Pubdate: Sat, 4 Sep 2010
Source: Daily Journal, The (San Mateo, CA)
Copyright: 2010 San Mateo Daily Journal
Contact:  http://www.smdailyjournal.org/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3778
Author: Emily DeRuy, Daily Journal correspondent
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

MARIJUANA PROP BATTLE GETS ROLLING

Opponents of Proposition 19, the Nov. 2 state ballot initiative which 
would legalize marijuana for recreational use, claim it will have 
negative effects on youth and question proponents' claim it will 
increase tax revenue, reduce community violence and the cost of 
enforcing laws prohibiting marijuana.

Those who support the act say it would provide much needed funding to 
local schools, parks and other public spaces. However, San Mateo 
Mayor John Lee is appalled at the possibility of the proposition 
being voted into law.

"It's an absolute disgrace," Lee said. "It's a gateway drug, 
especially for young people,"

If passed, "The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010," 
would allow adults 21 and over to possess, share or transport up to 
one ounce of marijuana for personal consumption. It would also permit 
people to cultivate up to 25 square feet of cannabis per private 
residence. However, the proposition would not permit people to sell 
marijuana in any amount unless licensed to do so, and it would 
prohibit people from driving while impaired. The burden of 
enforcement would fall to local governments across the state.

Opponents have voiced a number of concerns, particularly about youth 
gaining increased access to marijuana. The act would prohibit people 
from smoking in the presence of minors, as well as on school grounds, 
but some argue that students would be negatively impacted should the 
proposition pass. The San Mateo Union High School District recently 
unanimously adopted a resolution in opposition to Proposition 19.

Peter Hanley, a trustee on the school board, said that given the 
increase in supply and the removal of criminal sanctions, marijuana 
prices would drop dramatically, while advertising would likely increase.

"Advertising for marijuana will be legal and certainly seen by our 
students and those under 21," Hanley said. "Thus, wider availability 
and increased demand for this reduced cost marijuana could easily 
translate to greater use by those under 21."

Many opponents of the act, including Hanley, assert that making 
marijuana legal could lead to more violence within communities. 
Joseph D. McNamara, who served as San Jose police chief from 1976 
until his retirement in 1991, disagrees wholeheartedly with that 
claim, however, and says that just the opposite is true.

"Prohibition of marijuana is what leads to violence, in the cartels. 
If the act passes, cartels would lose 60 percent of their profits, 
which would be greater than any blow yet by law enforcement 
officials," said McNamara. "When alcohol was prohibited, it produced 
the situation we have now with marijuana. It stemmed from the 
criminal black market. When was the last time you saw a beer 
distributor gunned down? If you don't want violence to have funding, 
legalize marijuana."

McNamara, currently a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover 
Institution, also supports the proposition because he thinks 
legalizing marijuana would help repair the rocky relationship between 
police and minorities. Current law requires police to pursue cases 
involving marijuana. Each year, a disproportionate number of 
minorities are convicted on cannabis-related charges, which generates 
enormous distrust of law enforcement officials in minority 
communities. Eliminating some of the aggressive confrontation that 
often accompanies marijuana enforcement would allow police to build 
trust in such communities, which is instrumental, he said, 
particularly when policing hard crime areas.

"Given the current state deficit of approximately $20 billion," 
McNamara said, "Cutting marijuana enforcement is a no-brainer."

The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that if passed, the act 
would generate a savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars 
annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating 
and supervising marijuana offenders.

Susan Manheimer, president of the California Police Chiefs 
Association and current San Mateo police chief, disagrees. She points 
to a Rand Corporation study that projects that the costs to the state 
from legalization would exceed speculative revenue benefits.

"The issue of impaired driving is a major concern and will simply not 
be enforceable, making our roadways much more dangerous," said 
Manheimer. "Additionally, there are so many legal loopholes and lack 
of clarity that this will likely be challenged in court as well."

Stephen Gutwillig, the California state director of the Drug Policy 
Alliance, argues that the proposition would permit local governments 
to implement techniques specifically tailored to suit the needs of 
their communities.

"Prop. 19 is relatively modest. It delegates to local governments 
whether to allow sales at all. City councils can create a system 
under the scrutiny of their constituents," said Gutwillig.

However, Carla Lowe, a Sacramento teacher and founder of Citizens 
Against Legalizing Marijuana, voices serious doubts about how the act 
would be enforced, and whether it would actually generate revenue.

"The state can't tax it, but cities and counties can," she said. 
"Well, they're having a hell of a time getting around medical pot 
shops right now, so they're going to enforce this? I live in 
Sacramento and the board of supervisors can't even keep the potholes 
in front of my house filled."

On the other end of the spectrum, some medical marijuana providers 
like the Rev. Rasrob J. Simmons, are wary of what the proposition 
would mean for their customers.

"I want Prop. 19 legalized, but if they don't make provisions for 
religious and medical use of marijuana, those people are going to pay 
astronomical taxes," he said. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake