LA Times editorial endorses NO on Prop 19 (tax/regulate marijuana proposition)

[alp227]

Today the Los Angeles Times published an editorial "Snuff out pot measure". Why does the LA Times say no on Proposition 19, the ballot measure that proposes to allow local governments to tax and regulate marijuana and allows possession of one ounce for personal use by persons 21 and older?

Whether marijuana should be legal is a valid subject for discussion. Californians ought to welcome a debate about whether marijuana is any more dangerous than alcohol, whether legalization would or would not increase consumption, and whether crime would go down as a result of decriminalization. But Proposition 19 is so poorly thought out, badly crafted and replete with loopholes and contradictions that it offers an unstable platform on which to base such a weighty conversation.

Its flaws begin with the misleading title: Regulate, Control and Tax Act. Those are hefty words that suggest responsibility and order. But the proposition is in fact an invitation to chaos. It would permit each of California's 478 cities and 58 counties to create local regulations regarding the cultivation, possession and distribution of marijuana. In other words, the law could change hundreds of times from county to county. In Los Angeles County alone it could mean 88 different sets of regulations.

The proposition would have merited more serious consideration had it created a statewide regulatory framework for local governments, residents and businesses. But it still would have contained a fatal flaw: Californians cannot legalize marijuana. Regardless of how the vote goes on Nov. 2, under federal law marijuana will remain a Schedule I drug, whose use for any reason is proscribed by Congress. Sure, California could go it alone, but that would set up an inevitable conflict with the federal government that might not end well for the state. That experiment has been tried with medical marijuana, and the outcome has not inspired confidence. Up and down the state, an untold number of residents have faced federal prosecution for actions that were allowed under California law. It's true that the Obama administration has adopted a more tolerant position on state laws regulating medical marijuana, but there's no guarantee that the next administration will. Regardless, Obama's "drug czar," Gil Kerlikowske, has firmly stated that the administration will not condone marijuana's legalization for recreational purposes.

One reason given by Proposition 19 supporters for legalizing marijuana is that California is in dire fiscal straits, and taxing the cannabis crop could ultimately enrich state and local coffers by $1.4 billion a year. But again, critics say that argument is misleading. The act essentially requires local governments that choose to regulate and tax marijuana to establish new bureaucracies and departments, and much of the new revenue could be eaten up by the cumbersome process of permitting and licensing sales, consumption, cultivation and transportation.

The LA Times also argues that Prop 19 would force employers to allow marijuana use at work.

Far from helping the state's economic outlook, Proposition 19 could cause substantial harm. For instance, it would put employers in a quandary by creating a protected class of on-the-job smokers, bestowing a legal right to use marijuana at work unless employers could actually prove that it would impair an employee's job performance.

That sounds pretty absurd; don't a lot of employers already ban alcohol and tobacco use on the job as well? Hard to believe that Proposition 19 would have such a provision; probably LAT is just echoing some stuff the Republican-supporting state Chamber of Commerce made up.

[bemildred]

1. The usual dishonest FUD that you see when they don't feel they can argue the facts. nt

[less lee]

2. So what else is new?

What do you expect? Here is a newspaper that supported Nixon, Reagan and Bush! Liberal news media? HA! HA! HA! HA!

[Xithras]

3. They're sorta right with the employer thing. The text of the law is pretty bad right there.

(c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301. Provided, however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.

This passage could have been worded better. If you come to work a bit buzzed after a few drinks, but are still capable of doing your job, your employer can send you home anyway. Your presence creates a legal liability to the company, so nearly all employers have policies forbidding working while under the influence of ANY substances...even prescription drugs.

Whether or not that was their intent, the specific wording selected for Prop 19 carves out an exception for marijuana, essentially forbidding them from sending home workers who come in "a little stoned", but still capable of performing their job duties.

I want Prop 19 to pass, but this particular passage is a potential liability nightmare for employers.

[amiga de la gente]

4. Prop 19 IS NOT LEGALIZATION It is thinly veiled prohibition

I am glad someone came out against it, it is just a cronyism bill, rich dealers want to restrict the market for their own benefit. MOST LA POT CLUBS WILL BE FORCED TO SHUT DOWN. LOTS OF COTTAGE INDUSTRY POT GROWERRS WILL BE OUT OF BUSINESS. It is bad for the economy and the environment. It doesn't actually prevent people from going to prison.

Prop 19 is NOT legalization nor decriminalization, it doesn't decriminalize any misdemeanors or felonies now except one ( that is growing in a 5'x5' space - which is patently ridiculous because if you look at who is going to prison for pot growing almost none of the people that have gone to prison for pot went for growing in such a small space) Also those who do choose to take advantage of the 5x5 space will almost all do it indoors since 5x5 space isn't big enough for an outdoor garden, one plant gets much larger than that, so the effect will be more pollution and huge polluting indoor grows are already being planned by the authors of this bill in Oakland. . It will still be a felony crime to sell a joint on the street or even to buy one, you will be required to buy from a licensed dispensary and the tax money from that is ear-marked in the bill to enforce against unlicensed growers and dealers. This bill will make it's authors richer and some corporations too, but it will not free marijuana from high prices or high prison rates. They are simply lying about what this bill does. VOTE NO.

In support of real legalization and REAL DECRIMINALIZATION - not prop 19 cronyism.

[Zhade]

5. TOTAL LIES.

NT!