Pubdate: Fri, 10 Sep 2010
Source: Press-Enterprise (Riverside, CA)
Copyright: 2010 The Press-Enterprise Company
Contact: http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/letters_form.html
Website: http://www.pe.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/830
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

NO ON 19

Prop. 19 on the November ballot clouds complex policy issues in a 
smoky haze of uncertainty. The measure's vague language would result 
in endless litigation, and put state and federal drug laws in 
confusing conflict. Voters should say no to a proposition that would 
cause unnecessary turmoil for the state.

Prop. 19 proposes to legalize marijuana in California. State law 
would allow the possession, cultivation and use of marijuana by those 
21 years and older. The measure would also let state and local 
governments regulate and tax marijuana.

The idea is simple enough, but this proposition would create enormous 
practical difficulties for California. Federal law, for example, 
would still ban marijuana, no matter what state law said. So 
Californians would still face the possibility of arrest under federal 
law. The state's experience with medical marijuana readily 
demonstrates that conflicting state and federal laws generate 
confusion about enforcement, rights and legality.

The ramifications of that legal conflict extend beyond law 
enforcement, however. Prop. 19 would also put the state at risk of 
violating federal drug-free workplace rules, jeopardizing federal 
contracts with California businesses and federal funding for schools 
and other public services.

Prop. 19's vagueness raises many troubling questions. Would the 
proposition force employers to accept marijuana use in the workplace? 
Would the measure give marijuana users special rights that even 
smokers do not have? What constitutes being too impaired by marijuana 
to work or drive? The measure's ambiguous language would bring an 
avalanche of costly legal battles.

Backers of this initiative say taxing marijuana would create new 
income for the state. A Board of Equalization analysis from last year 
suggested that taxing marijuana at $50 an ounce could generate $1.4 
billion a year for public coffers.

That revenue would be far from assured, however. The RAND Corporation 
this year studied the possible effects of legalizing marijuana in 
California. Researchers found that the price of marijuana would 
likely drop, while consumption would increase. But the study found 
that a host of unpredictable variables, from the level of taxation to 
federal intervention, made any other conclusions wildly uncertain.

The state's legislative analyst agrees, noting that the effects of 
the measure were "subject to significant uncertainty." A massive 
change in public policy, however, needs to rest on more than blind optimism.

Proponents also contend that legalizing marijuana would let state and 
local governments redirect law enforcement efforts to more pressing 
issues. Fair enough: Many Californians have valid questions about 
current marijuana policy, with respect to both resources and results. 
But any change in strategy should come from the federal government, 
which sets drug policy, and not the state.

Prop. 19's shaky promises do not offset the inevitable confusion and 
complication the initiative would create. The measure offers a bad 
bargain for Californians, who should vote no on Prop. 19.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake