PROPOSITION 19: A NEED TO RETHINK MARIJUANA LEGISLATION

Even if you believe that using marijuana can kill you - it can't -
and even if you believe that marijuana will lead to harder, addictive
drugs - it won't - and even if you believe that marijuana has no
proven medicinal purposes whatsoever - it does - you should still
read California's Proposition 19.

The proposition proposes the legalization of marijuana for personal
use and allows local governments to regulate and tax
marijuana-related activities. I believe it is one of the most
sensible pieces of state-level legislation this country has seen in a
generation.

Currently, America's marijuana laws are essentially an exponentially
larger version of the St. Olaf alcohol policy. Both are overbearing,
ineffective and based on an antiquated, puritanical crusade to
allegedly keep the masses pure and holy. We see significant strides
made in more complicated and partisan issues while we remain stuck
with a 1930s, "Reefer Madness"-style mentality in which marijuana is
presented as a destroyer of society as we know it.

On Election Day 2010, Californians will step into the voting booth to
decide on a ballot proposition that Americans with a wide range of
political opinions and philosophies can agree is necessary and just.

Libertarians can view a "yes" on Proposition 19 as an affirmation of
our civil liberties. As a libertarian friend said of the proposal,
"those who wish to participate in a safe, victimless activity within
the privacy of their home have every right to do so."

Reps. Barney Frank and Ron Paul, ideological opposites, both see it
this way as well.

As American Civil Liberties Union President Nadine Strossen once
said, "[I]t's a matter of individual freedom of choice. Does that
mean they should do it [marijuana]? Not necessarily, not any more
than somebody should smoke or drink or eat McDonald's hamburgers."

For progressives, the legalization of marijuana - even in one state -
is a long sought-after political victory that predates the late 1960s
when marijuana began to enter the consciousness of mainstream America.

Hard-line conservatives, who might oppose marijuana legalization
because of economic or social misgivings, would do well to examine
the legal and financial benefits of a "yes" on Prop. 19.

Conservative firebrand William F. Buckley, Jr. once wrote, "[E]ven if
one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at
face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more
people than marijuana ever could."

Tens of millions of dollars in law enforcement and incarceration
costs would be saved, and additional revenues and taxes would aid
California's ailing economy.

In a 2007 Journal of Drug Issues article, professors of economics
Edward M. Shepard and Paul R. Blackley found that even with increased
spending to "combat" marijuana use at the federal, state and local
level, law enforcement increase has still not translated to effectiveness.

With simple possession accounting for almost 90 percent of
marijuana-related citations and arrests, and drug cartels south of
the border securing 60 percent of their profits from marijuana sold
in the U.S., tough-on-crime conservatives would welcome any
additional methods to improve border security.

Heck, even the Tea Party could gain something from passing Prop. 19.
After all, California is essentially putting states' rights as a
whole up for debate. Even if Prop. 19 passes, under federal law
marijuana will still be considered illegal as a "Schedule I" drug,
which means the feds see marijuana as equally or more dangerous than
heroin, ecstasy and quaaludes.

The Justice Department announced last year that it would cease raids
of medical marijuana dispensaries as well as prosecution of those who
use marijuana for medical purposes in said states.

However, many more states remain open to possible hostilities from
the federal government, and millions carry on with the threat of
frivolous legal action. With the introduction of Proposition 19,
California is, hopefully, blowing the door wide open on a simple yet
often misrepresented issue.

It's about time.