However, this optimism may be premature. Polls show younger voters, including Republicans, are strongly predisposed to support proposals such as the Nov. 8 ballot measure. But voters who haven’t made up their minds may be dismayed upon learning what’s happened in Colorado since voters there approved pot legalization in 2012.

The Colorado experience seems likely to have eventually made its way into the California debate, but the recent chance seating of Assembly Speaker Kevin de León next to Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper on a cross-country flight accelerated its entry. De León, a Los Angeles Democrat with statewide ambitions, told the Los Angeles Times last week that the “comprehensive” briefing he had gotten on what happened in Colorado left him so concerned he was unsure how he would vote on Proposition 64.

Colorado report depicts wide range of social ills

A 166-page report assessing how the Rocky Mountain State had been affected by state marijuana policies was released in September 2015. It found sharp increases in driving under the influence of drugs; increases in traffic deaths related to stoned drivers; a spike in marijuana users aged 12 to 17; a sharp increase in marijuana-related emergency room visits; and a huge surge in the number of children under 5 who had been exposed to marijuana in their homes. The document also found evidence that Colorado had become a marijuana exporter, with volume growers taking their crop to other states.

Plainly, what’s happened in Colorado offers rich fodder for anti-Proposition 64 ballot arguments. There is now a legal fight in the works over opponents’ proposed language.

The Colorado report is also a great source of TV attack ads — if the No on Proposition 64 has deep enough pockets to launch such a campaign.

Fearful that California’s legalization of marijuana would set a precedent for the nation, a group leery of Proposition 64 has emerged as its leading critic. Known as the Smart Approaches to Marijuana, it was founded in 2013 by former Rhode Island Rep. Patrick Kennedy; David Frum, former speech writer for President George W. Bush; and Kevin Sabet, a UC Berkeley alumnus who was the leading opponent of drug legalization or normalization within the Obama administration.

In a recent Los Angeles Times article, Sabet expressed confidence that the anti-Proposition 64 campaign will be well-funded.

But as is often the case with ballot measures in California, one side or the other has a billionaire paying most of the bills. The key advocate behind Proposition 64 is Silicon Valley billionaire Sean Parker, who has already given $9.2 million to qualify the measure and to set up a campaign organization on its behalf. At this point, the No on 64 side has no similar figure.

Battles over credibility loom

What’s more, Sabet’s emergence as a face of the anti-64 campaign could actually galvanize Prop. 64’s supporters.  In some progressive circles, he’s seen as an enemy of balanced, honest debate about drug use in modern America. A 2013 Rolling Stone article depicted him as the “biggest enemy” of pot legalization — a pretend reformer who is a “prohibitionist” at heart.

Dr. Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, a New York City physician who has written about marijuana’s potential as a pain reliever in the Clinical Journal of Pain, has charged Sabet with exaggerating marijuana’s addictive qualities and cherry-picking information to mislead journalists on many fronts, such as the alleged correlation between marijuana use and lower IQs. 

Sabet says that legalization supporters have their own credibility gaps, starting with a refusal to acknowledge how detrimental marijuana use is for teenagers and a refusal to admit that marijuana today is far more powerful than it was a generation ago.

California’s Proposition 64 shares its number with the Colorado pot measure approved in 2012. 

Wednesday afternoon, before much was known about the attacks or the motives of the shooters, Newsom had this to say to the Los Angeles Times: “What more evidence do you need that we need to step it up as it relates to gun safety in this state? It is just unacceptable what is going on in this country. And California needs to lead the way. … Today’s tragedy just reinforces the imperative to not wait around for Congress to do their job, but for this state to do its job. And giving the voters the opportunity to do that directly is something that I think is important because the NRA, even in a Democratic state, has intimidated politicians in Sacramento.”

Newsom and fellow gun-control advocates need 365,880 valid signatures to gain a spot on the November ballot. The San Jose Mercury-News has details on his proposal:

California already has some of the nation’s toughest gun laws, including a 10-day waiting period for all firearm purchases, an assault weapons ban, and a ban on making and selling magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

 

The state enacted its assault weapons ban in 1989 and expanded it 10 years later. But those who already owned the banned guns and magazines were allowed to register and keep them.

 

Newsom’s measure would require owners to turn the outlawed magazines into police for destruction, sell them to a licensed firearms dealer or move them out of the state — just as San Francisco supervisors and Sunnyvale voters chose to require in 2013. New York, New Jersey, Hawaii and the District of Columbia also have such laws. …

 

Newsom’s measure also would require licensing of ammunition sellers and instantaneous point-of-sale background checks for all ammunition purchases to weed out those convicted of a felony or a violent misdemeanor, those with restraining orders against them or those declared dangerously mentally ill.

 

No other state requires background checks for ammunition purchases.

 

The measure would also require firearm owners to notify law enforcement if their firearm has been lost or stolen. Eleven states and the city of Sacramento already require this, but Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed bills to do just that in 2012 and 2013.

Measure could be launching point of 2018 gubernatorial bid

The November 2016 ballot is likely to be packed with measures. The signature threshold is much lower than normal because it is dictated by turnout in the last general election, and the November 2014 vote saw anemic turnout. Newsom’s measure will be fighting for attention with marijuana legalization proposals and other high-profile issues. He is expected to use his push for the measure as essentially the starting point of his campaign to be elected governor in 2018.

The gun-control measure is likely to attract millions of dollars in critical ads from national groups that back firearms rights. One expert told the Mercury-News that some of the specifics in Newsom’s plan could galvanize opposition:

“The large-capacity magazine ban is going to stimulate a lot of opposition; that’s going to hit a lot of ordinary gun owners where it hurts” — including some who might be open-minded to other kinds of gun control, said Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor and author of 2011’s “Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America.”

 

“It plays into the hands of gun-rights proponents who are always warning that the government is going to come take your guns,” Winkler said.

For a good overview of California’s current gun-control laws, go here.