JUST SAY 'NO' TO FAULTY PROP. 19

Like so many others in California, we've heard -- and listened to --
all the arguments for legalizing marijuana. We even agree that some have merit.

Proposition 19, however, is another matter. The controversial Nov. 2
measure, which would legalize limited personal cultivation and use of
marijuana and allow local governments to authorize and regulate
commercial enterprises, is a certified mess.

We therefore urge voters to reject it.

Here's why.

For starters, there's Proposition 19's distorted and contradictory
message to children about drug use and gateway drugs. It's a
confusing message that disarms our teachers and counselors at the
very critical moments they're waging daily battles against drug usage
in our schools and at home.

And outside the classroom, marijuana use -- particularly by drivers
- -- is a highly dangerous activity and has been blamed on numerous
fatal traffic accidents. While Proposition 19 does not directly
address current laws about impaired driving, the arguments for its
passage make no reference to it.

And then there's also the slew of legal chaos and bureaucratic red
tape and confusion the measure's passage would invite in California
and in Washington.

Finally, the alleged economic benefits marijuana legalization would
bring to California -- one of the most common arguments for passage
- -- are tenuous at best, and cynical at worst.

To be sure, the tide seems to be turning in California toward some
sort of marijuana Advertisement legalization. Clearly, prohibition
against grass has been a failure. Despite any penalties, marijuana
use is widespread, and untold millions of dollars have been spent on
enforcement, prosecution and incarceration.

But even more has been spent on its sale. There is an unregulated
multi-billion dollar marijuana market in California that enriches
drug cartels and motivates dealers to promote the substance and sell
it to children.

Legalization of marijuana, Proposition 19 supporters argue, would all
but eliminate enforcement and incarceration costs. In its place,
substantial increases in tax revenues for both state and local
governments would be available through legitimate sales.

But their law enforcement cost arguments were weakened recently by
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose signature now rests on legislation
that reduces possession of less than an ounce of marijuana from a
misdemeanor to an infraction, like a traffic ticket. Stretched-thin
police departments have set enforcement of such minor possession as a
low priority anyway, but the new law removes any enforcement pressure
against such infractions as well as costly court, legal and jail expenses.

Schwarzenegger has made no secret of his opposition to Proposition
19, but his bill signing, while pragmatic and political, was the
right thing to do.

Had he not signed it, however, Proposition 19's rejection is still
proper on key jurisdictional grounds. Even if it passes, marijuana
remains illegal under federal law. With or without cooperation from
state and local law enforcement officials, federal agencies could --
and most likely would -- continue to enforce U.S. laws against marijuana.

Legalizing marijuana is an issue best dealt with on a federal level.
If Prop. 19 were an advisory measure asking the president and
Congress to legalize marijuana, we might hold a different view.
Instead, it would create a major conflict with the federal government
that could result in considerable confusion and perhaps a loss of
federal funding for drug treatment programs.

We understand many Californians' frustration with marijuana
prohibition, just as we sympathize with those frustrated with federal
immigration policies.

However, a patchwork quilt of individual state laws is not how to
address issues that transcend state borders.

Some people may wish to vote for Prop. 19 as a symbolic gesture in
favor of legalized marijuana. But Prop. 19 is not symbolic; it has
real consequences, and voters should say no on Nov. 2.