I suggest that the failure is because truly many people oppose legalization. Yes it would bring tax revenue, but at what expense? Marijuana has been found to be addictive, but without the usual withdrawals of other drugs since it leaves the body so slowly. Marijuana has shown to decrease motivation and memory, and certainly has the possibility to decrease work productivity in many individuals (though not all). There are medical consequences similar to smoking cigarettes.

Many support deprioritization of marijuana offenses (there is no benefit to filling a jail up with pot smokers), but are opposed to legalization because they don't want the "endorsement" message to be sent out to the community. Many people see legalization as endorsement, and there are logical reasons one might think legal things are not very harmful.

I think business in california doesn't want the decrease in productivity that increased marijuana use would bring. It is logical to assume that marijuana consumption would increase if it were made legal. Also, some people don't want the "blood on their hands" of seeing an increase in people addicted to marijuana that do little else in their life besides consuming the substance. Granted this is not the norm of MJ use, but we've all probably seen at least one person that doesn't do much besides smoke pot. Sad individuals that contribute little to society or even the lives of those around them.

Alcohol causes enough problems as it is (decreased productivity, factor in date rape/abuse, addiction, health consequences that cost america a lot of money, and bad judgment). Pot has some (but not all) of the same consequences.

In short, many people don't want to open what they perceive as a Pandora's Box. That is why prop 19 failed, and I don't believe it is just an arbitrary situation. There would be some negative consequences to society, and the people of California have voiced they want to avoid those consequences. That's what went down.

Polls showed that the population of the state favored the proposal; but, the population that came out to vote was skewed in favor of older voters who do not.

Also, there was organized campaigning by unexpected groups who support the status quo including medical canabis growers, small scale illegal growers, and beer distributors (not the brewers, the distributors). Those growers would have been put out of business by big agriculture. The distributors want a different legalization law with a three tier system allowing them to make huge profits like they do with beer.

Personally, I firmly believe that it is really none of the above. Citizens of California and the rest of this nation are pretty much fed up with the Proposals that are being brought before them to vote on. I am 100% for the legalization of marijuana in our nation and I have never used it. The real issue here is why we are voting on this legislation now when our country is suffering one of the worst economic conditions in our history and probably the collapse of its Public School System. It is all about prioritizing the issues. I live in New York and when this Proposal to legalize marijuana comes up for vote in my state, I will support it. But not before I see some legislation in this nation about Economic and Education reform. Can you believe that I was voting on increasing term limits for politicians this past election? Brother Please!!!!

Cause California's still backwards? :P

Anyhow I'm not a puffer, but am usually on the fence for legalization. In this case I would have liked to see it. If things worked out well there and CA actually saved and made money off this, what CA did could have been a template for trying to legalize it in other states.