PROP. 19 TOO HAZY TO GET OUR SUPPORT

One of the most controversial ballot measures in the November
election is Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana.

The idea has been bouncing about this state for more than a few
decades. The first step toward a move to legalize marijuana came in
1996 when voters approved Proposition 215, which hasn't been the
benign proposition many voters thought it to be.

In practice, Prop. 215 became an end run around the current ban on
marijuana under the guise of compassionate use. Law enforcement has
seen a rise in other crimes associated with 215's approval. Now
supporters are looking for complete legalization for marijuana's use
(as long as you are 21 years old).

The movement gained new life when Assemblyman Tom Ammiano proposed to
legalize commercial sale of marijuana, in addition to legalizing
recreational use of marijuana. He was planning to slap a
$50-per-ounce excise fee on marijuana sales, in addition to
facilitating sales-tax collection on retail purchases of non-medical
marijuana. The Board of Equalization estimated about to $1.4 billion
in revenue to the state - just over 1 percent of budget. However,
Proposition 19 doesn't have that tax provision anywhere.

It does allow local jurisdictions to regulate the commercial
production and retail sale of marijuana. It also allows local
governments to choose to impose licensing fees, or to implement
differing tax schemes or rates within their local jurisdiction. That
may be the right thing to do, because local law enforcement will be
dealing with the inevitable increase in drug-related incidents if
this proposition is approved.

When the Post's editorial board asked District Attorney Mike Ramsey
about this proposal, he noted this concern: It's easier to catch
drunk drivers on the road prior to an accident because they drive
erratically and drivers can be tested on scene as to their sobriety.
Too often, those driving under influence of marijuana are only caught
after a tragic accident.

While Proposition 19 does continue to outlaw driving under influence
of marijuana, it doesn't quantify what constitutes being under the
influence. We all know that a blood-alcohol level of .08 is the legal
limit for drunken driving, but what is the limit with marijuana?

There's nothing in the new law that would define that, which hurts
both the police and a potential DUI offender. Given the amount of
time THC stays the system, what is a fair way to determine legal levels?

Then, there is the federal government, which doesn't recognize the
legalization of the drug. Californians will still be subject to
federal laws, and based on the current trend regarding ballot
initiatives, we think Prop. 19 will head to court, where the federal
government may prevail.

Before recommending legalization of marijuana, we'd like to see legal
definitions for driving under the influence as well as some
reconciliation with the federal government on the issue.

So, we recommend a "No" vote on 19.