THE 8 MOST ABSURD EXCUSES FOR TRYING TO DEFEAT LEGAL POT

I've Collected the Eight Craziest Claims About a Post-Legalization
State of California Predicted by Opponents of Prop 19.

As California gets set to vote on Prop 19 - an initiative to legalize
marijuana statewide - some people's minds are being completely blown,
man. But it's not the people smoking the stuff, it's the people
trying to keep it banned.

I've collected the eight craziest claims about a post-legalization
state of California predicted by opponents of Prop 19. Stunningly,
three of these crazy predictions come from people who do use
marijuana, proving once again that with enough repetition and
scaremongering, you can convince a certain percentage of any group to
vote against their own best interests.

8. The federal government will pull all its contracts with California
businesses because they won't be able to drug test employees!

This is a favorite of the California Chamber of Commerce. The idea is
that since the federal government has a Drug Free Workplace Act, when
California law no longer allows employers to discriminate based on
pee, all these California companies wouldn't be able to comply and
the feds would pull all their contracts and grants.

Never mind that these same opponents predicted the same dire
consequence when California was considering Prop 215, the initiative
that legalized medical marijuana fourteen years ago, and we haven't
seen any contracts or grants pulled since. The plain fact is that the
Drug Free Workplace Act doesn't actually require workplace pee tests.
This from "HRHero.com: Your Employment Law Resource" (emphasis mine)...

..employers must certify that they will provide a drug-free
workplace. The law doesn't require alcohol or drug testing, but
testing is implicitly authorized as a means to maintain a drug-free workplace.

So what does it mean to provide a "drug-free workplace"? Certainly
that must mean that even if they don't have to drug-test, they
couldn't comply because Prop 19 would allow employees to possess
marijuana, right? Wrong.

Employers whose companies fall under this category must have a policy
prohibiting the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensation,
possession, or use of a controlled substance in the workplace and
specifying what actions will be taken in the event of violations.

When Prop 19 passes, possession of marijuana, up to an ounce, is no
longer unlawful. There is no basis to claim a California company was
allowing "unlawful possession", so they could still maintain an
"(illegal) drug-free workplace" and therefore, give no reason for the
federal government to pull any contracts or grants.

7. Legalizing marijuana for healthy people will end medical marijuana
for sick people!

Try to wrap your mind around the idea that allowing everyone to grow
a 25 square foot garden means sick people will not get their
medicine. Then imagine that a court will decide that a public that
voted for legal marijuana for healthy people really meant to end
medical marijuana for sick people. If you can manage that, you've
entered the mind of J. Craig Canada.

Canada's analysis rests on this bit of Prop 19's language:

Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for
medical purposes.

The courts will determine that this means Prop. 19 is intended to
amend and supersede California's medical marijuana laws; Proposition
215 (H&S 11362.5) and SB 420 (H&S 11362.7-H&S 11362.9).

Then Canada goes on to criticize the next two paragraphs in the
initiative, which provides cities the right to tax and regulate
marijuana for adults, "except as permitted under Health and Safety
Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9."

Got it? Canada says the first paragraph will supersede - that is,
eliminate - California's Prop 215, and then moves on to the next two
paragraphs that specifically provide exceptions under Prop 215. So I
guess Prop 19 makes Prop 215 moot... except when it doesn't.

6. Legalizing marijuana will never raise any money because the social
costs would outweigh any fiscal benefits... look at alcohol and tobacco!

Forget for a moment that in this country, we don't determine people's
rights based on whether it makes a buck or not. (I mean, we
shouldn't.) It doesn't matter whether legalizing marijuana will make
a dime; it is simply wrong to lock up adults for smoking pot.
Proponents of Prop 19 have floated the idea that legalizing pot would
raise tax revenues for the state and the opponents, like San Mateo
Police Chief Susan Manheimer, who is acting president of the
California Police Chiefs Association, deny that advantage of the
proposition by pointing out that alcohol and tobacco taxes bring in
less than what alcohol and tobacco cause in health and safety costs

This is one of the instances where figures don't lie, but liars
figure. Indeed, the taxes we collect from alcohol and tobacco don't
come close to covering the social costs from those substances. Lung
cancer, cirrhosis, emphysema, drunk driving, cigarette breaks,
domestic violence, after a while the costs of smoking and drinking
add up... because smoking and drinking are toxic and addictive.

