EXPERIMENTING WITH POT

The Broader Desire to Legalize Marijuana Is No Reason to Vote for a
Badly Flawed Prop. 19.

Just days ago, Proposition 19's prospects seemed shaky. A Los Angeles
Times/USC poll found likely voters opposing it by 51% to 39%, and the
Yes on Prop. 19 campaign was short on funds. Then George Soros, the
billionaire financier and philanthropist with a long-standing
interest in loosening drug laws, resuscitated its chances with a
last-minute $1-million donation.

In a statement outlining his support for ending marijuana
prohibition, Soros said, "Regulating and taxing marijuana would
simultaneously save taxpayers billions of dollars in enforcement and
incarceration costs, while providing billions of dollars in revenue
annually." Legalizing marijuana, he added, would "also reduce crime,
violence and corruption associated with drug markets, and restore
civil liberties lost by the mass incarceration of otherwise
law-abiding citizens."

Well, maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't. But those broad, sweeping
arguments for legalizing marijuana don't really speak to the numerous
problems with this badly drafted ballot measure. The Times completely
agrees that there are deep flaws in the nation's drug policy. We're
even willing to concede that there might be benefits to ending the
ban on pot. But a close look at Proposition 19 suggests that it is
the wrong vehicle to accomplish that.

That the so-called drug war has been a disaster is widely
acknowledged. Even the Obama administration has abandoned the
terminology and places increasingly greater emphasis on prevention
and treatment rather than incarceration of low-level drug users.
Rather than making marijuana unavailable or reducing consumption,
prohibition has led to the imprisonment of 750,000 people a year on
possession charges, a black market that fuels gang rivalries and
contributes to the violence among the Mexican drug cartels, and an
unequal enforcement of drug laws that has fallen heaviest on black
and Latino communities.

But Proposition 19 isn't the answer. Even voters who want marijuana
legalized should beware of a measure that permits each of
California's 478 cities and 58 counties to create local regulations
regarding cultivation, possession and distribution. Plus, marijuana,
though legal in California, would remain a prohibited Schedule I drug
under federal law, setting up an inevitable conflict. Its strength
and purity would not be overseen by federal drug authorities, and
whether or not the much-hoped-for tax revenue comes in would depend
on local governments -- the ones that choose to, that is -- setting
up new and untried bureaucracies and enforcement agencies. Meanwhile,
Californians, understandably confused by a crazy quilt of laws
throughout the state, could actually end up more likely, not less, to
face federal prosecution.

It's easy for residents of other states to encourage Californians to
experiment with their safety on the broad, general principle that
marijuana should no longer be illegal. But California voters have to
look at the details. Opposition to the unsuccessful war on drugs is
not sufficient reason to support a counterproductive solution such as
Proposition 19. One has almost no relationship to the other.