Pubdate: Fri, 8 Oct 2010
Source: Sacramento Bee (CA)
Page: 1A, Front Page
Webpage:  http://mapinc.org/url/MoAxGUSb
Copyright: 2010 The Sacramento Bee
Contact: http://mapinc.org/url/0n4cG7L1
Website: http://www.sacbee.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/376
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

Prop. 19 Passage Could Spark U.S.-California Legal War Over Pot

Backers of California's Proposition 19 call it a landmark challenge to
America's war on drugs. But passage of the initiative to legalize pot
for recreational use may open up a legal war between California and
the federal government.

Some fear a renewed surge of federal raids, similar to actions that
shut down medical pot shops, targeted suppliers and doctors after
California voters passed Proposition 215, its medical marijuana law,
in 1996.

Even some fervent proponents of the initiative to allow anyone 21 and
over to smoke pot say federal authorities would quickly sue California
to overturn the new law.

"I have no doubt that the feds will file suit if Proposition 19
passes," said Dale Gieringer, California director for the
pro-legalization National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws.

In an Aug. 24 letter, nine former administrators for the Drug
Enforcement Administration urged Attorney General Eric Holder to bring
suit against California -- just as the Obama administration sued
Arizona when that state passed a controversial law aimed at illegal
immigrants.

"The California proposition is not a close call," wrote the ex-DEA
administrators, including Robert Bonner, the former supervising U.S.
attorney in Los Angeles. "It will be a clear conflict with established
federal law."

Reached Wednesday in Mexico City, where he was attending a drug policy
conference, Bonner said the California measure conflicts with United
Nations treaties signed to prevent the spread of psychoactive drugs.

"The United States has treaties that would be violated if Proposition
19 were enacted. It would send a terrible signal to countries of the
world," he said.

The U.S. Justice Department isn't saying how it would respond if
Proposition 19 passes.

"The Department of Justice will continue to focus its enforcement
resources on significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including
marijuana," said Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler in
Washington, D.C. "It is premature to speculate what steps we would
take in the event that California passes its ballot measure."

Backlash Could Hurt Medical Pot Users

Last year, Attorney General Eric Holder declared the federal
government would no longer target medical marijuana operations in
states permitting medical use.

California and 13 other states now permit medical marijuana. And
federal raids on medical pot establishments -- particularly those
catering to the seriously ill -- stirred political sympathies in favor
of medical marijuana.

Now legal observers, such as Santa Clara University law professor
Gerald Uelmen, say Proposition 19 could upset the accord that federal
agents and California established with medical use.

"I think it will open up a new order of conflict between the state and
the feds," Uelmen said. "The feds resisted (Proposition 215) from the
get-go. But I think we finally wore them down.

"Now, if we open the door to lawful cultivation and distribution for
recreational use, I think there will be a very strong reaction."

In 2001, Uelmen unsuccessfully argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on
behalf of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative serving medical
marijuana patients.

The court, in a decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, declared
that marijuana was still illegal, and a "medical exception" defense
for the Oakland pot club was invalid under federal law.

In a 2005 case, the high court also ruled against California
petitioner Angel Raich, whose six-plant medical marijuana garden was
raided by DEA agents after Butte County authorities declined to file
state drug charges against him.

In the second ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that although
"California has been a pioneer in the regulation of marijuana,"
enforcement of Federal Controlled Substance Act prohibitions against
pot remain "a valid exercise of federal power."

President Barack Obama is opposed to legalizing marijuana. His 2010
National Drug Control Strategy statement declares: "This
administration firmly opposes the legalization of marijuana or any
other illicit drug."

Still, retired Orange Superior Court Judge James Gray, a backer of
Proposition 19, said he believes public acceptance of marijuana will
diminish the federal response.

"I cannot conceive that the Obama administration would thumb its nose
at the voters of the state of California," Gray said.

Passage Could Put State, Federal Law in Conflict

Proposition 19 would allow Californians over 21 to possess marijuana
for recreational use and permit them to grow pot in small residential
spaces. It would also allow local governments to tax retail sales and
production.

Zenia Gilg, a San Francisco attorney who handles medical marijuana
cases, said federal authorities are unlikely to target average
Californians if Proposition 19 passes. But she said they may well raid
large-scale marijuana producers.

In Oakland, producers readying industrial growing rooms for medical
pot are eying expansion into legal recreational weed. The city has
already approved a conditional tax if Proposition 19 passes.

Gilg says that may be a dilemma for federal agents.

"If they're going to prosecute the guy at the till (of a marijuana
business) and not the city or county, they run into a political
quagmire," Gilg said. "Because they're not going to prosecute the city
or county."

In California's medical marijuana market, dispensaries account for
more than $100 million in sales taxes, according to state estimates.

But Uelmen said the mere act of paying taxes on recreational marijuana
sales could constitute acknowledgment of a federal crime. "To pay the
taxes will require us to admit that, in effect, we're violating
federal law," he said.

While the law may side with the federal government, Los Angeles
marijuana lawyer Bruce Margolin said politics does not. He points to
decreased acceptance of medical pot raids.

In 2002, a DEA raid on a Santa Cruz medical pot commune for sick and
dying patients produced such a backlash that the city and county sued
the federal government. A court settlement banned future DEA raids as
long as the operation was legal under state law.

In a high-profile medical marijuana case, California cannabis growing
guru Ed Rosenthal was sentenced to a single day in jail in 2007 --
despite a federal conviction for illegal cultivation.

A U.S. District Court in San Francisco also stopped the DEA from
punishing doctors or threatening to revoke their licenses for
recommending marijuana to patients.

Still, Donald Heller, a former Sacramento assistant U.S. attorney,
said passage of Proposition 19 would give federal authorities no
choice but to act.

"I think this pushes it beyond the edge," he said.
___________________________________

Pubdate: Tue, 12 Oct 2010
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Page: C - 1
Webpage: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/12/BASA1FRC0B.DTL
Copyright: 2010 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/submissions/#1
Website: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388
Author: Chip Johnson
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

PROP. 19's LEGAL MARIJUANA COULD IMPROVE SAFETY

For most California voters, Proposition 19 is a state initiative that
would make recreational marijuana use legal, but I think the plan has
social benefits that go well beyond legal pot parties.

In the long run, a successful November run at the polls could provide
a public safety payoff in low-income communities where street-drug
dealing qualifies as a thriving commercial enterprise.

The residual effect of drug-dealing is violence, which has decimated
the communities where the drugs are sold. Generations of families
have been lost to the cycle of drugs and violence and profits that,
for some, are worth risking their lives over.

If there is a new law that holds even a chance of cutting drug
profits and gun money from local drug kingpins and foreign suppliers,
it's worth a try.

Last month, Pleasant Hill Police Chief Pete Dunbar told The
Chronicle's editorial board that violence associated with street
sales of marijuana made it "the most violent drug of all."

If that's the case, and there's no reason to doubt Dunbar's
assessment, then why not control and regulate the market? I can't
count how many times I've heard politicians and police officials say
that society cannot "arrest its way out of high crime rates."

Most economists will tell you that as a commodity becomes more
available, its value falls. So why not use government regulation to
distribute and control the price to undercut illegal marijuana sales
right out of existence.

Do you think the speakeasy bars thrived after Prohibition was repealed?

As the argument in favor goes, those reduced costs are passed down
the chain, from the criminal justice system to police investigations
to criminal trial proceedings.

Already there is a growing number of marijuana-related private
businesses preparing to provide the consumer with a litany of
home-grow aids and equipment should the California law pass - and
eventually be adopted in other states.

In such a transformation, the profit to be earned from dealing drugs
on the street may just not be worth risking lives over. And that is a
cost savings that can be calculated in communities regaining control
of parks, neighborhood stores and their front porches in the
evenings. And in the poorest communities, where drug and gang culture
dominate the landscape, it can be calculated in human life.

At least 14 states and the District of Columbia now approve some form
of medical marijuana use, and California has been moving closer to
legalization of recreational use for nearly a decade. While Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes the measure, he signed a bill last
month reducing possession of less than 1 ounce of the drug to an
infraction - the equivalent of a parking ticket.

If possession of less than an ounce is no more serious than a parking
ticket, it seems imprudent for state lawmakers - and law enforcement
agencies - to continue spending billions of dollars annually to halt
illegal sales and use.

There are concerns that teens will have greater access to the drug if
it's legalized - but it strains the imagination to consider how that
would be possible. Teens who want to score some pot have myriad ways
to accomplish the task, including obtaining a medical card and buying
the drug at a locally regulated dispensary. There are hundreds of
them across the Bay Area.

Marijuana is also the state's No. 1 cash crop, and greater local
production reduces the need for smuggling efforts outside the
country. Nearly a dozen cities, including Albany, Oakland and San
Jose, have local measures to tax pot on the November ballot.

In Oakland, medical marijuana sales are already one of the city's
biggest sources of sales tax revenue, and a city-sponsored ballot
measure proposes increasing by nearly 3 times the current tax rate of
18 percent on every $1000 in sales.

California could borrow a page from a few Midwestern states where
purchasing a bottle of liquor still requires a trip to a
state-operated retail store. Every identification card is checked - a
ticket recording the purchase is required - and no children are allowed.

I don't favor Prop 19 for the recreation and leisure it promises, but
for more important reasons.
_______________________________________

Pubdate: Tue, 12 Oct 2010
Source: Orange County Register, The (CA)
Webpage: http://mapinc.org/url/K4MXVdKs
Copyright: 2010 The Orange County Register
Contact: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: http://www.ocregister.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/321
Authors: Sandra Hutchens and Dick Ackerman
Note: Hutchens is Orange County Sheriff; Ackerman is a former state senator
Cited: Proposition 19 http://yeson19.com/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://mapinc.org/find?272 (Proposition 19)

NEED FOR PROP. 19 NOW MOOT

With the signing of SB1449, there's no reason to support Prop. 19. It
is poorly written and full of drafting errors that exposes the state
to more danger on our roadways, in the workplace and in our communities.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed Senate Bill 1449 into law,
reducing the punishment for possession of less than an ounce of
marijuana from a misdemeanor to an infraction. While we are both
opposed to SB1449 for various reasons, we also believe that this
takes away the last reason why anyone would support Proposition 19,
the initiative that will legalize recreational use of marijuana
across California.

Proponents of Prop. 19 continue to falsely claim that current
marijuana policy leads to imprisonment for minor marijuana
possession, in addition to taking away law enforcement and judicial
resources from more serious crimes.

According to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals,
"It is extremely rare for anyone to be incarcerated solely for the
use or possession of marijuana. Less than 1 percent of jail and
prison inmates in the U.S. were incarcerated for marijuana possession
as their only offense." Regardless, now that possession has been
classified as a simple infraction, supporters of Prop. 19 can no
longer make this claim.

All that remains now is a poorly written initiative full of drafting
errors that opens the state up to an increase in danger on our
roadways, in the workplace and within our communities.

As written, the initiative prohibits someone from smoking marijuana
while operating a vehicle.

However, it does not mention anything about drivers smoking just
prior to getting behind the wheel, nor does it forbid passengers from
using the drug, which could clearly have a negative effect on the driver.

Additionally, should an accident occur, there is no conclusive test
to determine the level of intoxication as there is for alcohol.

Therefore, it will be up to law enforcement officials to prove a
driver was impaired.

Similarly, while employers will be able to prevent employees from
smoking while working, Prop. 19 takes away all rights to prevent
employees from using marijuana just before coming to work or during
their breaks.

As with driving accidents, employers will only be able to take action
against an employee after an incident has occurred, but if and only
if they are able to prove the employee was in fact impaired and that
impairment affected their job performance.

What's more, the initiative's title is extremely misleading as it
will actually fail to regulate, control or tax marijuana in the
manner claimed by supporters. Even Gov. Schwarzenegger feels that
Prop. 19 "is a deeply flawed measure that, if passed, will adversely
impact California's businesses without bringing in the tax revenues
to the state promised by its proponents." An analysis by the Board of
Equalization reports that while the purpose of the Act "is to, in
part, 'tax and regulate cannabis in order to generate billions of
dollars for our state and local governments,'" the Act itself "does
not establish a statewide regulatory framework, nor does it impose an
additional statewide tax on cannabis." Additionally, the report
states that because Prop. 19 "does not contain any new
responsibility, rule or law applicable on a statewide level...it is
not possible to estimate the potential revenue gain."

Likewise, not only is it impossible to predict the amount of money
California will see from Prop. 19, if any, the state will actually
lose money if this ballot measure passes.

Employers will no longer be able to maintain drug-free work
environments, meaning the loss of millions in federal funding and grants.

Prop. 19 passing means our schools alone will see a loss of $9.4
billion in federal dollars. When education is already being
sacrificed in budget cuts, this just doesn't make sense.

We urge voters to read the language of Prop. 19 for themselves and
they will see just how flawed it is. Bottom line, Prop. 19 is a
poorly constructed initiative that will cause confusion and chaos for
our law enforcement officers in the workplace and throughout our
communities. We can't put our already fragile state at risk by
passing this ill-fated initiative.
___________________________________________

_______________________________________________
THS mailing list