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