Marijuana is neither toxic nor addictive. A Canadian study found that
a tobacco smoker cost the country $800 per year, each drinker cost
$165, and each toker cost $20, and half of that was laundry costs for
Cheetos stains (I kid!). Also, it is not as if nobody is smoking pot
now and post Prop-19 we'll be overrun with tokers. People are smoking
pot now and we're taking in zero dollars in taxes and we're spending
a billion dollars in California failing to stop it.

5. Big Tobacco will buy up great huge tracts of land in Northern
California and mass produce lousy joints pumped full of toxic
addictive chemicals!

This is one of the complaints by the people making money growing
marijuana now, mostly in Northern California, who have long claimed
that "Philip Morris is buying up 400 acres of land in Humboldt County
in case legalization passes" and "RJ Reynolds already has the
trademark on such names as 'Acapulco Gold', 'Maui Wowie', and 'Panama
Red' for their joints once legalization passes".

These urban legends have been around as long as there have been
hippies. Any in-depth search of news archives from Humboldt,
Mendocino, Trinity, and Del Norte counties in California will fail to
find the great Philip Morris land buy - you can imagine that would
make for an above-the-fold headline in a local "Emerald Triangle"
newspaper. Another search on the US Patent & Trademark Office finds
all sorts of interesting trademarks for pot names, but none owned by
a cigarette company.

But let's suppose Big Tobacco wants to get into cannabis production.
Prop 19 gives individuals the right to grow their own marijuana and
share it with friends. This isn't tobacco, where cigarette companies
have a captive audience for an addictive substance with proven toxic
results from repeated use. If Big Tobacco makes a bunch of toxic
schwaggy joints, who's buying them? They'll have to produce a product
that's a better deal than growing and rolling your own.

4. Today's pot is fourteen times more powerful than Sixties weed and
will lead to more crack babies!

Credit Los Angeles Bishop Ron Allen for this bit of reefer madness.
"It's going to cause crime to go up. There will be more drug babies,"
he warned the LA Times. The New York Times reported on Allen
describing marijuana as "the most sinister drug," and asking that
"the demonic spirits be cast back into hell." The good Bishop should
know, because he was a former crack addict and the first illegal drug
he used was marijuana.

The logical problem with Bishop Allen's gateway theory is that while
nearly all crack addicts have smoked pot, very few pot smokers have
ever smoked crack. The only commonality between marijuana and crack
is that they are both illegal drugs (even then, marijuana is more
illegal; it is in Schedule I while cocaine is in Schedule II).
Marijuana doesn't make people smoke crack any more than alcohol or
tobacco makes people smoke crack, at least according to the US
Institute of Medicine.

I've been following the US government's Potency Monitoring Project
for years (yes, there is a federal agency using your tax dollars to
prove just how diggity dank your chronic is). The most potent weed
seizure I recall was 37.2% THC. So if Bishop Allen was smoking weed
that was 14x weaker than that, he was smoking 2.65% THC weed, or a
grade somewhere between ditchweed and feral hemp at best! Since the
average weed seizure tests at 8.52%, Bishop Allen was smoking the
equivalent of a hemp t-shirt.

The Project has shown average potency to have doubled, which means
nothing since THC is non-toxic, can't cause overdose, and is
self-titrating, which is a fancy way of saying you smoke til you get
stoned then you stop, whether it's one regular joint or one-quarter
of a potent joint.

3. People who smoke marijuana in the same apartment building as a
child will be arrested! (Not that your landlord will let you grow pot anyway.)

There are some marijuana smokers who think that an ounce of cannabis
and a 25 square foot garden just aren't enough. They've taken to
sifting through the initiative for every possible flaw,
misinterpretation, and slippery slope to muddy the conversation. Take
this 2am-stoned-to-the-gills contemplation of "space".

