PROP. 19 HAS TOO MANY FLAWS

There are valid arguments to be made for the legalization of
marijuana. Some people claim that it's less harmful or deadly than
alcohol or cigarettes. Some say it's preposterous to have marijuana
offenders take up time and room in California courtrooms, jails and
prisons when more serious offenders are released early due to lack of
space and resources. Some say the decades-long war on drugs has been
an unqualified failure, diverting law enforcement resources from more
useful pursuits.

Some members of our editorial board, in fact, believe that marijuana
should be legalized nationwide and closely regulated, controlled for
quality and dosage, and heavily taxed - like alcohol and cigarettes -
while other board members believe it should be an illegal substance
under all circumstances.

Despite the different outlooks, our editorial board agreed
unanimously that Proposition 19 on the Nov. 2 ballot - the Regulate,
Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 - is no way to legalize
marijuana. It is poorly written, conflicts with too many federal laws
and would pose dangers - physical and financial - to the citizens of
California.

First, the physical dangers. The act prohibits "(c)onsumption by the
operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated,
or that impairs the operator." If "by the operator" is the dominant
phrase there, then it would appear to allow smoking by passengers in
the car (unless minors are present). But if four passengers are
smoking joints in a car, we have to think the second-hand smoke is
going to impair the driver's reactions, endangering all of them and
their fellow motorists on the road. If "that impairs the operator"
refers to consumption by anyone, then the passengers' smoking could
be illegal too. It's not clear and probably would have to be decided
in court - the problem with so very many ballot initiatives.

Proposition 19 maintains "any law prohibiting use of controlled
substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve
public safety," which is good. But it precludes workplace drug
testing by saying that employers can address only "consumption that
actually impairs job performance by an employee."

That's a deal breaker. As the act's opponents point out, actual
impairment of the performance of, say, a truck driver, bus driver or
heavy-machinery operator would have to be demonstrated by a crash or
accident - not the outcome anybody wants. That would put us all in danger.

And Proposition 19 would clobber many state agencies and businesses
financially because it would conflict with the federal Drug-Free
Workplace Act of 1988, which must be complied with by any recipient
of a federal grant and any entity with a federal contract in excess
of $100,000.

Speaking of conflict, marijuana would remain a prohibited, Schedule 1
drug under federal law, and President Obama's "drug czar" has said
the administration will not condone recreational use of marijuana as
it has allowed medical use. Federal agents could arrest people who
were in compliance with this state act.

One more possible form of conflict: Proposition 19 allows each city
and county to pass its own regulations regarding transportation and
sales of marijuana in locally licensed premises. As Fontana Police
Chief Rodney Jones pointed out, a San Bernardino County sheriff's
deputy could have one set of rules to enforce in Highland, another in
Grand Terrace, and a third in unincorporated areas. That way lies madness.

Vote no on Proposition 19.