NO ON 19

Prop. 19 on the November ballot clouds complex policy issues in a
smoky haze of uncertainty. The measure's vague language would result
in endless litigation, and put state and federal drug laws in
confusing conflict. Voters should say no to a proposition that would
cause unnecessary turmoil for the state.

Prop. 19 proposes to legalize marijuana in California. State law
would allow the possession, cultivation and use of marijuana by those
21 years and older. The measure would also let state and local
governments regulate and tax marijuana.

The idea is simple enough, but this proposition would create enormous
practical difficulties for California. Federal law, for example,
would still ban marijuana, no matter what state law said. So
Californians would still face the possibility of arrest under federal
law. The state's experience with medical marijuana readily
demonstrates that conflicting state and federal laws generate
confusion about enforcement, rights and legality.

The ramifications of that legal conflict extend beyond law
enforcement, however. Prop. 19 would also put the state at risk of
violating federal drug-free workplace rules, jeopardizing federal
contracts with California businesses and federal funding for schools
and other public services.

Prop. 19's vagueness raises many troubling questions. Would the
proposition force employers to accept marijuana use in the workplace?
Would the measure give marijuana users special rights that even
smokers do not have? What constitutes being too impaired by marijuana
to work or drive? The measure's ambiguous language would bring an
avalanche of costly legal battles.

Backers of this initiative say taxing marijuana would create new
income for the state. A Board of Equalization analysis from last year
suggested that taxing marijuana at $50 an ounce could generate $1.4
billion a year for public coffers.

That revenue would be far from assured, however. The RAND Corporation
this year studied the possible effects of legalizing marijuana in
California. Researchers found that the price of marijuana would
likely drop, while consumption would increase. But the study found
that a host of unpredictable variables, from the level of taxation to
federal intervention, made any other conclusions wildly uncertain.

The state's legislative analyst agrees, noting that the effects of
the measure were "subject to significant uncertainty." A massive
change in public policy, however, needs to rest on more than blind optimism.

Proponents also contend that legalizing marijuana would let state and
local governments redirect law enforcement efforts to more pressing
issues. Fair enough: Many Californians have valid questions about
current marijuana policy, with respect to both resources and results.
But any change in strategy should come from the federal government,
which sets drug policy, and not the state.

Prop. 19's shaky promises do not offset the inevitable confusion and
complication the initiative would create. The measure offers a bad
bargain for Californians, who should vote no on Prop. 19.