We can all agree that voting this year is going to suck . There are a lot of controversial topics in the propositions (for example, proposition 60), but Propositions 62, 64, and 66 are probably the three most confusing and controversial for many people. Prop. 64, which deals with marijuana legalization, has a lot of pro's and con's, moral and economic complications, and specific details that are not necessarily told to the public. Prop. 62 and Prop. 66 are both on the same topic, but are advocating for two very different sides of the death penalty, and if Prop. 66 gets more "yes" votes than Prop. 62, the latter is automatically void (sneaky, sneaky, am I right?). So here I am, giving you a simple overview on the facts, supporting arguments, opposing arguments, and an overall summary. Hopefully, this will help you be a bit more informed when you vote.

Proposition 64: Marijuana Legalization

Details

• “Proposition 64 would allow adults aged 21 years or older to possess and use marijuana for recreational purposes. The measure would create two new taxes, one levied on cultivation and the other on retail price. Revenue from the taxes would be spent on drug research, treatment, and enforcement, health and safety grants addressing marijuana, youth programs, and preventing environmental damage resulting from illegal marijuana production.”
• Smoking is allowed in private homes or businesses licensed for on-site marijuana consumption.
• Smoking is illegal while driving a vehicle or being in any public space, and possession is illegal at any school, daycare, or anywhere where children are present.
• Selling marijuana requires a state license, and measures are being taken to prevent unlawful monopoly of power by large-scale marijuana businesses
• Revenue will be used for drug research, enforcement, and treatment.
  • $2 million a year to UC San Diego for Medical Marijuana studies
  • $10 million a year for public California universities to study the impact of prop 64
  • $3 million a year for five years for California Highway Patrol to train officers on how to detect drivers under the influence of marijuana
  • $10 million a year, increasing each year until it reaches $50 million, going towards "job placement, mental health treatment, substance use disorder treatment, system navigation services, legal services to address barriers to reentry, and linkages to medical care for communities disproportionately affected by past federal and state drug policies."
  • The remaining revenue would be distributed towards youth programs geared towards drug education and prevention, to prevent environmental damage, and to reduce driving under the influence/negative impacts on health and safety.
• Minors convicted of use or possession will be required to go through counseling and drug education and complete community service.
• Selling marijuana without a license is punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of $500.
• Resentencing and destruction of records are allowed for people with prior marijuana convictions.

Supporting arguments

• Prop 64 specifically protects children while allowing for safe and responsible use of marijuana by adults, it incorporates the most successful practices from other states/countries who have experience with legal marijuana usage, and the revenue will provide funding for drug prevention and education programs, treatment, and research while also decreasing law enforcement costs.
• Prop 64 will prevent legislators from using tax revenue for “pet projects,” it will decrease black market and drug cartel activity, and it will create a safe and controlled environment for recreational usage.

Opposing arguments

• Prop 64 will result in more traffic accidents and fatalities due to impaired driving, it will allow for marijuana growing near schools, it will increase drug trafficking, it will allow for smoking advertisements to be aired, it will hurt impoverished neighborhoods, and it will put small marijuana farmers in NorCal out of business.

Overall: Fiscally, this proposition will benefit California and it will allow funding for much-needed resources like drug research, drug treatments, and drug prevention. Morally, this proposition will hinder minors, underprivileged peoples, and small marijuana farmers.

Prop 66: Death Penalty Procedures

Details:

• Keeps death penalty in place but changes the penalty to speed up appeals and allow for more specialized attorneys to deal with death penalty cases.
• Authorizes death row inmate transfers in California.
• Requires prisoners to work in prison and pay 70% of what they make as restitution to victims’ families.
• If more “yes” votes are given to prop 66 than to prop 62, prop 66 automatically voids prop 62.

Supporting arguments:

• California needs the death penalty to be in place to deliver the strongest penalty for serious crimes and will provide closure for victims’ families.
• Prop 66 would ensure no innocent person is killed and would speed up the appeals process which would save taxpayers millions of dollars.

Opposing arguments:

• Prop 66 would cost taxpayers millions of dollars due to increased and improved legal defense, death row facility construction, and litigation.
• This proposition is poorly written and confusing, and it will increase the risk of executing an innocent person by removing important safeguards.

Overall: This measure would speed up the process of appeals and execution and allow for better attorneys, but it would remove certain rules and time constraints meant to safeguard the prisoners in order to do so. Fiscally, this measure will reduce the amount spent on the prisoner in prison but will increase the amount spent on the legal processes. Morally, it would still allow for capital punishment.

Proposition 62: Repeal of the Death Penalty

Details:

• Repeals the death penalty and replaces it with life in prison without parole, which will apply to prisoners already on death row.
• Requires prisoners to work and pay 60% of what they make as restitution to victims’ families.
• Fiscal impact would be a reduced cost of about $150 million related to murder trials and death sentences which could be higher or lower depending on various factors.

Supporting Arguments:

• Prop 62 would save taxpayers money, would provide criminals with the opportunity to work and pay restitution to victims’ families, and would provide closure to the families.
• This would eliminate the risk of killing an innocent person, would remove the “racial inequality in the criminal justice system which is the disparity in death penalty sentencing,” and it is supported by former death penalty advocates.

Opposing arguments:

• Prop 62 would protect the worst criminals and would not allow proper protection of victims’ rights, it would cost taxpayers millions of dollars, and it would end a system that needs to be mended, not ended.

Overall: Fiscally, this proposition would reduce the cost involved in the process of executing a criminal, but would increase the costs of keeping the criminals in prison for life. Morally, it would end capital punishment, but it will also not allow “proper” justice to be served for victims and their families.