PROP. 19: VOTING NO IS THE BEST CHOICE

Proposition 19 will allow every city and county in the state to have
completely different ordinances regarding growing and taxation of marijuana.

It will not reduce the cost of marijuana, it will not eliminate the
cartels, there is no guarantee of an increase in tax revenues, it
will jeopardize safety in the workplace, and it will increase the
work load for law enforcement.

Section 11301 of Proposition 19 allows local governments (a total of
533) the ability to adopt ordinances or similar regulations to
control, license, regulate, permit, or otherwise authorize commercial
activities regarding the cultivation and sale of marijuana.

Local governments may permit the retail sale of not more than one
ounce per transaction for personal use in "licensed premises." Local
governments have authority to "prohibit and punish" through "civil
fines or other remedies," possession for sale, cultivation,
processing, or transportation that was not obtained lawfully.

Proposition 19, Section 11304 (c) states, "No person shall be
punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or
privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by the Act
or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided
however, that the existing right of an employer to address
consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee
shall not be affected."

So, in other words, an employee may test positive for marijuana, may
bring marijuana to work, may consume marijuana at the workplace with
no consequence from the employer. The right of an employer is limited
to the ability "to address consumption" only where that consumption
has actually impaired the job performance of a specific employee.

The employer's only recourse is to speak with the employee after the
impaired job performance has resulted in an accident or other
disruption in the workplace.

This situation most certainly will lead to an increase in insurance
costs and higher workers compensation rates for California employers.
It also may make businesses ineligible for Federal Grants requiring a
"drug-free workplace."

Proponents indicate there will be a reduction in the price of
marijuana, referring to Prohibition as an example. After Prohibition,
the Federal Government set uniform standards for the sale for alcohol.

With Proposition 19, California would be the stand-along state
supplying 49 other states. The black market and the cartels will
still have the incentive to grow on our public lands with nothing but
a profit in mind.

This initiative does not authorize the state to levy any specific
marijuana taxes, so the state will have no increased tax revenue.
Local governments may only tax commercial growers, not those growing
for their personal use. The incentive will be to grow for "personal
use" to avoid any taxes.

Section 11304 deals with the "Effect of the Act and Definitions." It
specifies that a penalty shall exist for bringing cannabis to a
school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12
grades, inclusive. Presumably, this would permit the bringing of
marijuana onto the grounds of a pre-school or a day-care center which
is another major oversight of this initiative.

Section 11361(c) is an amendment to the Health and Safety Code which
creates a new misdemeanor for a person over 21 who furnishes
marijuana to a person who is 18, 19, or 20.

There will be increased costs associated with this provision, which
will be seen by increased court calendars, county jail commitments
and law enforcement actions.

There are those who say drug use is a victimless crime and,
therefore, should be legalized. This is just not so. The effects are
so far-reaching that it is often difficult to quantify. Health
issues, family dysfunction, employment costs all lead to the
ever-growing social costs.

We already have Proposition 215 which provides for medical needs of
those that may benefit from the use of marijuana. It has proven to
be, in large part, a legal nightmare. I've had citizens contact me
saying they voted for Proposition 215, thinking they were doing the
right thing.

Now they are living with the undesirable consequences in their own
neighborhoods. If they could go back they would, but they cannot.

Please do not be misled by the title of the Act, "The Regulate,
Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010." The title does not accurately
reflect the content of the initiative. Review the language in the act
for yourself, and I believe you also will conclude that voting No is
the best choice.