PROPOSITION 19: VOTE NO

Even Californians who support the legalization of marijuana should be
extremely wary of Proposition 19. This is a seriously flawed
initiative with contradictions and complications that would invite
legal chaos and, more than likely, fail to deliver its promised
economic benefits.

We agree with the architects of Prop. 19 that the "war on drugs" -
especially as it applies to marijuana - has been an abject failure.
Laws against personal possession are widely ignored, they are enforced
unevenly and they divert law enforcement and the courts from more
pressing priorities. The result is a flourishing underground economy
that allows marijuana to escape taxation and regulation while
bestowing profits on criminal enterprises.

If this were simply a referendum on the status quo, and the ability of
a 21-or-older Californian to possess an ounce or less for personal
use, it might be an easy "yes" vote. It is not. It is a law that goes
too far in endowing rights for the cultivation, possession and use of
marijuana.

Among the specific problems:

Workplace: A nondiscrimination clause would prevent employers from
firing or disciplining workers who used marijuana unless an employer
could prove that job performance was impaired. Pre-employment testing
would be banned. Conflicts with federal law abound. For example, the
feds require operators of planes, trains, trucks and buses to be removed
from their jobs if they test positive for any narcotic.

Tax and regulation: The measure establishes no state controls over
distribution and product standards; it does nothing to help cure the
state's budget deficit. A seriously gridlocked Legislature, which kept
its distance from the medical marijuana mess, would have to decide
whether to take on such issues. In the meantime, Prop. 19 allows the
58 counties and hundreds of cities to come up with their own taxation
and regulatory schemes. In this critical element of legalization,
Prop. 19 is more akin to the chaotic approach taken with medical
marijuana than to the heavily taxed-and-regulated treatment of alcohol.

Cultivation: Property owners throughout the state would have a right to
establish a 5-by-5-foot plot of cannabis plants for personal consumption
- a right that could not be usurped by local ordinance. Anyone familiar
with the stench and potential height of marijuana plants might pause at
the thought of their proliferation in the neighborhood.

Transit: The proposition does not affect current laws against driving
while impaired by cannabis, but it does allow passengers to smoke in a
moving vehicle, proponents acknowledge. This is another element of 219
that that defies common sense.

The experience of Proposition 215, the 1996 initiative that legalized
the use of medical marijuana, illustrates the danger of voting for a
concept instead of the language of a ballot measure. The loosely drawn
Prop. 215 continues to be a nightmare for many communities. Los
Angeles is trying to shut down hundreds of dispensaries. Even the
laid-back coastal towns of Santa Cruz and Arcata found themselves
putting moratoriums on new dispensaries.

Fresno County Supervisors this week voted to ban outdoor medical
marijuana gardens after four reports of gunfire - including a fatal
shooting by a homeowner who claimed an intruder was out to steal his
pot.

If Prop. 19 were to pass, such outdoor gardens would not be limited to
ostensible medical-marijuana patients. They could show up in any
backyard, in any town - and local governments would be powerless to
stop them.

Don't vote the slogan or the concept. Inspect the details. No on
19.