GOING TO POT: NO ON PROP. 19

Proposition 19 on the Nov. 2 ballot would make the recreational use
of marijuana legal in California. This is a bad idea for a variety of
reasons. Here are a few from a law enforcement perspective.

Passage of this proposal will create an uncertain legal environment
given the position of U.S. attorney general who has reiterated the
federal government's commitment to enforce the Controlled Substance
Act as it applies to marijuana for other then medically approved
purposes. Almost all California law enforcement agencies have worked
in concert with federal agents in combating the cultivation,
distribution, sale and use of marijuana which is occasionally found
in the presence of other debilitating drugs such as cocaine and
methamphetamine. The passage of this measure will potentially
fracture this working relationship. The end result will be a less
effective effort in combating all of the other illegal substances.

While many believe that the use of marijuana is benign, on par with
the ingestion of alcohol beverages, there are differences. While the
consumption of alcoholic beverages is a widely accepted cultural
practice, its use is far from benign given its impact on our society.
Domestic violence, child abuse and impaired driving as a result of
alcohol abuse have come at an an enormous cost.

The revenue derived from taxes on alcohol does not come close to
covering the cost for all the services necessary to deal with
alcohol-related problems.

The abuse of marijuana, once it becomes widely available without the
stigma of illegality, would be no better and likely would exacerbate
the already disastrous effects of alcohol abuse on our society.

Supporters argue that this measure would ensure that marijuana will
not be available to those under the age of 21. Since we have rarely
been successful in preventing young people from obtaining alcohol,
driving under the influence of or from binge drinking, keeping this
drug from that population is unlikely and will add to the future
addiction of a percentage of youthful offenders, much as alcohol has.
The harm from long-term use of marijuana is still being studied but
not likely to be beneficial.

Of immediate concern is the impact on the motoring public, and the
potential increase in driving under the influence of this drug. We
have statutory presumptive limits on what constitutes driving under
the influence of alcohol. There is no such presumptive limit for
marijuana, and it cannot be detected as easily as alcohol by the
standard roadside tests. Moreover, ingesting a combination of alcohol
and marijuana, which is not uncommon, increases the potency of each.

Law enforcement agencies have made great strides in combating driving
under the influence of alcohol. Nonetheless, a third of all deaths
and injuries in this state are the result of alcohol-impaired driving.

The widespread availability of marijuana will exacerbate this
problem, and require an even greater commitment of law enforcement
resources we can ill afford.

If this measure passes, we will likely become an exporter of
marijuana to other states, creating a host of interstate enforcement
issues and attracting "pot heads" from around the country. We do not
need nor do we want an influx of people flocking here to purchase or
use marijuana, creating a burden on our already overextended law
enforcement and social services. California has enough law
enforcement issues to contend with. Legalizing and thus expanding the
use of marijuana raises a variety of health, economic and enforcement
impacts, whose cost will far outweigh the likelihood of any societal
benefit or of any revenue generated from a tax on this drug.

Sal Rosano, a former Santa Rosa police chief, is a traffic safety
consultant for the U.S. Department of Transportation.