IN CALIF., VOTERS SPLIT ON MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION

OAKLAND, CALIF. - For those who have long argued that smoking
marijuana should not be a crime, a potentially historic turning point
is just weeks away.

Voters in California will decide Nov. 2 whether to make their state
the first to legalize the growing, selling and recreational use of
marijuana. And polls here - the nation's most populous state -
suggest that residents are about evenly split on the issue.

Proposition 19, as it is known, would take away criminal penalties
for people 21 and older for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana.

If it becomes law, it would mark yet another legal milestone for the
state. Fourteen years ago, California became the first to allow the
use of marijuana for medical purposes. Since then, 13 other states
and the District have followed suit.

Advocates for legalization say they hope the vote in November will
set off another trend across the nation.

"If and when this passes," said Jeff Jones, a longtime cannabis
advocate who was arrested a decade ago for opening a medical
marijuana dispensary, "you will see stories around the world saying
this was a major shift in drug policy."

Supporters of Proposition 19 argue not only that legalization could
help dismantle violent Mexican drug cartels, but also ease the
state's crippling $19 billion budget deficit with new taxes on the
sale of marijuana.

But opponents warn that passage could unleash a legal nightmare: They
say the referendum would bar employers from firing stoned workers
without proving first that they were impaired. That would mean school
bus drivers, for example, could get high before climbing behind the
wheel, according to critics.

An unlikely coalition has formed, with medical marijuana dispensary
owners and marijuana growers joining law enforcement to oppose the
measure. That camp also disputes the promise of a new stream of cash
into state coffers.

Proposition 19 is on the ballot largely because of one man: Richard
Lee, owner of Oaksterdam University, which trains medical marijuana
growers and dispensers. Lee has bankrolled the campaign, donating
$1.46 million.

"A lot like alcohol prohibition repeal came about because of the
Great Depression, now we have the great recession," he said. "We've
got budget problems, and Al Capone-style violence in Mexico."

As is often the case, both sides argue that money is the motivating
factor. Lee's opponents say he stands to make millions if marijuana
becomes legal, with added business to his university and coffee shops
in his "Oaksterdam" neighborhood adding pot to the menu.

He disputes that he would cash in, and counters that the major
California growers who now supply marijuana to medical dispensers and
the black market are opposed because they fear the inevitable fall in
price that would come with legalization.

Early on, opponents campaigned on the simple argument that cannabis
should not be legal. But they have refined their message over time,
telling voters even if they support legalization in principle, the
current initiative is not the way to do it.

"I think a lot of people were anticipating that this was going to be
the great sociological debate and it's turned out to be something
quite different - mainly because they've made some quite significant
errors in drafting the initiative," said Wayne Johnson, head of
strategy for the "No" campaign, which has been largely bankrolled by
the California Police Chiefs Association.

Opponents cite the language prohibiting employers from firing
pot-smoking workers until the bosses could prove there was a problem.
Drafters saw it as a way to keep disapproving superiors from sacking
employees who smoke pot in their spare time. But opponents argue the
clause creates a protected class of workers who can't be fired.

"It would prohibit employers from having a no-drugs policy," said
Allan Zaremberg, chief executive officer of the California Chamber of Commerce.

He contends that businesses may be forced to violate a federal law
requiring employers to maintain a drug-free workplace, making them
ineligible for federal funding.

Meanwhile, there have been setbacks within the "Yes" campaign.
Proponents are struggling to pull in the tens of millions in funding
they had hoped for.

Some supporters initially disagreed with Lee over timing. Ethan
Nadelmann, the founder of the influential Drug Policy Alliance, an
organization at the forefront of earlier legalization efforts, said
he had urged Lee to wait for 2012, when the presidential race would
bring out more liberal voters.

But Lee said he did not want to wait. "To me this is a war, and we
have to win it as soon as possible," he said.

In the end, he believes everyday folks who have smoked pot will
support him, and he points to hundreds of small donations he has
received from teachers, bank workers, lawyers and retirees around the country.

Among them is Michael Baldinelli, a retired risk manager from
Plymouth, Calif. "I'm 58 years old," he said. "I'm a retired
professional. I've raised a family, and I've smoked pot all my life.
Making it illegal just criminalizes normal behavior."

Both sides agree that the vote could be decided by the "soccer mom"
contingent, and both are shaping their messages for that audience.
The No camp has targeted them with a stark image of stoned school bus
drivers who couldn't be fired.

"That is the worst-case scenario," said Laura Preston, legislative
advocate for the Association of California School Administrators.
"But it paints the picture."

Among the opponents are some medical marijuana dispensary owners who
argue that the measure would hurt patients by taxing the marijuana
they now get without paying taxes.

"It's kind of an odd thing for us, because if it passes, we stand to
make millions of dollars," said Lanette Davies, owner of the Canna
Care dispensary in Sacramento. "However, it's not the right thing to
do for patients."

While the outcome of the vote is in the balance, advocates believe
the 2010 push will be just the first in an increasing number of
legalization efforts. A plan for a vote in Washington state next year
is being drawn up.

"Whether or not this wins or loses, we will see many further attempts
to legalize marijuana in the next four to six years," said Nadelmann.

"When the dust settles, we'll find that there are a lot more people,
significant people, who have come out and openly supported
legalization. It has changed the terrain for the future."