Not the control of Congress. At least, that’s what Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie argue yesterday over at the Huffington post.

The single-most important issue that will be decided on November 2 is California’s Proposition 19, a ballot initiative that would legalize the cultivation, consumption, and sale of marijuana and allow municipalities to regulate and tax the stuff.

Their argument is very much worth reading. But while it is isn’t surprising that Gillespie and Welch would support the initiative, it is more surprising to see that in California proposition 19 is also supported by moms and cops. On Monday, NPR run this story showing that some mothers in California have realized, like they did in the 1930s with prohibition, that even if they don’t like the drug, they understand that marijuana prohibition brings violence.

“Prohibition ended because of moms,” Jones says. “They knew the true danger from prohibition: violence, profits, illegality. This is an opportunity to end a failed policy.”
Jones says Proposition 19 would put marijuana sales “out of the hands of criminals and in the hands of those that will control cannabis away from children.”

Some cops are also in favor of legalization.

“No one in the history of marijuana use has ever died of an overdose from marijuana,” says Stephen Downing, a retired deputy chief of the LAPD.
Downing says marijuana is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. And he says arresting people for possessing marijuana is a waste of time for police; he says instead, they should be solving violent crimes and targeting those controlling the black market.

Here is, however, a good point raised about Proposition by David Henderson. Over at EconLog, Henderson commented that he supports the proposition in principle but he has some serious objections to a counter-productive aspect of the law:

11304 (c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301. Provided, however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.

Henderson points out that freedom to use drug as one sees fit is great as long as it doesn’t trample on other freedoms (such as freedom of association).