MARIJUANA PROP BATTLE GETS ROLLING

Opponents of Proposition 19, the Nov. 2 state ballot initiative which
would legalize marijuana for recreational use, claim it will have
negative effects on youth and question proponents' claim it will
increase tax revenue, reduce community violence and the cost of
enforcing laws prohibiting marijuana.

Those who support the act say it would provide much needed funding to
local schools, parks and other public spaces. However, San Mateo
Mayor John Lee is appalled at the possibility of the proposition
being voted into law.

"It's an absolute disgrace," Lee said. "It's a gateway drug,
especially for young people,"

If passed, "The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010,"
would allow adults 21 and over to possess, share or transport up to
one ounce of marijuana for personal consumption. It would also permit
people to cultivate up to 25 square feet of cannabis per private
residence. However, the proposition would not permit people to sell
marijuana in any amount unless licensed to do so, and it would
prohibit people from driving while impaired. The burden of
enforcement would fall to local governments across the state.

Opponents have voiced a number of concerns, particularly about youth
gaining increased access to marijuana. The act would prohibit people
from smoking in the presence of minors, as well as on school grounds,
but some argue that students would be negatively impacted should the
proposition pass. The San Mateo Union High School District recently
unanimously adopted a resolution in opposition to Proposition 19.

Peter Hanley, a trustee on the school board, said that given the
increase in supply and the removal of criminal sanctions, marijuana
prices would drop dramatically, while advertising would likely increase.

"Advertising for marijuana will be legal and certainly seen by our
students and those under 21," Hanley said. "Thus, wider availability
and increased demand for this reduced cost marijuana could easily
translate to greater use by those under 21."

Many opponents of the act, including Hanley, assert that making
marijuana legal could lead to more violence within communities.
Joseph D. McNamara, who served as San Jose police chief from 1976
until his retirement in 1991, disagrees wholeheartedly with that
claim, however, and says that just the opposite is true.

"Prohibition of marijuana is what leads to violence, in the cartels.
If the act passes, cartels would lose 60 percent of their profits,
which would be greater than any blow yet by law enforcement
officials," said McNamara. "When alcohol was prohibited, it produced
the situation we have now with marijuana. It stemmed from the
criminal black market. When was the last time you saw a beer
distributor gunned down? If you don't want violence to have funding,
legalize marijuana."

McNamara, currently a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover
Institution, also supports the proposition because he thinks
legalizing marijuana would help repair the rocky relationship between
police and minorities. Current law requires police to pursue cases
involving marijuana. Each year, a disproportionate number of
minorities are convicted on cannabis-related charges, which generates
enormous distrust of law enforcement officials in minority
communities. Eliminating some of the aggressive confrontation that
often accompanies marijuana enforcement would allow police to build
trust in such communities, which is instrumental, he said,
particularly when policing hard crime areas.

"Given the current state deficit of approximately $20 billion,"
McNamara said, "Cutting marijuana enforcement is a no-brainer."

The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that if passed, the act
would generate a savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars
annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating
and supervising marijuana offenders.

Susan Manheimer, president of the California Police Chiefs
Association and current San Mateo police chief, disagrees. She points
to a Rand Corporation study that projects that the costs to the state
from legalization would exceed speculative revenue benefits.

"The issue of impaired driving is a major concern and will simply not
be enforceable, making our roadways much more dangerous," said
Manheimer. "Additionally, there are so many legal loopholes and lack
of clarity that this will likely be challenged in court as well."

Stephen Gutwillig, the California state director of the Drug Policy
Alliance, argues that the proposition would permit local governments
to implement techniques specifically tailored to suit the needs of
their communities.

"Prop. 19 is relatively modest. It delegates to local governments
whether to allow sales at all. City councils can create a system
under the scrutiny of their constituents," said Gutwillig.

However, Carla Lowe, a Sacramento teacher and founder of Citizens
Against Legalizing Marijuana, voices serious doubts about how the act
would be enforced, and whether it would actually generate revenue.

"The state can't tax it, but cities and counties can," she said.
"Well, they're having a hell of a time getting around medical pot
shops right now, so they're going to enforce this? I live in
Sacramento and the board of supervisors can't even keep the potholes
in front of my house filled."

On the other end of the spectrum, some medical marijuana providers
like the Rev. Rasrob J. Simmons, are wary of what the proposition
would mean for their customers.

"I want Prop. 19 legalized, but if they don't make provisions for
religious and medical use of marijuana, those people are going to pay
astronomical taxes," he said.