JUST SAY NO TO LEGALIZING POT

What were they smoking when they came up with Proposition 19?

OK, maybe it's time for California to have a serious debate on
whether to legalize marijuana for personal use. And OK, if lawmakers
won't confront the issue, maybe it's time for the voters to decide.

But this isn't the time, and Proposition 19 on the Nov. 2 ballot isn't the way.

It's obvious that society's attitudes toward marijuana are changing,
and today are increasingly similar to attitudes toward alcohol and
tobacco. The state estimates that more than 400,000 Californians use
marijuana daily; many of them signed the petitions that qualified the
measure for the ballot.

But that doesn't mean that the proposition -- which would allow
people 21 and older to possess up to an ounce of pot and grow it on
up to 25 square feet of private property -- should be approved.

For one thing, the research jury's still out, with conflicting
conclusions on the health and safety of marijuana, from the short-
and long-term effects on the human brain and behavior to whether it
leads to the use of hard-core and highly addictive drugs such as meth
and cocaine.

For another, by passing Proposition 19 and becoming the first state
to legalize pot for recreational use, California would be in direct
conflict with federal law.

The Obama administration, which has taken a hands-off attitude on
medicinal marijuana, says legalizing pot is "a nonstarter." And Gil
Kerlikowske, the national drug czar, told California police chiefs
that "marijuana use is harmful" and that legalizing it would result
in abuses and social costs that would far outweigh any possible benefits.

Regardless of where you are on the issue of marijuana in general,
Proposition 19 is poorly drafted and deeply flawed, filled with
loopholes and ambiguities that would create a chaotic nightmare for
law enforcement, local governments and businesses.

Its supporters -- many of whom are pushing to legalize other drugs as
well -- contend the measure would control and tax marijuana. In
reality, it would do neither. Indeed, many of the positives that
proponents advertise aren't actually written into the measure.

For instance, the backers say that legalization would generate a huge
financial windfall for the state and local governments by taxing $14
billion in annual illegal sales, plus create thousands of jobs for
California's struggling economy. They cite the Board of
Equalization's estimate last year of $1.4 billion in annual tax
revenues, enough to take a huge bite out of the budget deficit.

But nowhere in the measure is a specific tax proposal. That issue is
left to the Legislature and local governments, so there are no
guarantees about any pot taxes and whether they would be fair.

Supporters also argue that, like the end of failed prohibition of
alcohol, the proposition would free the criminal justice system of
the burden of prosecuting pot crimes. But California effectively
decriminalized personal marijuana use and possession 34 years ago.
People caught with less an ounce of pot and not charged with other
crimes typically are fined $100 or less and rarely set foot in a
courtroom, much less a jail.

And, despite what its backers say, the measure would not magically
end marijuana trafficking or put drug cartels out of business. In
fact, a study by the respected Rand Corp. concluded that a sizable
tax on pot -- a bill introduced this year called for $50 per ounce --
could create a whole new black market for cheaper drugs. Since it
would still be illegal for those under 21 to possess marijuana, the
illicit trade to feed the teen market would continue.

On top of that, the measure grants too much leeway to local
governments to allow the possession and cultivation of larger amounts
by individuals -- as well as to authorize commercial marijuana farms,
warehouses and retail stores.

A mishmash of rules would inevitably result, only multiplying the
mess created by medical marijuana dispensaries that have mushroomed
across California. To be effective, pot laws must be uniform across
the state, as they are for alcohol.

Finally, there is the issue of safety -- in the workplace and on the
roadways -- and enforcing rules that would ensure it.

The passage of Proposition 19 would saddle businesses with even more
legal murkiness in trying to keep marijuana-impaired employees out of
the workplace, especially from behind the wheel of school buses or
other jobs that could affect public safety.

The active ingredient in marijuana can stay in the body for weeks, so
current widely available tests can't tell how recently a worker might
have inhaled.

That same uncertainty applies to enforcing DUI laws. The measure
doesn't define what would constitute driving under the influence of
marijuana, unlike the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol standard for drunken driving.

Our bottom line: What were they thinking when they put together
Proposition 19? Regardless of whether you think personal marijuana
use should be legal or not, this is a deeply flawed measure that
would create far more problems than it could ever hope to solve.

Vote "no" on Proposition 19.