Regulatory nightmare: Proposition 19 has too many flaws

TO truly consider the merits of Proposition 19, you must check your morals at the door. Because the heart of the Nov. 2 ballot measure is not about whether marijuana is no worse than alcohol or whether the law should allow for small amounts of personal pot.

The real question of this initiative is whether California wants to take on the federal government and allow any and every city in the state to make up its own rules about selling, manufacturing and transporting an illegal substance.

And the Daily News thinks the answer to the question is an emphatic "no."

The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 is a poorly crafted initiative that would set the scene for a regulatory nightmare in California. Besides, permitting anyone over 21 to possess, grow or transport up to an ounce of marijuana, it would also allow local governments to regulate and tax production, distribution and sale of marijuana in a way that suits their jurisdiction. This patchwork approach to regulation is the most alarming aspect of the measure. With every city and county in the state coming up with different marijuana laws, the resulting confusion could make the lawless and explosive growth of medical marijuana dispensaries in recent years seem like the good old days.

Supporters of Proposition 19 are selling it in financial terms. First, they say it's preposterous to have marijuana offenders take up costly time and room in California courtrooms, jails and prisons when more serious offenders are released early due to lack of space and resources. As well, legalizing pot would take a major source of income out of the hands of drug dealers.

Furthermore, they note, the legal sale of marijuana would bring in as much as $1.4 billion a year in tax revenue to local governments struggling with the costs of basic services and bring untold amounts of money to the state from marijuana tourism.

But financial considerations are not a good basis for adopting bad law.

Notwithstanding its obvious conflicts with federal law, which still considers marijuana an illegal substance, there are a number of other reasons to reject Proposition 19.

Critics of the law bring up several worries, including the danger of allowing the widespread use of a mind-altering drug - including on the road and on the job. The act prohibits "(c)onsumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator." But if four passengers are smoking joints in a car, it's not a stretch to think the second-hand smoke is going to impair the driver's reactions, endangering all of them and their fellow motorists on the road.

Proposition 19 should also make employers nervous, as it appears to give marijuana users a clear right to smoke on the job. It maintains "any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety," which is good. But it precludes workplace drug testing by saying that employers can address only "consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee." And what does impairment really mean, anyhow?

Proposition 19 isn't really about decriminalizing small amounts of personal marijuana in California, which has essentially been the case for decades. It's about setting the groundwork to change the nation's perception of marijuana and its current drug laws. Opening up the state to this particular can of worms is the wrong way to do that. Vote no on Proposition 19.