Pubdate: Fri, 10 Sep 2010
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Page: A12
Copyright: 2010 The Washington Post Company
Contact: http://mapinc.org/url/mUgeOPdZ
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/491
Author: Michael W. Savage, Washington Post Staff Writer
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

IN CALIF., VOTERS SPLIT ON MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION

OAKLAND, CALIF. - For those who have long argued that smoking 
marijuana should not be a crime, a potentially historic turning point 
is just weeks away.

Voters in California will decide Nov. 2 whether to make their state 
the first to legalize the growing, selling and recreational use of 
marijuana. And polls here - the nation's most populous state - 
suggest that residents are about evenly split on the issue.

Proposition 19, as it is known, would take away criminal penalties 
for people 21 and older for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana.

If it becomes law, it would mark yet another legal milestone for the 
state. Fourteen years ago, California became the first to allow the 
use of marijuana for medical purposes. Since then, 13 other states 
and the District have followed suit.

Advocates for legalization say they hope the vote in November will 
set off another trend across the nation.

"If and when this passes," said Jeff Jones, a longtime cannabis 
advocate who was arrested a decade ago for opening a medical 
marijuana dispensary, "you will see stories around the world saying 
this was a major shift in drug policy."

Supporters of Proposition 19 argue not only that legalization could 
help dismantle violent Mexican drug cartels, but also ease the 
state's crippling $19 billion budget deficit with new taxes on the 
sale of marijuana.

But opponents warn that passage could unleash a legal nightmare: They 
say the referendum would bar employers from firing stoned workers 
without proving first that they were impaired. That would mean school 
bus drivers, for example, could get high before climbing behind the 
wheel, according to critics.

An unlikely coalition has formed, with medical marijuana dispensary 
owners and marijuana growers joining law enforcement to oppose the 
measure. That camp also disputes the promise of a new stream of cash 
into state coffers.

Proposition 19 is on the ballot largely because of one man: Richard 
Lee, owner of Oaksterdam University, which trains medical marijuana 
growers and dispensers. Lee has bankrolled the campaign, donating 
$1.46 million.

"A lot like alcohol prohibition repeal came about because of the 
Great Depression, now we have the great recession," he said. "We've 
got budget problems, and Al Capone-style violence in Mexico."

As is often the case, both sides argue that money is the motivating 
factor. Lee's opponents say he stands to make millions if marijuana 
becomes legal, with added business to his university and coffee shops 
in his "Oaksterdam" neighborhood adding pot to the menu.

He disputes that he would cash in, and counters that the major 
California growers who now supply marijuana to medical dispensers and 
the black market are opposed because they fear the inevitable fall in 
price that would come with legalization.

Early on, opponents campaigned on the simple argument that cannabis 
should not be legal. But they have refined their message over time, 
telling voters even if they support legalization in principle, the 
current initiative is not the way to do it.

"I think a lot of people were anticipating that this was going to be 
the great sociological debate and it's turned out to be something 
quite different - mainly because they've made some quite significant 
errors in drafting the initiative," said Wayne Johnson, head of 
strategy for the "No" campaign, which has been largely bankrolled by 
the California Police Chiefs Association.

Opponents cite the language prohibiting employers from firing 
pot-smoking workers until the bosses could prove there was a problem. 
Drafters saw it as a way to keep disapproving superiors from sacking 
employees who smoke pot in their spare time. But opponents argue the 
clause creates a protected class of workers who can't be fired.

"It would prohibit employers from having a no-drugs policy," said 
Allan Zaremberg, chief executive officer of the California Chamber of Commerce.

He contends that businesses may be forced to violate a federal law 
requiring employers to maintain a drug-free workplace, making them 
ineligible for federal funding.

Meanwhile, there have been setbacks within the "Yes" campaign. 
Proponents are struggling to pull in the tens of millions in funding 
they had hoped for.

Some supporters initially disagreed with Lee over timing. Ethan 
Nadelmann, the founder of the influential Drug Policy Alliance, an 
organization at the forefront of earlier legalization efforts, said 
he had urged Lee to wait for 2012, when the presidential race would 
bring out more liberal voters.

But Lee said he did not want to wait. "To me this is a war, and we 
have to win it as soon as possible," he said.

In the end, he believes everyday folks who have smoked pot will 
support him, and he points to hundreds of small donations he has 
received from teachers, bank workers, lawyers and retirees around the country.

Among them is Michael Baldinelli, a retired risk manager from 
Plymouth, Calif. "I'm 58 years old," he said. "I'm a retired 
professional. I've raised a family, and I've smoked pot all my life. 
Making it illegal just criminalizes normal behavior."

Both sides agree that the vote could be decided by the "soccer mom" 
contingent, and both are shaping their messages for that audience. 
The No camp has targeted them with a stark image of stoned school bus 
drivers who couldn't be fired.

"That is the worst-case scenario," said Laura Preston, legislative 
advocate for the Association of California School Administrators. 
"But it paints the picture."

Among the opponents are some medical marijuana dispensary owners who 
argue that the measure would hurt patients by taxing the marijuana 
they now get without paying taxes.

"It's kind of an odd thing for us, because if it passes, we stand to 
make millions of dollars," said Lanette Davies, owner of the Canna 
Care dispensary in Sacramento. "However, it's not the right thing to 
do for patients."

While the outcome of the vote is in the balance, advocates believe 
the 2010 push will be just the first in an increasing number of 
legalization efforts. A plan for a vote in Washington state next year 
is being drawn up.

"Whether or not this wins or loses, we will see many further attempts 
to legalize marijuana in the next four to six years," said Nadelmann.

"When the dust settles, we'll find that there are a lot more people, 
significant people, who have come out and openly supported 
legalization. It has changed the terrain for the future." 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake