LEGALIZING POT - FOR OR AGAINST? PROP. 19 PANEL IN TRUCKEE SPARKS DEBATE

TRUCKEE, Calif. -- In an opinionated and myth-busting debate, four
panelists met Wednesday night to argue benefits and consequences of
the November ballot measure Proposition 19 -- to legalize marijuana
in California.

The debate, held at the Truckee Town Council Chambers, was a
collaborative effort between the Coalition for a Drug Free Nevada
County and the Tahoe-Truckee Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention
Working Group to educate voters on both sides of the issue.

Nevada County District Attorney Clifford Newell and William Olson,
of the Placer County Special Investigation Unit, spoke against the
proposition, denouncing it as confusing, ill-written legislation that
would mire court systems with inconsistent wording and squander law
enforcement resources.

Local attorney Alison Bermant and former Cannabis Information
Resource Director Martin Webb sat to support the legislation,
heralding it as a progressive first step toward a more egalitarian
justice system and as an answer to the government's over-crowded
prisons and wasted tax dollars.

"I think our law enforcement is misdirected with dealing with
marijuana when there are much more serious offenses out there. I
think there are people slaving away in our state prison system, and
it is a waste of taxpayer money," Bermant said.

Adding to that, Webb polled the audience in a show of hands to
highlight how many recreational alcohol users were in attendance -- a
showing of about 70 percent. Webb then defined voting against
marijuana legalization as an obvious form of hypocrisy that would
relegate marijuana users to second-class residents in a state
inundated with recreational drug use. Alcohol has far more
devastating effects, he added.

Countering, Newell and Olson attributed their opposition to pure
logistical problems within governance and enforcement.

Newell said his concerns with the proposition centered on allowance
of individual county legislation that would differ and complicate
matters in courts. He decried the wording as "a jumbled mess."

"No matter how it shakes out in a couple years, no matter if we don't
like it, it is very hard to go back," he said.

Supporting Newell, Olson said the state's current lack of police
resources dictates law enforcement must already cope with complaints
surrounding the legalization of medical marijuana.

"We are public servants; therefore, if anyone calls, we have to
respond to their complaints, and calls like that occupy our time far
too much," Olson said.

Questions raised during the night from audience members included who
would get the tax dollars from marijuana, how drivers allegedly under
the influence of marijuana would be tested, and how federal law would
work into state legalization, considering U.S. Attorney General Eric
H. Holder Jr. opposed the legislation in a Oct. 13 letter to nine
former chiefs of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

The panelists unanimously opined that answers to the questions are
still unknown.

Newell and Olson used the unanswered questions to spearhead argument
against the proposition. Webb and Bermant using uncertainty as reason
the legislation is needed.

"While I agree with Mr. Newell that there are some inconsistencies
with this law, there are thousands of inconsistencies in our other
legislated laws as well," Bermant said. "I don't think that's a good reason."

One inconsistency that Newell highlighted was the fact the law would
allow for each residence to grow marijuana in a 25 square-foot area,
yet it only would allow for possession of one ounce of marijuana,
contradictory considering the amount that can be grown in the area.

Looking at the practicality of legalized marijuana in neighborhoods,
panelists were asked what would happen to neighbors who opposed the
smell of marijuana at their personal residences.

"Too bad (for the neighbors)," Newell said. "As it is now with Prop.
215 we have ... we already have constant calls from citizens,
especially on our end on the western side of Nevada County, where it
is very conducive to growing marijuana outside ... and law
enforcement must tell them that they are within their rights and they
can grow."

Webb brushed the concern off as inconsequential.

"I'm certainly aware that there are a lot of people who don't like
the smell of marijuana and I'm sorry for the folks that have to put
up with a smell that they don't like. However, calling the cops to
try and prosecute a bad smell is a poor use of law enforcement
resources," Webb said.

[sidebar]

PANELIST BIOGRAPHIES

Clifford Newell, Nevada County district attorney (Against) Clifford
was elected Nevada County District Attorney in 2006. Prior to that
served as a prosecutor in Nevada County in Truckee for two years and
in Sutter county. Prior to that he served as a probation officer in
Nevada County.

Alison Bermant, attorney, private criminal defense practitioner
(Supporting) Alison worked for the Placer and Santa Cruz county
public defender offices for the first three years of her career. She
opened her private practice in 2003 in Truckee. She has focused on
criminal defense for the full 11 years she's been an attorney.

William Olson, commander, Placer County Special Investigations Unit
(Against) William is employed by the California Department of
Justice, Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement. He has been a law
enforcement officer for 24 years and a narcotics agent for more than
20. Prior to Placer, he was assigned as the narcotics commander for
task forces in Yuba, Sutter and Yolo counties.

Martin Webb, former director of the Cannabis Information Resource
Center in Western Nevada County (Supporting) A legal medical
marijuana user since 1999, Martin has become a local expert and
advocate for sensible marijuana policy. He is the former director of
the Cannabis Information Resource Center in Nevada County, which held
monthly speakers' meetings with doctors, defense lawyers and district
attorneys.