POT INITIATIVE: A LEGAL HIGH, OR HIGHER CRIME?

If the side effects of Proposition 19 the one legalizing pot seem a
little hazy to you, you're not alone.

Opponents of the measure argue that even if you want marijuana
legalized, Prop. 19 is slapdash and ambiguous when it comes to
details, and you should wait for something better.

After all, if you like to smoke the illicit herb, you probably aren't
having much trouble finding it under current laws something Prop. 19
backers point out when they compare current pot laws to the U.S.
prohibition on alcohol. They say Prop. 19 may not be perfectly
written, but would reduce criminal involvement while providing new tax revenue.

"Marijuana money is already doing far more harm than marijuana
itself," said retired Orange County Superior Court Judge Jim Gray, a
longtime advocate of legalization. "We can take the thugs out of it."

Opponents, including Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens, counter
that the measure would actually increase criminal activity and
disagree with other portrayals by Prop. 19 backers. But while there's
debate over related outcomes, the basics of the proposed law are clear:

. Those 21 and over would be allowed to possess up to one ounce, and
would be allowed to grow pot on private property in a plot not to
exceed 25 square feet.

. Cities and counties could decide to permit the sales and commercial
farming of marijuana, and could tax those enterprises. Cities and
counties could also choose to continue existing bans on commercial
marijuana activities.

. Employers could no longer fire workers for simply testing positive
for marijuana use. The employers would have to first show that
smoking pot caused an employee "actual impairment."

This "impairment" provision is bone of contention between the two
sides, and is the chief reason cited by the California Chamber of
Commerce in opposing the measure. The chamber and other opponents say
it would make it more difficult to fire stoned employees, and could
put others at risk.

"If I had a deputy who smoked two hours before he went to work,
there's nothing I could do to stop him unless I could prove it
impaired his work," Hutchens said. She added that part of the problem
with Prop. 19 is that it doesn't provide clear tests for proving
impairment, either in the workplace or on the road.

Hanna Liebman Dershowitz, an attorney working for Prop. 19's passage,
noted that the proposed law prohibits driving while impaired and said
there are existing field sobriety tests that would be used by law enforcement.

Gray added that it's "silly" to believe many more workers are going
to get high before going to work because the law changes. Both
backers defended the requirement that employers prove pot smoking
caused impairment before punishing an employee.

"It's Friday night and they smoke marijuana and they come to work
Monday and there's absolutely no impairment," Gray said. "It's put in
there to protect someone like that."

Prop. 19's Main Man

Richard Lee, who made his millions off marijuana, is leading the
charge for Prop. 19. He drafted the language, qualified the measure
for the ballot and has pitched in $1.5 million toward its passage.

He got his start in the legal pot business by running medical
marijuana dispensaries in Oakland, and recently got the green light
there to set up a large marijuana farm. He was key to winning over
the city's voters and council to the fiscal benefits of pot, which is
expected to send Oakland $800,000 in taxes from dispensaries this year.

Lee also runs Oaksterdam University, which trains its students in the
marijuana business. But it's his "regulate and tax" pitch that has
the broadest appeal.

A poll finished this month by Cal State Fullerton found that 70
percent of county residents surveyed disagreed that "it should be
legal for my neighbor to grow marijuana in his or her yard." But 61
percent agreed that "raising money for the state by taxing marijuana
is a good idea."

The non-partisan legislative analyst said Prop. 19 could potentially
generate hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues annually,
although the two sides disagree over whether it would increase or
decrease law enforcement costs.

It's also unclear how Prop. 19 would sit with the federal government,
both in terms of the federal ban on marijuana and on federal funding
that carries the stipulation that the recipient operate under
provisions for a drug-free workplace.

But neither side disputes a Rand Corp. report that Prop. 19 would
significantly lower the cost of pot. Rand researchers "expect the
price to drop by more than 80 percent, from the currently prevailing
$300-$450 per ounce of sinsemilla (a high grade form of marijuana) in
California to about $40 per ounce."

The report goes on to say that "potential and current marijuana users
respond to price changes, so we expect that a large price decrease
would lead to a consumption increase."

More Crime or Less?

Opponents attack Prop. 19's provision allowing cities and counties to
decide whether to allow commercial pot enterprises and if they do,
how much to tax them. They say there should be a uniform state law
for regulating sales, as there is for alcohol and tobacco.

Proponents counter that attitudes toward pot vary from city to city,
and each should have the ability to decide what's best for it.

But a bigger dispute unresolved by conflicting data is how Prop. 19
would affect crime.

The legislative analyst cites "savings of potentially several tens of
millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the
costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders."

While proponents cite 2008 FBI statistics showing 61,000 misdemeanor
violations for possession in 2008, opponents say few of those
resulted in jail time.

"The initiative's proponents say we'll empty out our jails, but I
don't have a jail full of people arrested for marijuana," Hutchens
said. "It would require more, not less, law enforcement. It would
create a new set of problems more use, rival gangs, the hold up of shops."

Prop. 19 backers say there would be no more problems than there are
with liquor stores, and it would reduce the involvement of organized crime.

Proponents also cite federal statistics that 60 percent of Mexican
drug cartel revenue comes for pot sales as much as $14.3 billion
annually. But a Rand Corp. study puts the amount at $2 billion or
less, and found that legalization of marijuana would only have a
significant impact on the cartels if it was nationwide. Passage of
Prop. 19 would reduce cartel's profits by no more than 4 percent, the
report says.

Former Senate GOP Leader Dick Ackerman, an Irvine resident, is among
those making the rounds to argue against Prop. 19. While proponents
often make the comparison of marijuana to alcohol, Ackerman draws distinctions.

"All drinkers don't drink to get drunk, but all smokers smoke to get
high," he said.

But plenty of drinkers do like to cop a buzz, and Gray says everybody
might be better off if they smoked pot instead.

"Some people might try it if it's legal and see if it's for them or
not," he said. "And see if it's preferable to alcohol, which I think
would be a plus."