WEED WAR: PROP. 19 STIRS UP BOTH SIDES

The marijuana tug-of-war -- with supporters likely endorsing a hemp
rope -- is gaining intensity as a state ballot measure to legalize the
drug is less than 100 days away.

Those with a lot of TLC for THC -- tetrahydrocannabinol, the main
ingredient in weed -- hope a passing vote for Proposition 19 allows
pot smokers 21 and older to come out of the living room and, at the
same time, add a chunk of cash to the state treasury.

Opponents, however, won't go down without a fight, including the
California Police Chiefs Association, which includes Vallejo's Robert
Nichelini, Benicia's Sandra Spagnoli and Vacaville's Rich Word. All
three said in separate interviews that passage of Prop. 19 will lead
to serious legal, safety and enforcement problems.

Those notions are rejected by one local backer of the
mesaure.

"All too often," said and Prop. 19 steering committee member Paul
Armentano, a Vallejo author, "marijuana policy is guided by rhetoric,
by ideology, by scare tactics.

"And it's led to a failed policy.

What we need to have is a logical, rational policy that says,
'Marijuana is already here,' " he believes.

"Tens of millions of Americans continue to use marijuana despite
prohibition. We're not talking about another vice in society. We're
talking about how we come to terms with a vice that already exists.

"We don't regulate alcohol because it's innocuous. We regulate it
because it has potential for harm and we have laws and regulations
treating it appropriately. The same principal applies to marijuana."

With billions spent on marijuana not going to local and state
governments via taxes, "it doesn't make a lot of sense," Armentano
said.

Opponents say otherwise.

"There's going to be a very broad coalition opposing this that will
include law enforcement," said John Lovell, a Sacramento lobbyist who
represents the CPCA and other law enforcement groups. "We'll educate
people as to what this measure really entails."

Vallejo Police Chief Nichelini said his "official statement" is that
"until the federal government decides that marijuana is a legal
substance, the states shouldn't be trying to somehow skirt federal
law."

Armentano argues that medicinal marijuana is already legal in 14
states, "yet deemed illegal by the feds."

"That's my biggest argument against legalizing it in California,"
Nichelini responded. "If it's not legal under federal law, how can
California decide to legalize something that's illegal? It's like
saying it's OK to counterfeit money in California, that for every $20
bill you print, give us $1."

Nichelini added that the federal government needs to maintain
continuity when it comes to the "medicinal marijuana"
dispensaries.

"The last administration went after these dispensaries like crazy,"
Nichelini said. "This administration is different, which shouldn't
happen."

Still, Nichelini doesn't believe the CPCA should either endorse or
reject a ballot issue. "I think we're the enforcement arm," he said.
"We should do what the people want. If people want to legalize
marijuana, then legalize marijuana."

Benicia's Spagnoli agreed with the CPCA's general opposition.

"I can tell you that marijuana is a 'gateway' drug for youth and if
they have greater accessibility to this 'gateway' drug, we will see
the same impacts as alcohol," Spagnoli said, believing there will be
increased accidents due to impairments and a greater likelihood the
marijuana user will abuse stronger drugs.

"This law will have a negative impact on the youth in our communities,
and other states have already learned this," Spagnoli said.

Legalizing marijuana is not good for communities, said
Vacaville'sWord. "I am deeply concerned about Proposition 19 and what
it could mean for law enforcement and our cities if it passes," he
said. "I cannot see how making marijuana more readily available will
improve public safety."

The bill, said Spagnoli, encourages illegal growing. "For illegal
cultivation -- largely the province of organized criminal cartels --
is reduced to a $100 fine," Spagnoli said.

Hogwash, says Armentano. "The initiative specifically would allow
personal growing by adults, but limit such grows to no more than a
5-by-5- foot space per parcel," he said. "The implication that such
small, personal grows is 'largely the province of organized criminal
cartels' is ludicrous."

Other negatives, said Spagnoli, include: Lowering the penalties to
$100 for selling to children; no money is raised for the general fund;
dramatic increase in availability of marijuana, permitting the sale at
all liquor stores, groceries and drug stores that have a full liquor
license.

Armentano almost laughed. "Either the bill will raise revenue via
sales tax because it will be sold everywhere (grocery stores, liquor
stores, and so on) and apparently everyone will be buying it, or it
will raise no revenue because, I guess it won't be sold anywhere or
nobody will be buying it? Huh? The cops contradict themselves from one
statement to the next," he responded.

The act does not create a regulatory framework; therefore, local
jurisdictions will have to craft their own, Word said.

"Imagine 478 cities and 58 counties making up their own rules around
the issue," Word said. "We'll be left with total chaos and confusion."

