COOLEY TO BROWN: DO NOT APPROVE MARIJUANA BALLOT TITLE

Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley has called on Attorney
General Jerry Brown not to approve the title and summary of an
initiative to legalize marijuana that will appear on the November ballot.

Cooley, one of three candidates vying for the Republican nomination
to replace Brown, yesterday announced his opposition to "The
Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010" and criticized the
title and summary prepared by Brown's office last September.

"The marijuana initiative is terribly misleading, poorly drafted and
not in the best interests of California residents," he said in a
written statement. "It will not regulate, not control nor effectively
tax marijuana in California."

Under the language prepared by Brown's office, the title of
Initiative Measure 09-0024 says it "changes California law to
legalize marijuana and allow it to be regulated and taxed."

The initiative's summary adds that it allows people 21 years old or
older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use;
permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production
and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older; prohibits
people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in
public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to
anyone under 21 years old; and maintains current prohibitions against
driving while impaired.

The summary further states that the initiative could save up to
several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local
governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain
marijuana offenders, and could potentially lead to major tax, fee,
and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related
to the production and sale of marijuana products.

But Cooley argued in his letter to Brown that the title
"impermissibly and unfairly misleads the public into believing that
the Act accomplishes what its title denotes."

He said the initiative would not establish a regulatory framework,
inasmuch as it leaves such responsibility to individual cities and
counties, and would lead to confusion in addition to burdening local
governments.

Instead, Cooley contended, the initiative was actually deregulatory
in nature because it grants an absolute right to cultivate marijuana
on private, and possibly public, property.

Cooley further asserted that the title's reference to taxing cannabis
would mislead the public into believing that the act would allow a
state marijuana tax. The initiative's language prohibits a statewide
tax on marijuana, but allows taxation at the local level.

Cooley also said that the initiative could cost the state billions in
federal funding under a provision prohibiting punishment or
discrimination against a marijuana user unless such consumption
actually affects job performance.

He wrote that employers who receive government grants and contracts
greater than $100,000 and are required by the Federal Drug-Free
Workplace Act of 1988 to maintain a drug-free workplace would
jeopardize receipt of such funds if they follow the state law instead.

Cooley's opponents for the Republican nomination-Sen. Tom Harman,
R-Costa Mesa, and conservative legal scholar John C. Eastman-have
both indicated that they oppose the initiative.

A spokesperson for Harman said he "opposed any attempt to liberalize
drug laws in California," while an Eastman spokesperson told the
MetNews "this is the first thing [Cooley] has gotten right in this campaign."

On the Democratic side, Facebook executive Chris Kelly and San
Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris have both reportedly
expressed opposition to the initiative, and a spokesperson said
yesterday that Assemblyman Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, opposes it as well.

The remaining candidates in that race-former Los Angeles City
Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, Assembly Majority Leader Albert Torrico,
D-Newark, and Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara-could not be
reached for comment.

In other news, Harman yesterday said three measures he has proposed
to overhaul the state's system of capital punishment will be heard in
the Senate Public Safety Committee this week in recognition of
National Victims Rights Week:

SB 1018 would change California's lethal injection procedure to a
lethal dosage of anesthetic. Harman's office said the alternative to
a three-drug cocktail would resolve concerns about cruel and unusual
punishment, reduce litigation over the current protocol and "ensure
that executions are carried out quickly and humanely."

SB 1025 would require death penalty habeas corpus petitions to begin
in Superior Court, "where the claims can be investigated more quickly
and accurately," Harman's office said.

SCA 27 would amend the California Constitution to allow the
California Supreme Court to transfer direct appeals to the Court of
Appeal in order to streamline the appeals process for the death penalty.