ANDERSON COUNCIL VOTES 'NO' ON PROPOSITION 19

Hoping to sway the minds of some voters in the Nov. 2 General
Election, the five members of Anderson's City Council unanimously
adopted a resolution Tuesday, Oct. 5, opposing Proposition 19, also
known as the "Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010."

Such a course of action was recommended by Anderson Police Chief Dale Webb.

Webb said Proposition 19 is opposed by such groups as the League of
California Cities, the California Police Chiefs Association, the
California Chamber of Commerce, both gubernatorial candidates, the
California State Firefighters Association, Mothers Against Drunk
Drivers, both of California's U.S. Senators and a long list of
individuals and groups that he did not specify.

Among many reasons Webb gave for opposing Proposition 19, which Webb
described as "very poorly written legislation," one consequence that
would directly impact Anderson is that "any employer, including the
City of Anderson," could be disqualified from "receiving federal
grants and/or contracts because of the inability to comply with the
Federal Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988."

"People much smarter than I have said this legislation is full of
holes," Webb said.

Federal law continues to classify marijuana as an illegal substance
and provides criminal penalties for various activities relating to is
use, cultivation and sale. These laws are enforced by federal
agencies that may act independently or in cooperation with state and
local law enforcement agencies, Webb read from a statement regarding
Proposition 19 prepared by California's Legislative Analyst.

Additionally, Webb briefly summarized a six-page memorandum from John
Lovell addressed to the California Police Chiefs Association.

"The title of the act is classic Newspeak," Lovell writes. "The
ballot measure (Proposition 19) doesn't regulate, control or tax
cannabis. Instead, it authorizes some 475 local jurisdictions, if
they choose to, to develop their own regulatory schemes. . . . (T)he
scope of that local regulation is unclear. Similarly, there is no
mechanism for control of cannabis distribution; and, as for taxes,
although the measure authorizes the various local jurisdictions to
impose (a) type of marijuana taxes, there is no such authorization
for (the) state (to collect) marijuana taxes."

A portion of Lovell's statement, however, appears to directly
contradict or at least call into question a set of proposed
regulations currently under consideration by Anderson's Planning
Department to regulate the cultivation of marijuana through city zoning laws.

"What is clear is that local government cannot use zoning to restrict
the cultivation ... (s)o long as the cultivator asserts that this
cultivation is for personal consumption, they have a virtual
unfettered right of cultivation," Lovell writes of Proposition 19.

In his summary, Webb failed to mention one very chilling scenario
that Lovell describes in some detail - provisions relating to seizure
and destruction of any marijuana plant, seeds or product that
"lawfully cultivated, processed, transported, possessed, possessed
for sale, sold or used in compliance with the Act.

"This section effectively assures that a marijuana operation that can
claim any colorable authorization from any local government is beyond
the reach of law enforcement. Under this provision, a drug cartel
could obtain a license from a single jurisdiction in California and
have their entire operation placed beyond the reach of law
enforcement," Lovell writes.

Instead, Webb chose to spend time on Lovell's description of how
Proposition 19 would tie the hands of employers, including cities, to
deal with employees who were using marijuana in the workplace.

"An employee can test dirty for marijuana, can bring marijuana to
work can probably consume marijuana (at least in a non-smokeable
form) at the workplace with no consequence from the employer," Lovell writes.

"We have created a ridiculous situation where an employer can send an
employee home (or even terminate that employee) if they have liquor
on their breath, but can do nothing about an employe who tests dirty
for marijuana and is even in possession of marijuana at the
workplace," Lovell writes.

Partly, this is due to the lack of chemical testing equipment that
can accurately detect and determine how much THC, the active
ingredient in marijuana, Webb said.

Once Webb finished, City Attorney Michael Fitzpatrick commented
sarcastically that the current Proposition 19, as written, "is a
great piece of legislation for attorneys" since it is written with so
many holes.

During a public hearing, Pastor Al Roundtree of Valley Christian
Center in Anderson encouraged the council to oppose Proposition 19
and to send copies of the analysis provided by Lovell "to anyone and everyone."

Citizen Stan Neutze of Anderson also endorsed opposing Proposition 19
and strongly urged that Lowell's entire report be "printed in the Valley Post."

"This proposition (19) and Proposition 215 (passed in 1996) were
deliberately trying to create a sense of chaos in our courts and in
our society," Neutze said. "This is another one of the progressive
movement's trying to cause chaos in our communities."

During the short public hearing, no one spoke in favor of Proposition
19, although such statements have been common in the past whenever
medical marijuana was on the council's agenda.