In the 2010 midterm elections, California voters decided on Proposition 19, The Control, Regulate, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010. The ballot initiative contested the criminal legality of cannabis use, yet it also challenged the social construction of the marijuana user. Leaders for and against Prop 19 employed familiar discourses embedded in political and cultural texts, such as legal documents, political speeches, public service announcements, and films. What discourses were available and how social activists interpreted their meanings is the subject of this study.

I examine the ways that the symbolism of slogans such as the "War on Drugs" affected the choices of leaders for and against Prop 19. The units of analysis are the imagery and language employed by campaign leaders, representatives of social movement organizations (SMOs), marijuana reform activists, and professionals in law, criminal justice, and politics. Proponents of marijuana legalization argued that "just saying no" is flawed public policy, while opponents employed prohibitionist language to support U.S. drug laws. Other culturally-embedded discourses---such as public safety, individualism, the budget crisis, drinking-and-driving, the medical marijuana patient, and "stoners"---influenced the framing processes of both sides of the debate. I use direct and participant observation, document analysis, and interviews to analyze the discursive environment that shaped the proposition's path. I find that the pro- and anti-Prop 19 frames were not produced by strategy alone. Rather, the cultural environment facilitated or constrained leaders' choices, which ultimately affected what messages resonated with voters.

California's Proposition 19 was not merely a political campaign with a definitive end. I therefore propose theoretically situating cannabis ballot propositions within the greater social movement that calls for ending the "War on Drugs." Studying the interplay of citizen-led initiatives and social movements broadens our understanding of how symbolic language mobilizes political action.