"The measure has no mandate for counties to do anything. There's an
opt-in clause, meaning that communities that choose to could elect to
explore taxing and regulating marijuana," said Armentano. "How they do
so is up to them. Of course, most communities likely won't elect to
make any changes, and those that do will undoubtedly not be selling
marijuana in grocery stores and drug stores."

Similar laws are already in effect regarding alcohol, said
Armentano.

"I grew up in a part of the country that enjoys wet and dry counties
for alcohol," he said. "The mores reflect the value and desires of the
local citizens. It's hardly total chaos and confusion. Presently,
there are localities that allow marijuana dispensaries, and those that
do not. Is this total chaos and confusion? Why would the regulator
scheme envisioned under Prop. 19 be any different?"

From experience, "we know that when you make such substances more
readily accessible to adults, then they are more readily accessible to
juveniles," Word said.

Armentano countered. "Hardly," he said. "Under nearly 100 years of
marijuana prohibition, some 85 percent of juveniles report on federal
government surveys that marijuana is 'easy' to get. One-quarter can
get marijuana in less than an hour, or in about the time it takes one
to order a pizza. By contrast, surveys show that teens say it is more
difficult for them to obtain legal beer and tobacco, because the sales
of these products are regulated."

Perhaps, reasoned Nichelini, "all the people who want to use marijuana
are already using it. It's so easy to get. Why would we assume that,
with changes, everyone in California will buy it and smoke it?"

Word said he is certain the measure would "reduce student performance
and worker productivity. Our local and state economies can ill afford
such outcomes."

"Let's get real, may we?" said Armentano. "California lawmakers
criminalized the possession and use of marijuana in 1913 -- a full 24
years before the federal government enacted prohibition. Yet right now
in California, the federal government reports that one out of 10
people annually use marijuana and together consume about 1.2 million
pounds of it. Self-evidently, cannabis is here to stay.

"Let's address the reality and stop ceding control of this market to
unregulated, untaxed criminal enterprises and put it in the hands of
license businesses. Proposition 19 is a first step in this direction."

"These allegations are tired and all false (by implication) or
outright false on their face," Armentano said.

Possession of an ounce or less has been a misdemeanor with a $100 fine
since 1975, when Jerry Brown, who was then governor, signed a law that
reduced tough marijuana penalties that had allowed judges to impose
10-year sentences.

According to the NORML Foundation, a nonprofit supporting the removal
of all penalties for private possession and "responsible use" by
adults, enforcing marijuana prohibition costs taxpayers an estimated
$10 billion annually and results in the arrest of more than 847,000
individuals per year.

Regulate marijuana and the drug cartels that deal with the drug are
reduced as are other crimes, say many Prop. 19 supporters.

"I do not agree," Word said. "I believe this measure would very likely
result in an increase in crime. Just think of the serious public
safety and social problems already caused by the abuse of alcohol and
pharmaceutical drugs such as domestic violence and drunk driving."

The Vacaville chief, said Armentano, "must think that organized crime
grew stronger after alcohol prohibition was lifted. Strange memory."

Nichelini's take: "I would think that a good proportion of marijuana
is home-grown and if it's legal even more would be grown in
California. I don't see a direct impact on serious crime since most
drug-related violent crime does not relate to marijuana. But I could
be wrong."

Nichelini said it's impossible to tell what impact legalization would
have on local law enforcement.

"If it's legalized, it's something we would deal with," he
said.

"What possible social good is advanced by legalizing yet another
mind-altering substance?" Spagnoli said. "Into the bargain, this
mind-altering substance is carcinogenic."

Agreed, said Nichelini. "Too much of anything changes your brain and
your body. How can that be good for you? And we all learned that
smoking (cigarettes) is not good for your health," he said. "How then
can smoking marijuana be good for your health? It's still smoke."

It makes no sense, Nichelini continued, that it would be illegal to
smoke cigarettes in buildings but legal to smoke medicinal marijuana.

"It's the same issues," he said.

Prop. 19 is not healthy idea, Word said. "Given the effects of
marijuana -- distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty
in thinking and problem solving, increased heart rate and reduce blood
pressure -- I am certain this measure would reduce student
performances and work productivity, " he said.

Armentano points to a 2007 George Mason University economic study that
says U.S. citizens each year spend some $113 billion on marijuana.

"Under prohibition, all of this spending is directed toward an
underground economy and goes untaxed.," he said. "That means the state
and local governments are presently collecting zero dollars to offset
societal and health costs related to its population's recreational
marijuana use, and that the imposition of any retail tax or excise fee
would be an improvement over the current situation.

"The assessment that present taxes on alcohol and tobacco -- two
deadly products -- do not raise sufficient funding to offset their
related social costs is not an argument in favor of maintaining the
status quo, particularly when one recognizes that the social and
health costs related to cannabis use are far less than those
associated with the use of other intoxicants."

With billions spent on marijuana not going to local and state
governments, "it doesn't make a lot of sense," Armentano said.