..consuming cannabis would be illegal in the same "space" as a
minor. Police and judges are free to interpret the word "space" to
mean the same room, house, or entire apartment complex.

Well, I suppose police and judges are free to interpret the word
"space" to mean the Cosmos, and since there are children in the
universe, the vote to legalize marijuana means nobody can smoke pot anywhere!

If that wasn't enough to dissuade you, renters would have to (*gasp*)
ask their landlord's permission to grow marijuana! I can't imagine
why property owners would be apprehensive about that...

While growing your own supply is fun as hell, it can also be messy,
dangerous, and can easily cause damage if done improperly. (Not to
mention homeowners insurance is likely to rise and homes containing
cannabis could face seizure by the federal government.)

So, to sum up, you should vote no on being able to grow weed and hold
an ounce, even if you own your own home, because some renters
wouldn't be able to grow (but could still hold an ounce) and you
couldn't smoke around kids.

2. Legally home-grown marijuana will lead to outbreaks of toxic deadly molds!

It's fascinating to me the little niches some prohibitionists stake
out. Canada's Barbara Kay works the "pot causes schizophrenia" angle
(it doesn't). Calvina Fay likes to put quotes around "medical"
marijuana. But for sheer 50's sci-fi horror predictions about
legalization, nobody can touch Alexandra Datig of
NipItInTheBud2010.org and her dire warnings of toxic mold...

Aspergillus & Stachybotrys Next Health Nightmare If Marijuana
Legalization Takes Place?

In 1996, there was a study of 10,000 cases of Aspergillosis with
treatment costs of $633 Million. That means on average, just to try
and treat (not cure) the problem, each case accrued average costs of
roughly $63,300.

If the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 passes, 1/3 of
California will be at risk of serious BLACK MOLD CONTAMINATION as
well as Aspergillus exposure. And how will anyone be able to control
the contamination when anyone can cultivate marijuana in their home
or backyard at any time without supervision? ...Well? ...Anyone?

Aspergillus is a toxic mold and yes, it does grow on marijuana (if
you're a lousy grower). It grows on carpets, trees, and drywall, too.
It killed 261 people in 2004 for a death rate of 0.88255 deaths per 1
million people. You are more likely to die from appendicitis (371
deaths) than aspergillus.

Still, it might be scary until you realize that people are growing
marijuana indoors now and because it is illegal, do it in ways that
are more likely to cause an outbreak of mold.

1. Workplaces would be overrun by workers smoking marijuana on the job!

We opened up with the California Chamber of Commerce, so it is only
fitting we end with their most apocalyptic pronouncement to date:

Imagine a workplace where employees show up to work high on marijuana
and there is nothing you can do about it. That's what employers can
look forward to if Proposition 19 passes.

Employers would have to permit to employees to smoke marijuana at work.

Prop 19 does nothing of the sort. It specifically retains "the
existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually
impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected." Nobody
is going to be working blazed with no fear of being fired -
California is an "at will" employment state, anyway.

The Chamber's real fear - and they're not even shy about saying so
publicly - is that management won't be able to discriminate against
workers who might smoke pot off the job:

Employers would be prohibited from discriminating against marijuana
users by taking marijuana use into account when deciding whether to
hire an applicant.

When it comes to legal analysis, I prefer the non-partisan California
Legislative Analysts Office take on Prop 19 and the workplace:

State and local law enforcement agencies could not seize or destroy
marijuana from persons in compliance with the measure. In addition,
the measure states that no individual could be punished, fined, or
discriminated against for engaging in any conduct permitted by the
measure. However, it does specify that employers would retain
existing rights to address consumption of marijuana that impairs an
employee's job performance.

So that's it - if you vote to legalize and tax pot in California, the
state will lose all federal contracts, end medical marijuana, cost
billions, create toxic addictive schwaggy joints, lead to crack
babies, eliminate smoking in the Cosmos, overwhelm us with toxic
mold, and fill the workplaces with blazed wastoids.

And they say smoking pot will make you crazy. Seems like legalizing
it makes some people crazier.