DEBUNKING FALSE FEARS ABOUT PROP. 19
DrugSense FOCUS Alert #461 – Tuesday, October 19th, 2010
If you have been following the news at http://mapinc.org/find?272
about Proposition 19 it should be clear that the campaign rhetoric is
Below is an editorial that debunks myths being spread about the initiative.
Ways You May Support Prop. 19 Now –
http://www.mapinc.org/alert/0460.html provides suggestions for how
you may help during the remaining weeks until the election.
Pubdate: Tue, 19 Oct 2010
Source: Orange County Register, The (CA)
Copyright: 2010 The Orange County Register
DEBUNKING FALSE FEARS ABOUT PROP. 19
Given that it was written partially in response to opinion polls,
rather than as an exercise in pure theory, Proposition 19, which
would legalize the possession and use of up an ounce of marijuana
(cannabis) for adult Californians, contains provisions that an
advocate of pure devotion to liberty might not have included. Some of
these provisions have raised questions, some justified and some
exaggerated out of any relation to reality. We thought it appropriate
to deal with some of these issues, chiefly the reasons for having a
“local option” for sales and cultivation and the possible implication
this proposal would have on the ability of employers to discipline
people who are impaired at work due to cannabis use, and of police to
handle drivers similarly impaired.
Prop. 19 would establish a statewide policy, to wit: adults may
possess up to an ounce of cannabis and may cultivate a patch of
plants amounting to 25 square feet. But it contemplates that there
will be a demand to purchase cannabis, as well, so it allows
localities to develop their own policies for regulating cultivation
and sales (and collecting taxes on them) or to prohibit any sales or
cultivation beyond the 25-square-foot limit.
Critics argue that it may be too much to ask of city councils to
develop sensible regulations in an unfamiliar area. There is also a
fear that there will be so much variance from city to city that it
will be just too confusing for law enforcement officials, and some
marijuana users might get caught in compromising situations as they
travel from city to city.
The local option plan grew out of the experience of so many cities at
implementing (or not implementing) medical marijuana policies in
response to Prop. 215 in 1996. It became obvious that some city
governments would prefer to have no medical marijuana dispensaries,
while others seemed to welcome them, or at least to accommodate their
regulations to the policies endorsed by voters. Prop. 19 allows local
jurisdictions to make that choice.
“It’s funny,” Joseph McNamara, a Hoover Institution research fellow
and former police chief of San Jose, told us. “When I was a police
chief, local officials complained constantly about mandates, most of
them unfunded, from Sacramento. Now many of these same people object
to a proposition without a mandate on local government. If it had
included a mandate the outcry would have been louder. I suspect it’s
a matter of stretching to find a reason to oppose Prop. 19.”
In fact, different cities have different policies toward the sale of
liquor (within the framework of state laws), different zoning
regulations, and different policies on a wide range of issues.
Developing regulations that respond to local concerns within the
framework of state and federal laws is what city councils and other
arms of government are supposed to do. The beauty of local option is
that the experience of different cities will serve as a laboratory of
policy alternatives from which policy students and other city
councils can learn what works and what doesn’t.
As for employment policies, Prop. 19 specifically states that “the
existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually
impairs job performance shall not be affected.” However, that clause
is preceded by one that says “No person shall be punished, fined or
discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for
lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act.” Critics have
contended that this creates a “protected class” of marijuana smokers
who are not subject to the same rules as the rest of us.
This is an incorrect inference. Prop. 19 reinforces laws against
driving while impaired, makes it illegal to smoke in front of minors,
and makes it illegal to smoke in public places. Cannabis users under
Prop. 19 will be subject to all the constraints imposed on other
citizens and some unique to them.
The reason for prohibiting discrimination against cannabis users is
simple. Existing testing methods can detect metabolites of
cannabinoids for up to a month after cannabis use – long after any
intoxication or impairment has disappeared. Employers can’t fire an
employee for getting drunk on Saturday night so long as he or she
shows up Monday able to perform satisfactorily. A similar policy
should apply to marijuana and will apply if Prop. 19 passes.
A similar policy will apply to driving while impaired. A complication
is that there is no simple roadside test for marijuana use. The
responsibility of police will be to look for signs of impairment, as
is the case now.
Legalizing marijuana use for adults is a significant step away from
nanny-state policies and all the crime, corruption and violence that
accompany marijuana prohibition, so some caution about such an
important move is understandable. But the impact on employment
polices, driving laws and the responsibilities of local government
are not sufficient to justify rejection of this proposal.
Prepared by: Richard Lake, Focus Alert Specialist http://www.mapinc.org
DrugSense provides many services at no charge, but they are not
free to produce. Your contributions make DrugSense and its Media
Awareness Project (MAP) happen. Please donate today. Our secure Web
server at http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm accepts credit cards
and Paypal. Or, mail your check or money order to:
14252 Culver Drive #328
Irvine, CA 92604-0326.
(800) 266 5759
DrugSense is a 501c(3) non-profit organization dedicated to raising
awareness about the expensive, ineffective, and destructive “War on
Drugs.” Donations are tax deductible to the extent provided by law.