Pubdate: Sun, 26 Sep 2010
Source: San Bernardino Sun (CA)
Copyright: 2010 Los Angeles Newspaper Group
Contact:  http://www.sbsun.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1417
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

PROP. 19 HAS TOO MANY FLAWS

There are valid arguments to be made for the legalization of 
marijuana. Some people claim that it's less harmful or deadly than 
alcohol or cigarettes. Some say it's preposterous to have marijuana 
offenders take up time and room in California courtrooms, jails and 
prisons when more serious offenders are released early due to lack of 
space and resources. Some say the decades-long war on drugs has been 
an unqualified failure, diverting law enforcement resources from more 
useful pursuits.

Some members of our editorial board, in fact, believe that marijuana 
should be legalized nationwide and closely regulated, controlled for 
quality and dosage, and heavily taxed - like alcohol and cigarettes - 
while other board members believe it should be an illegal substance 
under all circumstances.

Despite the different outlooks, our editorial board agreed 
unanimously that Proposition 19 on the Nov. 2 ballot - the Regulate, 
Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 - is no way to legalize 
marijuana. It is poorly written, conflicts with too many federal laws 
and would pose dangers - physical and financial - to the citizens of 
California.

First, the physical dangers. The act prohibits "(c)onsumption by the 
operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, 
or that impairs the operator." If "by the operator" is the dominant 
phrase there, then it would appear to allow smoking by passengers in 
the car (unless minors are present). But if four passengers are 
smoking joints in a car, we have to think the second-hand smoke is 
going to impair the driver's reactions, endangering all of them and 
their fellow motorists on the road. If "that impairs the operator" 
refers to consumption by anyone, then the passengers' smoking could 
be illegal too. It's not clear and probably would have to be decided 
in court - the problem with so very many ballot initiatives.

Proposition 19 maintains "any law prohibiting use of controlled 
substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve 
public safety," which is good. But it precludes workplace drug 
testing by saying that employers can address only "consumption that 
actually impairs job performance by an employee."

That's a deal breaker. As the act's opponents point out, actual 
impairment of the performance of, say, a truck driver, bus driver or 
heavy-machinery operator would have to be demonstrated by a crash or 
accident - not the outcome anybody wants. That would put us all in danger.

And Proposition 19 would clobber many state agencies and businesses 
financially because it would conflict with the federal Drug-Free 
Workplace Act of 1988, which must be complied with by any recipient 
of a federal grant and any entity with a federal contract in excess 
of $100,000.

Speaking of conflict, marijuana would remain a prohibited, Schedule 1 
drug under federal law, and President Obama's "drug czar" has said 
the administration will not condone recreational use of marijuana as 
it has allowed medical use. Federal agents could arrest people who 
were in compliance with this state act.

One more possible form of conflict: Proposition 19 allows each city 
and county to pass its own regulations regarding transportation and 
sales of marijuana in locally licensed premises. As Fontana Police 
Chief Rodney Jones pointed out, a San Bernardino County sheriff's 
deputy could have one set of rules to enforce in Highland, another in 
Grand Terrace, and a third in unincorporated areas. That way lies madness.

Vote no on Proposition 19. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake