Voters will decide on legalizing marijuana on Nov. 2

The people of the state of California will decide next week
whether the possession and cultivation of small amounts of
marijuana for personal use will become legal.
Proposition 19 — The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of
2010 — would decriminalize possession of up to one ounce for
personal use for Californians over the age of 21, and allow growing
on plots of no more than 25 square feet on private property.
Additionally, the measure would allow counties and
municipalities to tax marijuana-related businesses or
activities.
Under current law, the possession of small amounts is punishable
by a fine but selling the drug is a felony. Federal law would not
change and the Federal government would have the ability to
override the state laws.
California experienced a similar situation when it first
legalized medical marijuana. In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that
the federal government could prosecute California patients and
providers of medical cannabis. In March 2009, the U.S. Department
of Justice announced that it would not prosecute medical cannabis
operations in California, but changed positions this year, adding
to a confusion of jurisdictions that could be exacerbated by
legalization.
The jumble of conflicting laws — among other issues — has led
law enforcement organizations such as the California State
Sheriff’s Association to oppose the proposition.
“It’s a bad law, and poorly written, and there could be
unintended consequences,” said Captain Matt McCaffrey, spokesman
for the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department.
McCaffrey is not affiliated with the CSSA, but supports its
position on Prop. 19.
“(Prop. 19) claims the law will reduce the number of growers,
but the Mexican cartels might increase production here,” he said.
“California might become a source state. Growing is the riskiest
part of the operation. If the law passes, there will be a
relatively lower risk for growers.”
McCaffrey thinks the lower risk might lead to more violence and
illegal growing on both public and private land by people
unconcerned with property rights or environmental protection.
Additionally, the economic benefits of taxation may be
counterbalanced by other factors.
“If this passes, a lot of federal funding may be at risk for
programs such as drug rehabilitation and other preventative
programs,” he said. “When California wanted to raise the speed
limit to 70 mph, the federal government said ‘knock yourself out,’
and threatened to cut highway funding.”
McCaffrey also cited the number and cost of court cases that
took place when Proposition 215 — legalizing medical cannabis —
passed in 1996.
As to the medical cannabis community, there are some dispensers
who don’t want to lose control of the market, but others who see
the passage of 19 as a step forward for citizens’ rights.
Robert Jacob, chief executive of Peace In Medicine a medical
cannabis dispensary in Sebastopol, is in favor of Prop. 19, even
though he thinks it might lead to “chaos.”
“This is a civil rights issue, and as important as the civil
rights movement or women’s suffrage,” he said. “There was a chaotic
response to them too.”
Jacob said that some medical dispensers are concerned that
legalization would lead to the corporatization of the business,
taking control away from the people it should be helping.
But Jacob thinks that industry insiders “just want patient
access (to medicinal marijuana) to be safe.”
“If it’s controlled, it will be cheaper medicine whether it’s
done by Philip Morris or dispensaries,” he said, adding that
“Prohibition has failed and regardless of the federal response, a
yes vote shows that we’re fed up.”
According to the non-partisan Legislative Analysis Office (LAO)
the fiscal effects should the measure pass are not clear, and the
positive economic effects could be offset by unforeseen
consequences.
While state and local governments would be allowed to tax
controlled businesses, it is not clear how many municipalities
would be willing to license such businesses, despite the
opportunities for increased tax revenues. Additionally, if the
federal government chose to prosecute activities that would be
legal under Prop. 215, there could be a potential loss of
revenue.
Hoping to get a leg up on the possible passage of Prop. 19,
Sebastopol City Councilmember Larry Robinson put forward a proposal
in June to put a measure on the November ballot to tax marijuana
should 19 pass. The idea was nixed and Robinson, along with fellow
councilmember Kathleen Shaffer, was shut out by a 3-2 vote.
Robinson was hoping the city could get ahead of the curve and
capture part of the estimated $15 billion in illegal cannabis
transactions that would be taxable should the measure pass.
“I’m not an advocate of recreational use, but I am an opponent
of prohibition,” Robinson said. “I’m particularly against young
people using it. Through my work as a therapist, I’ve seen how it
can stunt emotional growth.”
Nonetheless, he thinks that “criminalizing a class of people who
are not doing harm to others” violates their rights as citizens,
and thinks the revenue generated would more than offset potential
losses.
“If those people were not in prison, it would take pressure off
the penal system and money used for enforcement could be spent more
wisely on treatment,” he said. “If it were regulated, we could
reduce the profit motive (for the cartels causing much of the
violence). The states, cities and counties can tax it and devote
the resources to education and to the real problems we face.”
For a complete text of the proposition, as well as arguments,
rebuttals and LAO analysis, go to www.smartvoter.org.