane, drug abusers, pickpockets, muggers, and rapists, present a very real and very visible threat to the safety of the students who come here seeking education and the opportunities that come with it. Indeed, students commonly describe People’s Park as a “warzone” at night, and most consciously avoid it. Since People’s Park tarnishes the university’s image and recklessly endangers students and nearby Berkeley residents, I suggest the City of Berkeley consider redeveloping the land with an upscale shopping center, facilities that the community sorely lacks and would benefit considerably from.

The development, “People’s Palace,” would be capable of providing a pleasant, luxurious shopping and dining experience unique in Berkeley. Since People’s Park currently occupies 2.8 acres, the new mall would be comprised of four levels offering fine shops and restaurants. Due to its proximity to public parking and the university, it should produce minimal strain on the city’s parking and transportation infrastructure by enabling use of existing parking resources while still being close enough to be within walking distance for students. Nonetheless, with shops like D & G and Cartier, People’s Palace would attract Bay Area shoppers for an upscale shopping experience. The architecture of People’s Palace will follow the Greek architecture used in many University of California buildings; white, magnificent columns will connect each of the four floors – Athens, Acropolis, Parthenon, and Olympus – while a large, extravagant fountain of various Greek gods will greet shoppers at the entrance. With a luxurious layout like this, visitors will feel like gods or goddesses themselves.

The space will be enough to easily accommodate retail outlets suitable for the entire community. The young university population can be served by stores including Abercrombie & Fitch, Hollister, and Ruehl, giving students an opportunity to update their wardrobes from stores other than niche-market outlets like Telegraph’s Hot Topic or its ever present street vendors. There would also be space for more affluent shops such as Armani Exchange, Coach, and Banana Republic, as well as internationally acclaimed Swarovski crystals, trendy clothes by Dolce & Gabbana, and Cartier jewelry. A Barnes & Noble spanning all four floors can meet the need for competitors to Ned’s and the ASUC bookstore, as well as provide a nice study area and café, while an Apple store can meet many students’ computing needs. As for dining options, People’s Palace will offer restaurants that will put Berkeley’s current meager offerings to shame, offering favorites such as Cheesecake Factory, Pasta Pomodoro, and Benihana, with the likes of Häagen-Dazs for dessert.

While such a plush shopping center would be a novel and unexpected addition to Berkeley’s otherwise drab amenities, it has great potential for revitalizing the community. Though few students will purchase anything from a Dolce & Gabbana boutique, there is still an untapped market that will. Students themselves will have access to more youth oriented stores, which will bring a significant amount of wealth into the city. With its Greek theme, it will present the noble culture of ancient Athens, in stark contrast to the violence and discord in the current state of affairs. It will increase public safety and prosperity by bringing law and commerce onto the blighted grounds of People’s Park. And, by bringing in high-value businesses, it has the potential to bring jobs into the community, especially for hard-working and financially burdened students.

Although the costs of People’s Palace will be high, its benefits will show themselves in time. The most important is certainly the revitalization of the dangerous People’s Park, and the removal of its current occupants to appropriate shelters, health centers, or prisons. It will bring wealth and jobs into the community, which is especially important in tough economic times and when students are burdened by high college debts. It will provide a clean, safe, and fun hangout place for students who will not be threatened or harassed by muggers and beggars. It will present a shining, chic setting that will glow amidst the dreariness of Berkeley and honors the university. But aside from all these advantages, People’s Palace will most importantly put right the current problem of People’s Park. It will extinguish the danger harbored in a place that no longer reflects historical significance, but rather has become a sanctuary for illegal, inappropriate, and unsafe activities.

You may vote for as many as you would like!

Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts special Senate election caught national attention as a political game-changer. In a state where only 11% of the electorate is Republican, Brown won against Democrat Martha Coakley with a solid margin. Remarkably, Brown did not campaign as a “moderate”, but as a candidate who would fiercely oppose Obama’s agenda.

Interestingly enough, both Obama and Brown reveal a stunning political reality: while “moderation” sounds more appealing than “extremism”, it is the “extreme” – the consistent – who actually win elections. He did so in a state used as a model for Obama’s health insurance regulatory scheme, a tragic irony for the left’s hubris and an indication that voters in that state are fed up with both the Democrats’ national agenda, and perhaps their own health insurance policies.

What’s really important about the election is the fact that it gives Republicans 41 seats in the Senate. While technically only a majority is needed to pass legislation or confirm appointments, Senate rules allow for unlimited debate. Democrat Strom Thurmond currently holds the record for longest speech, at 24 hours and 18 minutes, in a last ditch attempt to block the Civil Rights Act of 1957. If debate never stops, the Senate is unable to move to a final vote, and the legislation or confirmation cannot be passed. Under current Senate rules, 60 votes are needed for a “cloture motion” to stop debate and proceed to a vote. This means that a bill or confirmation can literally be talked to death, even if a majority would have supported it. With Brown as the 41st Republican Senator, a unified vote can block any legislation that does not have bipartisan support, meaning Democrats can no longer unilaterally force bad laws (additional health insurance regulations, “cap and trade”, etc) on the public.

Ultimately, though, the election doesn’t change the majority in the Senate, and Republicans will still be unable to advance their own agenda. What it does win is valuable time, allowing Republicans to hold out until the November elections. Then, voters across the country will instate a new House of Representatives and replace one third of the Senate. While many incumbents will remain, history and the current political climate indicate that the midterm elections will bring with them significant turnover, and Republicans running under a coherent agenda may be able to win back Congress.

On behalf of the entire staff of the California Patriot, we would like to thank you for your support. As you know, the California Patriot does not receive any funding nor does it receive the support of the university. As we like to say, they are not responsible for the content that we put out as an independent student organization and publication and you can certainly bet that we are not responsible for the content of the university nor Berkeley itself!

The staff wishes and hopes that you have had an exciting 2009 year whether you were fighting for liberty and freedom as a compatriot in the workforce, in our armed forces, getting educated, or keeping the family a strong central unit in our society. Whether big or small, we are proud of your services to this nation and to be your fellow compatriots and we salute you for your work!

We would also like to take this opportunity to thank you for your support of the California Patriot whatever your part in the publication. As a member of the senior staff, I’d like to thank my fellow staff members for their contributions in art, writing, editing, logistics, advertising, and publication. I would also like to thank you for reading whether it is by subscribing for that hardcopy mailed directly to your door or online in your lounge chair; it is people like you for which we work for. We would also like to thank our subscribers which allow us to stay in publication. We understand that Obama’s policies don’t necessarily translate to the best in economic times, which is why we would like to thank our anonymous donor for their gift of $5,000 to the California Patriot Foundation.

God bless you all and thank you again for your continued support. Thank you for a fantastic 2009 and remember 2010 is OURS!

Sincerely,