MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION IS A FEDERAL, NOT STATE, ISSUE; VOTE NO PROPOSITION 19

No on Proposition 19: There Are Many Arguments in Favor of Legalizing
Pot, but This Measure Will Create a Major Conflict of Existing Laws

THERE ARE many arguments for legalizing marijuana. Clearly
prohibition against it has been a failure as was prohibition against
alcohol. When there is a huge market of millions of people for a
product, prohibition inevitably leads to a criminal market to fulfill
the demand.

There is an unregulated multibillion dollar marijuana market in
California that enriches drug cartels and motivates dealers to
promote the substance and sell it to children.

The state and local governments spend hundreds of millions of tax
dollars trying to enforce laws against marijuana and incarcerating
thousands of people convicted of violating the law.

Even with all the money and effort spent combating marijuana use for
many decades, it remains to be widely used throughout California and
the nation.

Legalization of marijuana would save taxpayer money by reducing
enforcement efforts and incarceration costs. Instead, commercial
activities could result in substantial increases in tax revenues for
both state and local governments.

Proposition 19 would legalize limited personal cultivation and use of
marijuana and allow local governments to authorize and regulate
commercial enterprises.

Although there are reasonable arguments for legalizing marijuana, we
oppose passage of Proposition 19.

Even if the measure passed, marijuana would remain illegal under
federal law. With or without cooperation from state and local law
enforcement officials, federal agencies could and most likely would
continue to enforce national laws against marijuana.

Regardless of one's views about legalizing marijuana, it is a
national issue that is best dealt with on a federal level. If Prop.
19 were an advisory measure asking the federal government to legalize
marijuana, we might have a different view.

Instead, Prop. 19 would create a major conflict with the federal
government that could result in considerable confusion and perhaps a
loss of federal funding for drug treatment programs, for example.

We understand many Californians' frustration with marijuana
prohibition, just as we do with those who are frustrated with the
federal government's immigration policies.

However, drug laws, like immigration policy, are national issues. A
patchwork quilt of individual state laws is not the way to address
these issues.

If California should legalize marijuana, it could create a conflict
with federal agencies, which could then take over enforcement of
marijuana laws and reduce state and local control and flexibility in
applying marijuana laws and in setting penalties.

Proponents of legalizing marijuana need to make their arguments on a
federal level. That is where meaningful and lasting drug law reforms
should be made.

Some people may wish to vote for Prop. 19 as a symbolic gesture in
favor of legalized marijuana. But Prop. 19 is not symbolic, it has
real consequences and should be rejected by the voters on Nov. 2.