Regulatory Nightmare:

PROPOSITION 19 HAS TOO MANY FLAWS

TO truly consider the merits of Proposition 19, you must check your
morals at the door. Because the heart of the Nov. 2 ballot measure is
not about whether marijuana is no worse than alcohol or whether the
law should allow for small amounts of personal pot.

The real question of this initiative is whether California wants to
take on the federal government and allow any and every city in the
state to make up its own rules about selling, manufacturing and
transporting an illegal substance.

And the Daily News thinks the answer to the question is an emphatic "no."

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 is a poorly
crafted initiative that would set the scene for a regulatory
nightmare in California. Besides, permitting anyone over 21 to
possess, grow or transport up to an ounce of marijuana, it would also
allow local governments to regulate and tax production, distribution
and sale of marijuana in a way that suits their jurisdiction. This
patchwork approach to regulation is the most alarming aspect of the
measure. With every city and county in the state coming up with
different marijuana laws, the resulting confusion could make the
lawless and explosive growth of medical marijuana dispensaries in
recent years seem like the good old days.

Supporters of Proposition 19 are selling it in financial terms.
First, they say it's preposterous to have marijuana offenders take up
costly time and room in California courtrooms, jails and prisons when
more serious offenders are released early due to lack of space and
resources. As well, legalizing pot would take a major source of
income out of the hands of drug dealers.

Furthermore, they note, the legal sale of marijuana would bring in as
much as $1.4 billion a year in tax revenue to local governments
struggling with the costs of basic services and bring untold amounts
of money to the state from marijuana tourism.

But financial considerations are not a good basis for adopting bad law.

Notwithstanding its obvious conflicts with federal law, which still
considers marijuana an illegal substance, there are a number of other
reasons to reject Proposition 19.

Critics of the law bring up several worries, including the danger of
allowing the widespread use of a mind-altering drug - including on
the road and on the job. The act prohibits "(c)onsumption by the
operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated,
or that impairs the operator." But if four passengers are smoking
joints in a car, it's not a stretch 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.

Proposition 19 should also make employers nervous, as it appears to
give marijuana users a clear right to smoke on the job. It 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." And what does impairment really mean, anyhow?

Proposition 19 isn't really about decriminalizing small amounts of
personal marijuana in California, which has essentially been the case
for decades. It's about setting the groundwork to change the nation's
perception of marijuana and its current drug laws. Opening up the
state to this particular can of worms is the wrong way to do that.
Vote no on Proposition 19.