This fascinating AP story really nails a dimension of the legalization discussion that is rarely understood or acknowledged in the press:

If California legalizes marijuana, they say, it will drive down the price of their crop and damage not just their livelihoods but the entire economy along the state's rugged northern coast.

Local residents are so worried that pot farmers came together with officials in Humboldt County for a standing-room-only meeting Tuesday night where civic leaders, activists and growers brainstormed ideas for dealing with the threat.

Funny how the "threat of legalization" means such different things to different people. If anyone still doesn't understand how legalization will impact the black market, well, try asking the black market what it thinks. These people are freaking out and you really shouldn’t need an advanced degree in economics to understand why that is.

This is the reality that legalization's opponents are incapable of addressing. The marijuana economy already exists and the debate over taxation and regulation is merely a question of how the industry will be structured. This is not a matter of whether or not California should have marijuana. California already has more marijuana than it knows what to do with.

A vote against legalization is a vote for illegal growers and dealers. And they thank you for your support, as always.

Whenever I explain why I think reformers should avoid suggesting that politicians benefit from supporting "tough on crime" policies, I get some incredulous responses. It's true that you can still find politicians sucking up to law enforcement, embracing bad drug policies everywhere all the time, and generally believing that doing so serves their political interests. If I ever sounded like I was questioning any of those realities, it's my fault for not being clearer.

My point isn't so much that politicians never benefit in any way from doing these things, but rather that it's less true than it used to be and that we shouldn't be reinforcing that belief if we want political support. Just a few years ago, everywhere I looked, I saw reformers complaining publicly that politicians wouldn't support our cause because it might cost them votes. I saw prominent journalists like Joe Klein at Time Magazine calling for legalization and then in the next breath giving politicians a great reason to oppose it:

…the default fate of any politician who publicly considers the legalization of marijuana is to be cast into the outer darkness. Such a person is assumed to be stoned all the time, unworthy of being taken seriously. Such a person would be lacerated by the assorted boozehounds and pill poppers of talk radio.

See, this is the kind of thing that supporters of reform shouldn't be saying. This is why I've been arguing for years that we should always emphasize the potential political benefits of taking our side rather than lamenting the possible harms. For example:

Bad = "Politicians won't support ending the drug war because they're afraid of losing votes."

Good = "Politicians are starting to get the message that the drug war isn't as popular anymore."

Am I making sense here?